Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 1979

Vol. 93 No. 5

Private Business. - European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1979: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

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

The purpose of the Bill before the House is to make part of the domestic law of Ireland, (1) the Treaty relating to the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community and (2) the decision of the Council relating to the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Coal and Steel Community. The Bill, when enacted into law, will add the Treaty and the decision to the list of "Treaties governing the European Communities" which is set out in section 1 of the European Communities Act, 1972.

Senators will be aware of the distinction between the procedures necessary for accession to the EEC and Euratom and those for accession to the European Coal and Steel Community. In the latter case a decision by the Council only is required; but in the case of accession to the EEC and Euratom, the conditions of admission of a new member state and the adjustments to the Treaties necessitated thereby must be the subject of an agreement between the existing member states and the applicant state. The agreement must be ratified by all the contracting states in accordance with their constitutional requirements. The constitutional requirements in Ireland are that both the Treaty relating to the EEC and Euratom and the decision of the Council on accession to the European Coal and Steel Community must be made part of the domestic law of the State and this, as I have stated, is the purpose of the Bill before the House. In addition, I should note that since the Treaty is an international agreement, it was necessary to satisfy the requirements of Article 29 of the Constitution under which Dáil Éireann must approve the terms of such agreements. A motion to this effect was passed by Dáil Éireann on 27 November 1979.

As far back as 1959, a full 20 years ago, Greece decided that her future lay with the European Community. It was at this time that she applied for associate status. The Association Agreement was concluded in 1961 and came into operation in 1962. The primary aim of the agreement was to prepare the Greek economy for eventual full membership and the obligations which this would impose. Chiefly, this involved the establishment of a customs union, the harmonisation of policies in a number of fields—mainly agriculture—and the provision of financial resources to enable the Greek economy to develop at a higher rate. Unfortunately, the process of harmonisation had to be suspended during the period of the rule of the Colonels but despite this, considerable economic and social progress was achieved by Greece since the coming into operation of the Athens Agreement in 1962. The decision to seek associate membership in 1959 was politically motivated.

After the re-establishment of democracy in July 1974, the new Government were naturally anxious to reiterate the commitment of Greece to a future within the Community of European democratic States. The Association Agreement was reactivated in December 1974 and in June 1975 Greece applied for full membership of the European Communities There can be no doubt but that in making this application, the Government of Prime Minister Karamanlis was seeking to consolidate the position of Greece as a democratic state. The concern to support this position, as much as any other factor, motivated the Council in February 1976 to accept the application following the favourable opinion given by the Commission.

At its meeting on 19-20 July 1976 the Council agreed to open negotiations leading to accession and on 27 July 1976 a formal opening session of negotiations was held. Meetings between the Greek delegation and the Community were held on a regular basis until the substance of the negotiations was declared concluded early this year. On 24 May 1979 the decision of the Council of the European Communities on the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Coal and Steel Community was signed. The Council decision on the accession to the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community were also signed on 24 May. The Treaty between the existing member states and the Hellenic Republic concerning accession to the EEC and Euratom was signed on 28 May 1979 in Athens. The Instruments of Accession were ratified by the Greek Parliament on 28 June 1979 and following ratification by the existing member states, Greece will become the tenth member state of the Communities on 1 January 1981.

I would like to refer now to the outcome of the negotiations in the various sectors. Copies of a volume entitled "Documents concerning the Accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Communities" have been circulated to Senators. This volume sets out the arrangements, conditions and adjustments to the Treaties resulting from the negotiations. I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the more important aspects of the agreement.

The negotiations were conducted on the basis that Greece would accept the acquis communautaire as it exists on the date of accession, subject to the agreed transitional arrangements. Until 1 January 1981, when Greece will become a full member state of the European Communities, an information and consultation procedure is in operation whereby Greece is kept informed of developments within the Community and especially those of direct relevance to Greece. This procedure allows Greece to submit its views on developments and is similar to that which operated in the case of Ireland, Britain and Denmark in 1972.

The transitional period which has been agreed is the "classical" five-year period with some minor exceptions which are not of direct relevance to Ireland. We were particularly concerned during the negotiations that the transitional period be as short as possible and in this regard the result was satisfactory.

In the agricultural sector the Commission initially proposed that the transitional period should be seven years. As we believe that a lucrative market exists in Greece for agricultural produce and particularly for beef and dairy products, Ireland argued successfully for a five-year period. Problems for Ireland in the agricultural sector are not envisaged as Greek agriculture is mainly Mediterranean and will not be in direct competition with Irish agricultural produce in the markets of the Community. It has been said that the addition of a new member state might adversely affect Ireland's position under the common agricultural policy. We have insisted in all discussions on enlargement that the accession of new member states must not be detrimental to the common policies of the Community which must be maintained and must not curtail the development of new policies.

As regards the customs union sector, under the Association Agreement all Greek industrial imports into the Community have been duty-free. Therefore, accession will pose no great problem for Irish industrial interests. During the negotiations Ireland consistently argued that on accession quotas should be few in number and should be liberalised rapidly. We have attained this aim and the accession of Greece should give further opportunities for industrial exports.

Greece will participate in the social and regional funds as from the date of accession. The Treaty contains a protocol relating to the economic and industrial development of Greece, similar to that negotiated by Ireland at the time of its accession. Greece will take part in all institutions from the date of accession. For example she will have 24 representatives in the European Parliament. Initially, these representatives will be nominated by the Greek Parliament, but direct elections will be held during 1981. Greece will, of course, be represented in the Council of Ministers in its various formations. She will also, in turn, hold the Presidency for a period of six months and be represented in the Commission, the Court of Justice and the various other institutions of the Community.

Perhaps I might now refer to the general question of enlargement and to the particular concerns which Ireland has expressed in this context. Senators will, of course, be familiar with the recent study of the problems of enlargement which was conducted by the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, the results of which were published in their Fifty-First Report. Ireland has always believed, and we have stressed to our partners in the Community, that an enlarged Community should also be a stronger and better Community. We have laid emphasis on the need to examine and reappraise the role of the institutions, decision-making procedures and financing.

Ireland has insisted that enlargement must not adversely affect the maintenance of present policies or future developments. In this regard we proposed in July 1976, before the formal opening of negotiations with Greece, that the Council should make a statement to safeguard this position. This was accepted and the Council declared: (1) that the consequences—in particular the financial consequences of an enlargement must not be detrimental to the common projects and policies of the Community or to those which it intends to carry out in the future, (2) that enlargement must help strengthen a Community dynamic in its aspirations and not weaken or reduce in effectiveness its institutional structures and possibilities for action, and (3) that, with this in view, it was agreed that subject to usual budgetary procedures, on Greek accession appropriate provision would be made for the needs of the enlarged Community.

This statement underlined the commitment by the Community to ensure that enlargement did not result in a weaker and less cohesive Community. It was, however, made clear that Ireland had no wish to be an obstacle in the path towards enlargement. Rather, we fully supported the application for membership of the Hellenic Republic and the opportunities it gave for examining the operation of the existing Community and how best it could be adapted to give maximum benefit to all member states.

During the internal Community discussion on enlargement we paid particular attention to the regional disparities which exist within the present Community and we have achieved a certain degree of success in this matter. We have received aid for drainage in the west of Ireland as a balance to aid to Mediterranean regions within the existing Community and there are Commission proposals for infrastructural aid for the west which have been submitted to the Council. This package of aid does underline the fact that there is an awareness within the Community that serious regional imbalances exist and must be eliminated if the Community is to prosper in its entirety and not just in certain areas. This is not to suggest that the aid we have received is fully adequate for our needs, but it does demonstrate a commitment by our partners in the Community to alleviating the problems of the existing Community as well as those of new member states. I have no hesitation in saying that in an enlarged Community of ten or more, there must be a determined effort to eradicate the disequilibria between the more fully developed parts of the Community and those still in the process of development.

As regards institutional reform, Senators will be aware that the Report of the Committee of Three Wise Men was available in time for consideration during the European Council on 29-30 November last. The European Council asked the Foreign Ministers to examine the report with a view to preparing the discussion at the next meeting of the European Council. In the meantime, it was decided that the report should be published and as the Taoiseach indicated yesterday in the Dáil copies have been laid before both Houses.

There is, of course, no need to remind Senators of the importance and significance, of Greek accession to the European Communities, both for the Communities and for Greece. Greece has played a predominant part in the history of thought and of political philosophy throughout the ages. Her role in the affairs of mankind has far surpassed her size and economic significance. We must look to Greece for the origins of the political process and, indeed, the seeds of democracy were first sown and later flourished there. It is fitting that the Greek people should now wish to join with this comparatively young community of nations and take her rightful place in shaping the course of European affairs. I have no doubt that the addition of Greece to the European Community will add a dynamic thrust to its development and that her influence and experience will be of assistance in coping with the problems which will no doubt arise in the coming decades.

The Greek people have ever been strong in defence of their country and their traditions. We look forward to making common cause with the Hellenic Republic within the European Community not only because we have many common interests of an economic nature but also because we both believe firmly in freedom and in the democratic process on which it is based. Given that Ireland has consistently welcomed the application of Greece to accede to the European Communities, and having regard to the fact that the results of the accession negotiations do not adversely affect the interests of this country, I commend this Bill to the Seanad.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

In the Community's institutional document the preamble states that it is determined to lay the foundations for an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe. We simply must welcome Greece and, speaking for one party in one member state, I most sincerely do. One must resist temptations to talk in an expansive way about the significance of Greece. I hope I shall resist these temptations, except to say that anyone who underrates the Greek contribution to the shaping of the modern world and to the modern intellectual position, does not understand what he is talking about.

When we talk about our inheritance we think of the Roman-Judaic-Hellenic thing. We are forgetting the extraordinary Hellenic influence on the pre-Christian Judaic position. I am not sure that the Community does not need a great deal of clarification as to its objects. One has to resist the temptation of flying far away from what is pertinent to most of the discussions in the Seanad today. The very form, the very words used in the EEC themselves raise a question about the nature of the European Economic Community.

Which community really has in it the elements of survival through long periods of time, of a useful way for its members, which places such an emphasis on "economic" that the very word appears in the title of the Community itself? I would hope that Greek membership might even, if not through Greek voices, send Western thought back to examining what is the state all about—what are the essential elements of the predominant requisites.

I know it is usual now to say that the Christian churches are all wrong in their catechetical emphasis and in this whole business of learning things by rote. I am not so sure that I go along with all of that criticism. I know learning things by rote taught me an awful lot that did not particularly have to do with Christian revelation, such as the cardinal virtues, which perhaps in this day Irish people should be thinking about. I remember learning the cardinal virtues and if I understand "cardinal", it comes from a Latin word, cardo for a hinge. Therefore, the word means the healthy human being, the quality of whose life hinges around his practice, his capacity to be temperate, to be prudent, not to go beyond his intellectual, psychical, physiological, economic resources, whatever you may call them: to just dispose prudently of what he has and what that community has, not to go ranging in a gambling fashion after something, but to be prudent, to be temperate with regard to it; to have a golden medium guiding the manner in which he lives; to be prudent and temperate and to carry on, despite difficulties and darkness, with fortitude.

The most important element of them all which should animate this Community more than it does is justice. I would hope that instead of engaging in petty bargaining points or petty points of the kind that I hope I would be reasonably well instructed to make about the nature of Irish interest at this stage, we would begin to think—not merely people in Dublin or people in Athens but the governing people in all the member states—of this essential quality of justice throughout the Community in all our policies: not merely looking for regional and social policies because they happen to suit the particular gang who are around, but to be concerned for justice everywhere in the Community, in southern Italy as well as western Ireland. It is only if we can build up around some symbol the sense of the justice and purpose of this Community that it will endure. Large question marks arise, of course, with regard to its endurability.

At any rate, Greece joins this Community more or less on the lowest rung of the material ladder. Not all things are by any means exhausted even if these material figures are correct. Sometimes figures are very misleading because of the nature of the calculations involved—the lowest rung of the material ladder just about like ourselves in terms of gross domestic product.

At a time when there is a doubt about the Community's ability to maintain the existing policies with justice, or concerned to achieve justice for the existing members, and at a time when we have two members of the nine, one which is challenging the actual entitlement of the Community to its own resources, if I understand correctly the British position, and the other which no doubt for real political reasons is placing an arbitrary sort of ceiling on the ability to maintain and increase these resources, the question arises of the structure of Greek agriculture, the percentage of people in Greece who are engaged in farming. Nowadays this sort of figure is produced as if it is evidence of a totally convincing kind that you have to stay quiet immediately you hear that because there are four times as many people engaged in agriculture in Greece as there are in the rest of the Community. That is the end of the story. There is nothing more to be said.

The process of urbanisation is obviously to improve the image of any policy which increases what is regarded as something to be welcomed. Questions should be asked about all these things in a way which they are not being asked, that I can see. They are certainly not being asked in a manner which is penetrating the consciousness of the people who are casting their votes or to those who present policies or to those who comment on policies.

Be that as it may, the addition of Greece will add to the strains on Community resources which are limited in the way which we know, which are stretched in the way we know, to cope with existing policies. I do not know what degree of validity there is to any of the percentage calculations, but Greece will obviously be an additional substantial claimant on these resources. I have seen a figure, I believe we in the Joint Committee were given a figure, about the additional percentage to the guarantee section, that there would be an increased expenditure of 5 per cent. Is this estimate of a 5 per cent increase based solely on existing provisions in current regulations? Does it take account of the fact, which we understand, that the Community proposes to provide a market system for cotton when Greece joins, Greece being the only significant producer of cotton?

I ask the Minister of State to what extent he envisages the Greek accession will require the common agricultural policy to be orientated towards Mediterranean-type products at the expense of other products? In the Dáil on 15 February 1978, according to the Official Report, Volume 305, column 1315, the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated that a commitment to enlarge the resources proportionately with extended membership had been extended by the Council and recorded in the Council's minutes. Could I ask is this commitment in any way affected by recent reported and published events? Perhaps through the Chair I could ask the Minister another question which should be taken in the context of my party's and my own complete welcome for Greece's membership. The question arises from my noticing that Protocol No. 7, negotiated by Greece on economic and industrial development, is identical with our Protocol No. 30 on the subject. Greece negotiated this and no doubt in doing so adopted the belief that the terms of that protocol have been of particular benefit to this member state since we joined the community. To what extent is the apparent Greek belief in this shared by the Minister? Has the Minister compared Greece and Ireland from the point of view of these two countries' relative attractiveness for foreign investment and in so far as in both countries there are state aids to attract industry flowing from that investment does the Minister believe that the relative positions are to be maintained after accession? I understand that Greece has an elaborate system of regional aids as well as a scheme for aiding export industry. If both of them involve tax concessions—my understanding of this may be incorrect, but that is my understanding—would the Minister comment as to whether these are to continue after accession?

My final point I genuinely make in a constructive way and in a manner genuinely seeking information and is not of a debating character. Figures of the broadest kind are available to me, but everyone knows that modern Greece is one of the major ship-owning countries in the world. According to the magnitudes available to me, or impressed on me, the effect of Greece joining the Community will be that the Community's overall percentage of the world fleet will be increased from 20 to 30. A point of very great importance to me and of necessity to every concerned human being on this earth is that the IMCO Conventions, MARPOLS and SOLAS, are seen by the Community as having an important contribution to make in the area of combating marine pollution by tankers, if these conventions are brought into force. Does the Community, with the strength of owning 30 per cent of the world's fleet, intend to use that strength to bring these conventions into force so as to muster force against marine pollution with its appalling ultimate human consequences? If the Community feels that it will have the kind of elbow required to do this, is there any reason to wait until Greece becomes a member? Can it not start using that force now?

Finally, I should like to express, I am sure in common with many other Members of the Oireachtas, a word of appreciation for the present Greek Ambassador, Constantine Zepos and his wife, Greta, for the contribution they have made to the social, cultural and intellectual life of this city and country.

Ruairí Brugha

I wholeheartedly welcome the coming accession, as a full member of our Community, of the Greek Republic. There is no need to go too much into the history of Greece. It has often been said in the Houses here, and in Europe over the years, that part of the reason for welcoming the Greek people is that Greece has been known as the cradle of democracy. Indeed, that introduces a special sense of history in the light of our own very strong belief and that of the European Community and its foundation in the democratic way of life. The history of Greece since the last war is very interesting in that they were, for a short period, as the Minister said, deprived of democratic rights under the Colonels. During my period in Europe as a member of the parliamentary committee of the Parliament I found myself meeting the Greek parliamentarians in different places, in Luxembourg, Greece and Paris, I found the same expression given privately by numbers of them, as was the experience with the Spaniards, that one of the reasons why it was possible to effect, if I may so describe it, the peaceful change-over from the system of dictatorship to acceptance of the democratic system, was the will of the majority of the people in those countries, particularly Greece, to be involved in the Community of the European nations.

It is important to keep in mind that one of the conditions of membership of the Community is that your political system must be democratic. In an indirect way it is to the credit of the Community in its original foundations, in its continuity, that this was a factor which weighed with people in the countries in question—Great Britain, Spain and Portugal.

I do not think any of us have any illusions about the problem that must be created by the enlargement of the Community. These are practical problems and will have to be faced up to over future years by the existing member states of the Community and their political leaderships. It is perfectly obvious, for example, that once you grant full membership to any other country there must be an effect on the total financial budget of the Community in relation to both the social fund and the regional fund since any full member automatically qualifies in the ordinary way to benefit from these funds. In that sense, we should be aware that in the interest of a better Europe, of the strengthening of the European Community and of the spirit of unity among European nations, that all the member states and the people of the existing European Community from time to time may have to make over the next ten to 15 years some adjustments and drastic sacrifices in order to continue the process of development of Europe, in order to entertain future enlargement. I believe that in terms of the great advantage not alone in stability of the European Community itself, future enlargement will far outweigh any difficulties that we may have to impose on ourselves.

It is obvious that there are and will be problems in this area, and indeed we know that we have problems at the present time. One is the question of the degree of loyalty towards the ideals of the Community of at least one of our existing member states. One is forced to question how much some of the people, particularly one member state, are thinking of themselves rather than of the concept of free nations working together. The recent summit is an example of what I can only describe as a more selfish approach, a more of the mé féin approach to something which in my view is greater than any of our existing countries or member states.

On the occasion of the last debate on this subject here, I said that one of the causes of concern is that so far there is no indication of any method in the Community resources, in the Community report, of budgeting for the prospective cost of membership even of the Greek Republic alone. This is a matter, of course, for the member governments and so far there is no information on how the additional cost of Greek membership, which will be quite substantial, is to be met. In the coming couple of years we will be moving towards economic problems which have been touched on already. They will have to be dealt with. Nevertheless, in conclusion I welcome the accession of Greece. It is a positively progressive step in the life of the European Community and I look forward to further developments in that area in relation to other European countries, notably Spain and Portugal.

Professor Murphy

As the House may know, I am not an enthusiast for what is inaccurately being called Europe and I am not going to pretend that I am overcome by emotion on this occasion. Mind you, I have nothing against the Greeks, they are a fine body of men, I am sure, like the Dublin Metropolitan Police, but there are some remarks I want to make, since, of course, the enlargement affects the only country to which I profess allegiance.

The ministerial introduction strikes me as more than usually bland in its rather optimistic prediction of the consequences of Greek accession. Greece having the connotations it has, it is easy, I suppose, to be romantic and to think of the symbol of liberation, the symbol of nationalism as it was in the 19th century, and to invoke, of course, its classical greatness. But this is only so much romantic credit, because quite seriously the achievements of Greece in the classical period, apart from the fact, by the way, that in large measure the Greeks rested on a servile infrastructure, are no more relevant to modern Greece than the Island of Saints and Scholars, if ever such existed, is relevant to the present condition in this country.

The reason why the Community welcomes Greece is basically a political one: it wants Greece on that outflank, if you like, of south-eastern Europe, and I suppose the move is welcome to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation military brass as much as it is to the EEC leaders. But let us not have any illusions. If Greece underwent a period of military dictatorship there is no guarantee that it will not do so again: there is no guarantee that the Colonels are gone forever. I attended last year a small conference in Germany of a group of European liberals. The only reason I was asked was because they were looking for a parliamentarian from each country who belonged to the Liberal Party and since there is no Liberal Party in Ireland—at least not avowedly so—they accepted my liberal credentials, for which I was very grateful. It was a small and intimate seminar for the most part. Its purpose was to discuss the accession of Greece and the eventual accession of Spain and Portugal as well. Therefore, the backbench parliamentarians from Spain, Portugal and Greece played a very prominent role in those discussions. I must say, as St. Paul said, speaking as one less wise, I kept my mouth shut for the most time and listened to what they had to say. They were very realistic, all three.

However, let us think for a moment of the Greeks and about the problems raised by accession. The representatives of the Nine present who were also, if you like, ordinary "Joe Soaps", were equally realistic about the problems posed by the enlargement. Grave doubt was expressed throughout the whole seminar as to the ability of the Community's machinery to bear the enlargement, putting it in the context of that problem alone; that the original Six had sufficient difficulty in shaping the whole machinery of the Community to suit their needs and that a further strain was put on it by the enlargement to the Nine and that a problem of crisis proportions is presented by the prospect of an enlargement to twelve. That is one problem which is unavoidable.

I am coming back to my question about the real strength of democracy in modern day Greece. My impression was—I may be wrong—that the ordinary people of Greece had not expressed any great deal of interest in their country's accession to the EEC. I should like to know whether there was, has been, or is going to be a referendum on entry. At least, though I disagreed with the majority of my fellow countrymen in their decision to support overwhelmingly our membership, I am, as a democrat, extremely glad it was taken. I wonder whether a similar popular endorsement is in question in Greece. I find it difficult even as a layman to accept the Minister's assurance when he said in the course of his introductory speech:

Problems for Ireland in the agricultural sector are not envisaged as Greek agriculture is mainly Mediterranean and will not be in direct competition with Irish agricultural produce in the markets of the Community.

I wonder is that true. I should like to hear the opinions of Members of the House who are more experienced in these matters than I am. Then the Minister went on:

It has been said that the addition of a new member state might adversely affect Ireland's position under the common agricultural policy.

Instead of saying this is not so, the Minister went on:

We have insisted in all discussions on enlargement that the accession of new member states must not be detrimental to the common policies of the Community....

In fact there is no guarantee possible that the accession of Greece will not be detrimental to the common agricultural policy, will not further drive the CAP into crisis. It seems to me that when Greece made its application to join, the prospects for the common agricultural policy were much brighter than they have become subsequently. If Greece is to be a net beneficiary, if we are to be a net beneficiary of the common agricultural policy, it seems to me that someone has to give.

There is also the question of the regional and social funds and the increased pressures that could be put on them with the accession of Greece and, later on, Spain and Portugal. There is one final problem posed by the accession of Greece, that is that with its accession the Community will inherit one of—shall we say—the running sores of Europe. It will inherit the problem of Cyprus, because the Community will not only include Greece but will continue, presumably, to have friendly relations with Turkey. Therefore, in a particular sense the Community will inherit a problem of racial and religious conflict: perhaps of all possible parallel problems in the world today, one that quite resembles the conflict in Northern Ireland and the relative parties involved. My question is: does the Community propose to do anything about this problem? Before we joined the Common Market we were assured in the preceding campaign that our membership would contribute to the solution of the problems in Northern Ireland. We were told that the common membership of people North and South—we heard the same story again in the context of the direct elections—the common experience of Irish members, whether they were orange or green sitting together in Brussels and Strasbourg, would somehow—in a way we were not told—contribute to the solution of the problems. The rueful experience has been that that is not so. My point is that I hope the Greeks will not believe that the EEC will solve their problems in that respect and that they will not be conned into thinking that that is one of the reasons they are joining the EEC.

Mr. Yeats

I welcome wholeheartedly this Bill and the prospect of membership of Greece in the EEC. In spite of what Senator Murphy has just said, one can look back to Greek traditions, to what Greece has contributed—as the Minister said—to the political thought in Europe. The whole basis of the EEC is founded on a certain concept of Europe as an entity. Europe without Greece is that much less truly European. One can, therefore, welcome the accession of Greece, particularly since Greece is a country which has only comparatively recently emerged from a period of dictatorship. We need be in no doubt that for the Greek people membership of the EEC is looked upon as a safeguard, almost a bulwark, against the possibility of a return of dictatorship. The fact that we are today dealing with this question of Greek entry into the EEC and that the negotiations between the EEC and Greece have been successfully completed is an indication of the fact that the Treaty of Rome and the other Treaties connected with it are open to all European democracies. I was going to say I am surprised but I have had enough experience of him not to be surprised, but one ought to be surprised, at Senator Murphy's hostile attitude to Greek entry. I can just imagine, if Greece were not being admitted to the EEC, if the EEC had decided, as they would have decided had they been looking merely to self-interest, not to admit Greece because life is more comfortable without them, Senator Murphy coming in here and talking about the rich men's club, the selfishness of these Europeans who were sitting within their ivory towers looking after themselves and to hell with everybody else. I can just imagine that would be the attitude he would have adopted. But one cannot win with Senator Murphy. When we are admitting Greece—and as I will mention later one must concede at some expense to our own community—when we are daring to do this because we have a feeling for Europe as an entity, a feeling for a concept that all European democracies who can, economically speaking, withstand the pace of membership should be let in, people like Senator Murphy come along and tell us that really we should be taking a selfish attitude and just saying to these people: "Go away, please, and leave us in peace".

We must not do that. We must be realistic about this and we must not ignore the fact that clearly there are practical disadvantages in the way of having Greece as a member of the EEC, and still more later on, if the question arises, of having Spain and Portugal as members.

When it comes to purely economic matters, the question of trade—as the Minister has pointed out—we in Ireland will not be really affected one way or the other. I think that it was Senator Murphy who mentioned the question of Greek aids to industry and would they be continued. It does not really matter from our point of view because the plain fact of the matter is that for some years past there has been free trade for industrial products between Greece and the EEC. Therefore, entry into the EEC will not affect industrial exports from Greece one way or the other. As the Minister has pointed out, it may somewhat increase the potential market for our exports. But when it comes to financial matters, particularly those concerned with the budget, of course we can see potential disadvantages.

It is obvious that in regional policy, social policy and on the question of the CAP, Greece, like ourselves, will be a considerable net beneficiary. We know that the Council has taken a formal position at, I think, the instigation of the Irish representatives, that the entry of Greece will not in fact be detrimental to these various funds. We must have regard to several facts. The introduction of a large net beneficiary, such as Greece, will probably make it more difficult to bring about the sort of increases in regional and social policies in the future that we would hope for; they may well remain as they are, but money will be provided to make up for the difference. At the same time it will make it more difficult in future years to get an increase. Also, we need to be in no doubt that the fairly large net transfers that will have to go to Greece will speed the day when we simply run out of money. It will bring that much earlier the day when the "own resources" will expire, when we will have to have a larger amount from VAT or whatever form of "own resources" is decided upon.

We must also accept that there will be repercussions on the CAP. There is already, particularly in southern France and in Italy, a feeling that the CAP is orientated too much to northern Europe, not sufficiently to the Mediterranean. Greek entry will obviously strengthen the Mediterranean lobby, as it were, and even more so in the future were Spain and Portugal to come in. We can expect that along with the other disadvantages the other problems that will arise in the near future in regard to the CAP we will also have the attitude from the south that Mediterranean products are not sufficiently covered and that too much money goes to northern Europe. Clearly also there will be a problem about decision-making. We already have the situation that decision-making in the Community is extremely slow and hazardous. It is very difficult to get decisions from the Council of Ministers. At any one time there are about 300 different items lying around, in pigeonholes on which no decision has been taken and, in some cases, on which no decision will ever be taken.

We have the problem also of the Commission itself. One hopes that the recommendations of the Three Wise Men will be carried out as soon as possible with regard to such things as more majority voting in the Council and so on. One also hopes that the recommendations of the Spierenburg Report—a sort of five wise men from whom the Commission got a report recently—will be implemented. In particular there seems to be a good deal to be said for the proposal in both these reports that there should be one Commissioner only for each country irrespective of size. As it stands we already have 13 Commissioners; with Greece it is going to be 14 and presumably another three later on from Spain and Portugal. One can imagine the whole Commission procedures becoming bogged down with that kind of membership.

There is also the question of languages. As we know one of the great problems in the EEC is the fact that everything is done in six languages. All speeches are simultaneously interpreted into six languages. Every document —and there are thousands upon thousands of documents—has to be translated into six languages. Already about 40 per cent of the entire Secretariat of the Commission in Brussels consists simply of people who are interpreting or translating. The introduction of a seventh language—one that does not even use ordinary European letters but which will involve a whole new range of new typewriters, printing machines and so on, will make matters that much worse. The mind boggles at the thought that, with Greece, Spain and Portugal, we could end up with nine languages. Ultimately something will have to be done to try to cut down these problems.

Nonetheless, with all these disadvantages one must welcome the entry of Greece. In spite of all the problems we have at present it is a sign of confidence in the future of the EEC. It is also a demonstration that, in spite of what the cynics say, the EEC is not simply a rich man's club interested only in itself; that we can, with confidence, expect that the new Greek members—at whatever level, whether in the Commission, the Council of Ministers or in the European Parliament—will have strongly at heart the European ideal. We may look forward to greeting them as men who will be interested in the future development of Europe. Two of the three countries who joined last, Denmark and the UK, clearly have not shown the interest in Europe as an entity or in the development of Europe one would have hoped for. I think Greece will; everything goes to show that in Greece we will have a strong and active ally in the future of Europe.

Mr. Staunton

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill which is necessary to relate the entry of Greece to the domestic law of this land. It is in this very area of domestic matters that we run into problems with the Bill for obvious reasons.

To start with, we have to say in this House and country that we welcome the accession of Greece to the European Community. We welcome it for a great many reasons. Our country has been a relatively poor one which has benefited very significantly economically, politically, psychologically and socially through membership of the European Community and through the association which we have developed with other countries in western Europe. I do not think we can afford the luxury of looking only at the aspects of life that affect our own narrow interests and of judging these matters in that vein, but I shall have something to say about that later. In the broadest sense in regard to a country such as Greece, which, in this century has had a great many political difficulties, which has lived under a dictatorship, a country with a poor infrastructure, a good deal of poverty, with a lesser level of development even than our own relatively poor country, we have got to be broad in this issue and welcome them into the Community despite the obvious discomfort it will cause us. We have much in common in both countries; we are relatively poor, have a love of life, an agricultural base to our economy along with a tourist base. We are both maritime countries, although they have developed their maritime aspect to an infinitely greater extent.

The admission of Greece is not simply a question of economics. I would not go away with the notion that the countries of Europe, France, Britain, Germany and others, are being altruistic in admitting Greece because obviously there are very strong political reasons, in the interests of western Europe—just as in the interests of Greece—that Greece should be admitted. Looking to the future political welfare, to the security of western Europe in the future against the background of this century in which there were two world wars, in which there is dominant communism in eastern Europe, obviously with the fragile state of democracy in Greece, the admission of Greece into the European Economic Community, the helping of Greece economically by the Community and the strengthening of the democratic links, as Senator Murphy rightly said, strengthen the south-eastern flank of Europe in a very delicate part of the globe at present. It is a two-way bargain. It is not just a question of Greece being the beggar. Greece has a great deal to offer to Europe not only in the strengthening of democracy in its own country but in the broader contribution, to the strengthening of the security of Europe.

Apart from the objective reasons for which we sincerely welcome Greece—I am glad to note the presence in this House of the Ambassador of Greece to this country and to offer him sincere best wishes for his country's entry to Europe—there are reasons for great concern within this country. These have obviously to do with the economics of the matter. If I stress the economics, and if I speak in a somewhat narrow vein for the next few minutes, I am not in any sense suggesting that the answer is that Greece should not be admitted. I do not even begin to suggest that the responsibility for our problems rests with Greece but rather with the Community itself.

It seems to be naive to suggest, as we have tended to do despite the commitments of the Council, that the admittance of Greece and later of Spain and Portugal, three Mediterranean countries, will not affect the interests of this country. The background against which we are living at present suggests that that will not be the situation. In Spain they are having great difficulties in negotiating at present. They are running into an extremely difficult attitude by the French Government which persuaded the Spanish Prime Minister to go to Paris last week to try to sort out his problems. We have seen the attitude of Britain at the recent Summit meeting in Dublin, and despite the fact that we have supposed guarantees in previous resolutions in Council that the admittance of Greece, Spain and Portugal will occur without the interests of this country being affected, I take that with a huge grain of salt. The Government need to be extremely vigilant about the entry of Greece, Spain and Portugal to ensure that the interests which we have established, and which we have protected by resolution of the Council, are in fact protected and that there is this commitment by the Community at large to ensure that we do not suffer as a result of the entry of the Mediterranean countries.

It is fortunate that in 1976 Deputy FitzGerald, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, was able to insert in the protocol the two pre-conditions, which were made pre-conditions and which were carried by the Council at that time, relative to the admittance of Greece. The first was the pre-condition that the admittance of Greece would not result in financial consequences which would be detrimental to this country. This was adopted as a policy document by the Council. The second point was that the enlargement of the Community should strengthen rather than weaken the institutions of the EEC. The second point is very important. At first glance, we had problems in extending the size of the Community from six countries to nine and where we had institutional problems in welding this mass together, at first sight the extension of the Community from an entity of six to one of nine countries must make this task much more difficult rather than easier. If we are dealing against a philosophical background of commitment to the concept of Europe by France and Britain as it exists in this country and in the other smaller countries in Europe, and in Germany to a considerable extent, one might have more hope for the future.

But looking at the attitudes that have been expressed and the attitudes of extreme self-interest by France and Britain in this regard, I cannot be very optimistic about the institutional aspects of it. It seems that the very fact that we are extending this Community to bring in the three Mediterranean nations without having due regard to the difficulties that will ensue when this happens is possibly an indication of the flippant attitude to the EEC by some of the larger countries in Europe at present.

The specific area where we will be affected is of course the common agricultural policy. We are already witnessing an assault on the CAP, because Greece's admittance is likely to result in great pressures on the agricultural sector. Again, this is against the background expressed by Senator Yeats that the admittance of the Mediterranean countries will alter significantly the entire character of the Community. When we talk about aspects of the common agricultural policy and the different nature of agriculture in the Mediterranean countries in comparison with the more temperate climates to the north, the altering of this structure will have profound effects on us. It is another reason for our interests to be protected.

In regard to regional policy, a country in the southern Mediterranean with a poor infrastructure and the legitimate demands it will have, obviously will be in competition with the entry of this country. It brings us back to the fact that the commitment of the Council has to be followed through. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has to see that this party will be paid for, that funds will be strengthened, if necessary by raising this 1 per cent limit which is becoming ludicrous having regard to the extent of the financial commitment at present and the bankruptcy facing the Community next year unless something is done about this matter.

I have stressed the economic factors and the natural areas of self-interest in this country which it is our obligation to express in this House and our obligation to our electorate. Having said that in the broadest sense possible, having regard to the extent to which we have done so well during our membership of the Community, the extent to which it has reduced the level of introspection in this country, the extent to which it has allowed us to be less dependent economically and politically on Britain, the extent to which it has brought us into the mass of Europe, looking at our experiences and seeing what these experiences can do for Greece, we wholeheartedly welcome their admittance to the Community.

Mr. Lambert

I agree with most Senators that the enlargement of the Community from nine to 12 states in the years ahead will create new problems and new opportunities and that we should not permit our over-zealous commitment to the European idea to obscure the difficulties it will bring. Many of the problems, as we have heard today, are specific to Ireland. Others concern the organisation of the EEC itself. I am glad that the Minister has recalled that the initial thrust towards European unity was powered by a political rather than an economic motive.

As Senator Staunton said, two wars tore the Continent apart in the space of 30 years and the threat of a further conflagration had to be averted, and it now goes unremarked that the formation of the EEC was the first serious anti-war movement. This is a reason why we welcome Greece, now that it has won its freedom for democracy. We hope its joining represents a further insurance in the development against radical attitudes in Europe.

The difficulties that will arise may seem trivial, but to a small peripheral country like Ireland they are anything but small. In the first instance all three are intermediate economies with large agricultural sectors. In EEC terms they are relatively poor and will be joining Ireland at the bottom of the EEC living standard, as we have heard other Senators say. Senator FitzGerald said that Ireland's per capita gross domestic product was just below Spain's and just above Greece's. Greece and the other two candidate members will add significantly to the EEC's population. Together they have a combined population of more than 50 million people, or 20 per cent of the existing numbers. Further, the three potential new members will increase the agricultural land in the Community by more than 50 per cent. But these regions and their relative poverty in EEC terms, and their fairly substantial agricultural sectors will all make significant demands on the EEC budget. They will be looking for the crumbs from the EEC table. Since 1973, Ireland has been able to argue for economic aid based on being the poorest member state and we have benefited greatly thereby. We have been defined as an undeveloped country for purposes of regional aid. With the accession of Greece, Ireland will no longer be able to plead the case of singular poverty. Following the transitional period, equal treatment will have to be accepted as a fact of life. This point was expanded on by Senator Staunton.

There is also a further difficulty. Ireland's small size is to our advantage. Special financial assistance to this country, with a population of just over 3 million, is a very different question from providing aid to a group of countries which will then have a population in the undeveloped sense of nearly 60 million. Budgetary transfers to the poorer member states will simply become more expensive for the donor countries.

I am glad that reassurances have been given by the Minister. I want to underline the fact that a vigilant attitude will be required if our national interests are to be adequately protected. It is also important that the EEC does not fragment itself into first and second divisions for conflicts of interest will arise between the stronger and the weaker nations. The Commission vice-president in charge of enlargement, Mr. Lorenzo Natali, has already admitted that the imbalances existing within the Community will be amplified by the accession of these three countries.

Crucial difficulties will probably arise over the budgetary transfers effected through the common agricultural policy. All three are substantial agricultural producers and what they produce to any appreciable extent may not mean direct competition with us but indirectly there will be competition for the available CAP supports. At a time when CAP is hardening—many Senators have referred to this—the additional burden implicit in supporting prices for Greece is certain to impart added vigour to call for the abolition of CAP. There is no doubt that Britain will use the enlargement of the Community to strengthen her case for reforming all the EEC institutions and policies. Apart from the budget and the common agricultural policy, we must carefully watch for the proposed changes of Community competition, regional and industrial policies.

The British public, and quite a few of her allies, are being conned by the tremendous media coverage which the Prime Minister is getting in her complaint about Britain's net contribution. What is not being highlighted is the amount of agricultural products which she imports from Commonwealth countries, for which Britain has to pay a contribution, whilst if she was taking flour from France, or more dairy produce from the other EEC countries, her contribution would be less. The impending enlargement of the EEC makes early agreement on reducing the net contribution by Britain to the Community budget all the more imperative from her point of view. This is something which I feel we must watch, particularly in view of last week's Summit.

Our trade with Greece has grown substantially in the last five years with an interchange of both agricultural and industrial products. Our main imports have been in dried fruits and products like those but unexpectedly there has been a sizeable quantity of industrial products, including textiles and yarns. The cute Irish importer does not miss the opportunity to sell cheaper products. The Greeks through lower all-round costs can sell more cheaply. I stress this factor to underline the major economic problem facing us, that is the necessity to moderate our income expectations all the more with another competitor coming on to the field.

Even without taking enlargement into account, the Community's own resources will be insufficient to meet expenditure after 1981. It is clear that the accession of Greece, which will be a net beneficiary, will greatly aggravate the budgetary difficulties of the Community and put even present policies in jeopardy unless new resources are made available. We all know that the EEC is seekng ways of getting further revenue to cope with the growing demands of more costly policy programmes in the years ahead. Ireland's continued prosperity within the EEC lies in substantial growth in this kitty but we must not support the easy way out of thinking that the way of doing this is increasing member states' receipts from VAT without a great deal of consideration, particularly until the rates of VAT are harmonised.

The welcome we extend to Greece on her entry into the EEC should be positive, but we must press very strongly for a real distribution of resources. I am glad to hear the Minister's assurances that our interests will be safeguarded. I, too, join other Senators in welcoming the Greek Ambassador here this afternoon.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Might I remind the House that the occupants of the Chairman's Gallery or the Press Gallery ought not to be referred to in the debate? The Chair has been very lenient in allowing a number of Senators to widen the scope of the Bill. The Bill is very specific. It refers to the accession of Greece.

Mr. Harte

Thank you for cramping my style. It puts me in a difficult position.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Passing references are quite in order but I do not think Senators should deal in depth with those matters.

Mr. Harte

Everybody realises that in contrast to Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil the Labour Party opposed entry into the EEC. However, as a democratic party we have our institutions. They are being worked and we have our representatives at European level and we have our spokesmen both in the Seanad and Dáil who can actually make an input in matters dealing with the EEC. Once the EEC is working and functioning it is only right and proper that we should not be selfish about other countries if in fact any benefits can flow to those countries. I say that as a socialist rather than someone who might use the ultra national sense and ask what is it going to mean to us? Our endeavour is to bring as many people as we can into the most beneficial situation possible. Even though we were opposed to entry into the EEC, it now exists and because it exists, and because of the way things are built into the system, it is only natural that if you want to survive in certain areas of Europe the best place for your country to be in the long term is in this Community.

All I want to say now in view of the remarks from the Chair, and I take them to be quite correct, is that we are still very disturbed by the very features that made us oppose entry into the EEC. We did not believe all the promises that were made on the regional policy, on the social policy, the industrial policy, energy policy and so on and the noncompulsory expenditure area. We did not think that those things could be delivered. We now have the problem that the general budget for 1980 is liable to affect those things even more, particularly when we are low down in the table with regard to the standard of living. It means in effect that we are in a position now where it could well be that we could actually remain in that position and not move from it. The Greeks believe they need EEC membership. The people in Europe have agreed to it. All we can say is, welcome to the Greek people and we hope they are doing the right thing. At the same time, I hope their entry will not in effect worsen our problems here. We have got enough of them.

Professor Conroy

I would like to join in the welcome being given to the Bill and to the accession of Greece to the Community. It is perhaps particularly welcome to me because, with my colleague, Senator Brennan, we put down a motion about 18 months ago welcoming the application of Greece to join the European Economic Community. However, although welcoming the accession of Greece I do not think it should be an uncritical or unqualified welcome either from our point of view or from the point of view of the Greeks and of course there was very considerable debate and divergence of opinion in Greece as to whether they should join the EEC, a debate which was very interesting and in some ways modelled on our own. I was reminded of this by Senator Harte's contribution because it was a labour-socialist group in Greece which opposed entry to the EEC. I will come back to that, if I may, in a few moments.

First of all, I have made some general points. Greece is a country not much larger than Ireland, with a population of somewhere about 8¾ million at the last census, and presumably now somewhere around nine million or so people, with an area of somewhere around 50,000 square miles. So in size and population it is very similar to us, more so than any of the other members of the Community.

With certain obvious exceptions, many of the attitudes of the Community and of our own will be very similar. From this point of view we should welcome the Greek accession. There may be one or two points on which they will differ very markedly from us. It has been mentioned that Greece has had a very long and proud tradition of democracy. Democracy began in Greece even though it was submerged so often both in classical times and throughout the middle ages and again more recently. It has nonetheless always managed to reemerge and I have no doubt whatever, contrary to what certain other speakers said, that any threat to democracy in Greece will be well and truly met by the Greek people. They have shown their love for democracy and their determination to reassert it.

Turning to slightly more mundane matters, it is a practical fact at the moment that industrial imports in relation to Greece are already duty free. I think some Irish exporters have been taking effective advantage of this although there are probably many opportunities still to come. Perhaps agriculture is much more relevant and for Irish agriculture there should be very good opportunities from Greece. Greece is very much an importer of meat and of dairy products generally, and this may well prove to be an important market for us, small though Greece is.

Another aspect touched upon in a slightly different way by other speakers was the shipping element. Greece has built up an enormous merchant marine which will now effectively be a part of the EEC merchant marine. I would hope that in addition to the general accession of this merchant navy to the EEC it will perhaps also stimulate this small country to build up our merchant fleet much more than hitherto.

In relation to regional development, I would hope that the accession of Greece will be a very definite spur to regional development rather than a hindrance. The Greeks will have a very natural correct interest in this matter. This was one of the matters that caused concern to certain of the larger states during the course of the discussion of Greece's application. We have seen very dramatically recently the attitude taken by one of the major states in relation to the EEC and certainly there has been an unfortunate tendency over the last two or three years for certain of the major states in the EEC to hold their own private discussions and to some extent to suggest that the decisions which they take should be endorsed by the other members of the EEC. This is something which our Government have rightly resisted and which it is very important we should continue to resist as fully as we can. And here Greece's interests will clearly march with our own and, I would hope, effectively. During the course of the negotiations there have been certain pointers, such as possible reduction in the number of commissioners to one from each country which would be very suitable perhaps from our point of view and lessen this tendency towards domination by the big two or the big three of the EEC.

I mention at the beginning that accession was by no means unanimous among the Greeks. In fact there was a very definite upswing in the left wing or anti-EEC vote between the 1974 and 1977 elections. I understand that the socialist party increased their seats from something like 60 to more than 90 seats. Admittedly some of this was at the expenses of the Communists but it was nonetheless quite a significant increase. Equally well Mr. Karamanlis' party dropped support quite substantially from 50 per cent of the vote to something like 40 per cent of the vote and their number of seats fell quite significantly and substantially. From this point of view I am rather glad that the negotiations and discussions have been pressed forward effectively and that we have played some small part in this. If the matter had been allowed to drag out much longer there could quite possibly have been a change in attitude among the Greek people who have by no means unanimously agreed to accession.

Agriculture in Greece has been mentioned on a number of occasions but perhaps what has not been emphasised is that it is perhaps much less significant in Greece than is commonly imagined. Probably only about 20 per cent of the people at this stage are engaged in agriculture—the last official figure was something around 20 per cent. Further figures estimate it as around 21 per cent, but it is now probably under 20 per cent.

There has been a very substantial decline in the numbers of people engaged in agriculture in Greece. There are certain aspects of this which are very unusual. Greece, for example, will account for something like 80 per cent of tobacco exports from the EEC, a thing virtually nominal at present. Greece has a substantial cotton export trade and there is no cotton production anywhere else in the EEC. There will be, undoubtedly, Greek competition as regards other Mediterranean products, with Italy and the South of France but none of their agricultural products competes significantly with ours. Greece is a net importer of the sort of products we can export. At present that country imports many of these products from outside the EEC and, therefore, there should be a very substantial opportunity for us. That country's imports of meat are in the region of £100 million per year, a substantial amount.

There will, presumably, be, just as we have got the mysterious green £, a green drachma initiated. If I understand this correctly this may present certain problems for Greece, depending on the adjustments Greek agriculture has to make and adjustments in her balance of payments. However that is primarily a problem for the Greeks rather than for us.

Industry occupies a very large proportion of the Greek people but it is not industry as we understand it. It is much more workshop and craft industry with the vast majority of the concerns employing small numbers of people, perhaps four or five people. Much of it is in such areas as footwear, textiles and food manufacture. In practice there should be a good opportunity for Irish exporters, with the very effective and modern exports we now can offer, to build up a considerable trade with Greece. Greece also has certain minerals and a certain degree of oil. They will be very welcome in an EEC context as well as being of benefit to the Greek economy.

I gather that one of the main problems will be in relation to the balance of payments in Greece and that there may be difficulties as regards Greece's capital account. Achilles Mitsos and Efstathios Papageorgiou in the book, Greece and the European Community, edited by Loukas Tsoukalis, stated:

Greece's external transactions are characterised by sizeable deficits in the current account but without overall balance of payments problems. This peculiar element of Greece's balance of payments is due to the fact that considerable funds are made available for financing the external deficits by Greeks who live and work abroad. The important characteristic of these funds is that either servicing is done mostly in drachmas or they are for all practical purposes transfers. Moreover, on the basis of the importance of the total foreign exchange inflow that is generated by Greeks abroad, it may be argued that the current account deficit and in particular the trade deficit are in fact jointly determined with the service surplus, particularly when the previously mentioned funds are considered as part of the current account.

This is a situation somewhat reminiscent of our own situation in the past. One aspect that comes up which may not necessarily be to our interest is in relation to the contribution to the EEC budget about which there was such a furore at the Dublin Summit. Curiously enough, Greece's position may well be rather similar to Britain's position because Greece is relatively a high net importer. It is much higher than the EEC average which is somewhere around 10 or 11 per cent, whereas Greece is about 14 per cent.

Many of the arguments which have just been used, rightly or wrongly, by the United Kingdom Government may well be followed by the Greek Government. Although a very poor country in relation to other European countries, much poorer than Britain, Greece, nonetheless, under the present arrangements for the Community budget, will find itself a relatively high contributor to the EEC budget, strange though this may be. I cannot help thinking that this is going to be a matter of some controversy in the future, when the euphoria of joining the EEC has died down.

An aspect which has not been greatly touched upon, but which is an enormously important aspect to Greece, is its relationship vis-á-vis Turkey. I know the EEC does not have any foreign policy, but, nonetheless, I do not think one can entirely isolate the accession of Greece to the EEC from its situation vis-á-vis Turkey. This is an extremely delicate situation, one in which we have already been involved and have played some part in Cyprus through our contribution to troops there. I hope we will be able to play some further part in endeavouring to make sure that relations between Greece and Turkey improve and that we can play some slight part in helping to minimise or resolve the difficulties. Nonetheless, Greece is in an extremely important strategic situation. This was shown clearly after the Second World War. I do not think we can entirely ignore these implications which may give rise to difficulties in the future. It is a very different situation from that pertaining in relation to the other members of the European Community.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach ruled out of order a discussion of Portugal and Spain and, I am sure, rightly so, but I am sure he will permit me to say that the applications of Portugal and Spain inevitably had some impact upon the application of Greece, an impact which the Greeks very rightly, and, indeed, bitterly resented. There are implications there and I am sure that the possible accession of those other two countries was taken into account during the negotiations. Since there has been some mention of dictatorship it is interesting to comment that the end of the dictatorships in Greece, Spain and Portugal was signalled by application to join the EEC. I would like to think that this was a major aspect of the EEC, ensuring the stabilising of democracy. Since Greece was the cradle of European civilisation I believe it is only right and proper that it should be rejoining Europe.

Mr. Markey

It is understandable that in considering the admission of any new entrant to the European Economic Community there should be some examination of the suitability, or otherwise, of that applicant. It is a pity that it should be like that because I can only imagine that examination that went on in other countries at the time of our application for entry into the European Community. I hope such examinations would not infer that Greece was not a suitable candidate for admission. The examination must be carried out under certain economic criteria, and if Greece qualified under that well and good, but we must be realistic enough to know that in a wider context, namely the political context, had to be brought into consideration in this instance, particularly in view of Greece's geographic location, what it has gone through and what it could mean to the European Community from the political angle. I should like to congratulate Greece on what it has survived and managed to pull itself through the past decade. The fact that it is the father of all democracies is one thing but when democracy to any extent disappears from a country for a small number of years there is never a guarantee that democracy will return in the form in which it was before.

Democracy is a very brittle matter and the fact that Greece pulled itself back and is again on the democratic path is something on which I should like to congratulate it. If we were not to extend an unequivocal welcome to Greece we would be acting in a rather selfish or arrogant manner. How do we know that we were not subject to some scrutiny and examination as to our own suitability at the time of our application? There are advantages to the Community and Ireland by the admission of Greece. It is geographically situated at the periphery of the Community and can help us in our argument for greater assistance from the Regional Fund. However, there is no doubt that there will be some disadvantages. The net benefit to countries like ours, and other small nations, may be a little less as a result of the admission of a further small nation, but that is the price that will have to be paid. The Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Government, have got some form of undertaking that the financial implications will not be disturbed as a result of the admission of Greece, but while undertakings are good enough in their own time one never knows what the situation will be in a couple of years' time.

I, unequivocally, welcome Greece to the Community and I congratulate that country on pulling itself back out of a rather difficult situation in the past decade. It is appropriate that we should extend Greece a céad míle fáilte.

Mr. Mulcahy

I welcome the Bill. I agree with many of the points made by Senators. The only novel point I should like to add relates to the old story of a shop in a street being concerned because another shop is started nearby. Generally, the two shops find that they do better as a result of their nearness to each other. The notion that the United Kingdom was a poor country was a little bit hard to take. It may be that they are poor because they did not manage their reserves as they should. However, the addition of Greece to the Community puts us in a better position to make our case. We will have a real partner when we are making a case for regional development and a redistribution of funds. I should like to add my voice to the Senators who mentioned the importance of Greece in the Mediterranean region of Europe. In the north-western area we are inclined to forget that the problems of the Mediterranean in the future will be very much the problems of Europe. Greece has a unique contribution to make in providing an understanding of what is going on internationally in that area down as far as the Middle East and the developing problems in the Arab countries. I welcome the opportunity publicly to endorse Greece joining the Community.

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

I welcome the constructive nature of this debate. It has been most helpful in every regard, and the debate was conducted in a spirit of welcome for a new member of the Common Market. The criticism was of a constructive nature rather than a destructive nature and the debate has been all the better for that. I will reply in a general way to the various observations made in the contributions of the Senators.

Senator Alexis FitzGerald, like other Senators, welcomed the accession of Greece to the European Economic Community. He pointed out that the Community needs a great deal of clarification and in that context he felt Greece might help. He also mentioned the important matter of the effect of Greek entry on agriculture and what will happen in the context of Irish agriculture generally. He mentioned specifically the guarantee section of the common agricultural policy.

The Commission of the European Community estimated that if Greece was a full member of the Community in 1978, for example, the additional expenditure involved for the Community budget would have been approximately 400 billion European units of account, which would have represented 3.2 per cent of that budget. The Treaty of Accession for Greece provides inter alia that the provision of the FEOGA guarantee section will generally be applied on a phased basis during the transitional period up to the end of 1985 and that Greece will be entitled to certain refunds on its payment of own resources to the Community during that period. Taking account of the traditional arrangements the Commission has estimated that the net increase in the Community budget arising from Greek membership will be 80 million European units of account in 1981 and 220 million European units of account in 1982. Those figures represent approximately 0.4 per cent and 1 per cent respectively of the total budgets forecast by the Commission for 1981 and 1982.

On the question of Greek Protocol No. 7, the question of economic and industrial development, a suggestion was made by Senator FitzGerald that the Protocol was identical with Ireland's protocol No. 30. He is, of course, accurate, as usual, in relation to his analysis of the Greek and Irish protocols. Protocol No. 7 relates to the economic and industrial development of Greece and provides that the Community will do all in its power to assist the efforts of the Greek Government in that regard. It is similar to our Protocol No. 30 to the Treaty of Accession. Senator FitzGerald asked if the belief of the Greek Government in this protocol was shared by our Government and if their attitude in relation to their protocol was similar to the attitude of our Government to Protocol No. 30. It is fair to say that the two protocols are not dissimilar and that the two Governments share a similar view in relation to them as they affect each other.

On the question of the modern Greece being one of the biggest merchant shipping nations in the world, Senator FitzGerald stated that the European Community's merchant shipping fleet will be increased from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. He referred to the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation and the two conventions under that organisation. As the Senator rightly pointed out that organisation looks after maritime safety and sponsors national conventions. The Senator specifically mentioned two conventions, MARPOLS, the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, which was set up in 1973. The question of introducing legislation to implement MARPOLS was uppermost in the Senator's mind. This is, of course, at present under consideration by us. To date, for the Senator's information, no major maritime country has ratified the convention.

In relation to the second arm mentioned by the Senator, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, SOLAS, which was introduced in 1974, the council has recommended that member states ratify it and MARPOLS. However, as the Senator will appreciate, before Ireland ratifies either of the conventions a considerable body of legislation must be drafted. Without putting a particular date on it, this is being given careful consideration. How careful the consideration it is being given I cannot be absolutely accurate in relation to that but I know it is under scrutiny at the moment. How active that consideration is, I am not competent at this point to inform the Senator. If the Senator would like me to correspond with him on this question I can give him an up-to-date account of how far consideration has gone in relation to both conventions. I will be glad to get that information for him.

State aids are to be abolished over a three-year transitional period. Maritime pollution must be of great concern, as the Senator said, not only to EEC countries, but to mankind on a global basis, particularly with the injection of a 20 to 30 per cent increase in the maritime merchant shipping fleet of the community with the accession of Greece. Ireland has taken account of this aspect mentioned by Senator FitzGerald. Ireland is satisfied that Greece shares the concern of all nations that the question of sea pollution should be dealt with satisfactorily. We have recent evidence of this concern following the collision off the Wicklow coast which involved a Greek tanker. Preliminary inquiries, as I understand it, were conducted by the Greek Embassy in Dublin on the day after the incident and that shows that the Greek Embassy and the Ambassador were very quick off the mark in relation to their concern for this country's protection of its coast line. Formal investigations were initiated in Piraeus the week after the collision. This is indicative of the bona fides of Greece's anxiety to ensure that its extensive maritime fleet does not do damage to a country that does not have a very significant maritime presence on the high seas.

Senator FitzGerald and a number of Senators also raised the question of Ireland standing by the Council's statement of July 1976. The Council made that tripartite statement on the question of enlargement and Ireland has insisted that enlargement must not adversely affect the maintenance of the present policies or its future development. In 1976 before the formal opening of negotiations with Greece we proposed that the Council should make a statement to safeguard our position. This was accepted by the Council and they declared:

(1) that the consequences, in particular the financial consequences of an enlargement must not be detrimental to the common projects and policies of the Community or to those which it intends to carry out in the future,

(2) that enlargement must help strengthen a Community dynamic in its aspirations and not weaken or reduce in effectiveness its institutional structures and possibilities for action, and

(3) that, with this in view, it was agreed that subject to usual budgetary procedures, on Greek accession appropriate provision would be made for the needs of the enlarged Community.

We have to take that statement at face value in the sense that the Council have given a commitment in relation to the enlargement of the Community, with Greek accession in particular—Spain and Portugal have been mentioned in the future. We have insisted that note be taken of that Council declaration in 1976. We are ensuring that the Council, Commission and all institutions in the European Community are constantly made aware of that undertaking. It was a firm undertaking and we will ensure that it continues to be adhered to.

The budgetary problems of the Community have undoubtedly emerged since 1976. A number of solutions have been proposed in relation to these problems. With the accession of Greece and the undoubted accession in due time of Spain and Portugal these considerations will become a problem. In fact, they will become greater than they are at present. The concern expressed by Britain at the recent Council meeting in Dublin is indicative of the type of problems we are facing at present in the EEC on the budgetary front. One possibility is that the VAT ceiling of one per cent will be reached next year. The British demands with regard to her contribution is another serious consideration and there is the emergence of the economic monetary system.

During our negotiations we received the three assurances I have outlined and we are sticking by them. Senator FitzGerald in his generous concluding remarks paid tribute to the work of the Greek Ambassador, Mr. Constantine Zepos, and his wife, Greta. I am sure the House will join with me in that generous and proper tribute to this excellent representative of his country.

Senator Brugha mentioned that Greece was the cradle of democracy. He also raised problems in relation to the area of financing. He said that one was forced to question the degree of loyalty to the ideal of the Common Market by Britain. That is not an unreasonable proposition. Since Britain's accession and, indeed, before it, General de Gaulle felt that if she did join she would do so for the purposes of wrecking the Common Market. I do not suggest that that is necessarily our assessment but, nevertheless, she seems to be beating the big drum at the moment. This was stridently expressed by the Prime Minister during her short stay in this city last week. The smaller and medium-sized countries in the Common Market should be on their guard against the prospective attack, as I see it, on the European budget and the common agricultural policy in particular. That one silk thread ran through the contributions of Senators. It was a positive observation. With the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the Common Market in 1981 we will have a definite ally in our efforts to ensure that the common agricultural policy remains as it is and to see that it will remain unassailable by our big brothers or sisters who have other reasons for reducing its effectiveness to small nations like Ireland. We will have a substantial ally with the accession of Greece in protecting our common interests under the common agricultural policy. We are determined, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated in introducing this Bill in the Dáil, to ensure that the common agricultural policy is defended against all comers and that its effectiveness to the nations who benefit most under it is not reduced. Senator Murphy said he was not going to be overcome by the prospective accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Economic Community.

I do not think any of us will be overcome by the entry of Greece to the EEC, but we might be generous, nevertheless, in our expression of hope for the government and the people of Greece in their desire to join this bastion of democracy. This Community will ensure, in a collective, organised way as best mankind can ensure, peace in Europe for generations to come and Greece has a very important role to play within that context. We are not overcome by the accession of Greece but we certainly welcome its accession to the EEC.

Senator Murphy pointed out that the ministerial speech was rather bland. That is a matter of prejudice and of interpretation. What do you say, when you are welcoming a friend into your house? Do you have a band outside and all the usual paraphernalia and trappings, or are you just courteous to him and go through the normal expressions of goodwill? I assume that, if you do express yourself in normal language, it is bland but, nevertheless, sincere. If that is what he means by bland I must reject his suggestion that it is intended as such. My speech of welcome to the Greek Government and the concern expressed by this and other countries on their accession was a sincere expression of goodwill towards them. That is as it should be, and that was the general trend of the contributions by the Senators, with the exception of Senator Murphy. If we were not welcoming the Greek Government and their application was rejected, he would be the first here to ask why. His contribution was based, not on the fact that they were refused entry, but that they were accepted. So I am afraid you cannot win with people like Senator Murphy, with great respect to him.

Senator Murphy asked if the Greek application was considered by the people of Greece by way of referendum, or if they had any direct say in their Government's intention to apply to the EEC. There was not a referendum by the ordinary people of Greece. The Greek Parliament decided that and ratified their Treaty of Accession by way of their own legislation, as we are doing here.

To return to the question of Greek agriculture, articulated by Senator Murphy, Senator Alexis FitzGerald and others, Ireland was particularly successful in having the transitional period for beef and dairy produce held to five years, with the elimination, over this period, of incompatible Greek aids to agriculture and the establishment of accession compensatory amounts, which will operate as efficiently for the community as for Greek exporters. Our interest in the speedy elimination of barriers to the export of Irish agricultural produce to Greece was adequately accommodated. To answer some of the queries in relation to the type of agriculture that exists in Greece and here, the reality of the situation, as I read it, is that there will be no real conflict between the Greek agricultural industry and ours. Greek agriculture is mainly considered with Mediterranean type produce such as olive oil, tobacco, citrus fruits, figs, grapes and so on. However, the accession of Greece may present a problem, in the area of future development of the common agricultural policy, since it is generally recognised that Mediterranean produce received less firm support from the CAP than do temperate products. At the moment support measures for Mediterranean produce represents approximately 20 per cent of the total CAP guaranteed budget. With the accession of Greece, and more especially the possible accession of Portugal and Spain, there is likely to be more pressure to increase this percentage. My reply to those Senators who have raised the question on the agricultural front and the similarity between Irish and Greek agricultural produce is that they are quite dissimilar and their problems are distinct.

Senator Yeats, with his own particular knowledge and his experience as a former and respected member of the European Parliament, replied to Senator Murphy. He made a number of very excellent suggestions which certainly will be taken note of. The question of the languages of the EEC was raised by him. He says that at the moment, and properly so, there are six simultaneous language translations in relation to any meeting of the Council of Ministers, Parliament, or committee meeting of the EEC. He said that this is a considerable drain on the personnel of the EEC. It is a tremendous strain on the personnel within the Community and something will have to be done about it. He said that, with the accession of Greece in 1981 there will be an additional language. He also mentioned the prospect of Spain's and Portugal's entry, which would compound the existing serious language problem.

The problem of language in the Community has been examined by the Committee of Three Wise Men, whose report is now being made available and placed in the Library of the Oireachtas. The report does not recommend a specific decision in regard to the use of language within the Community, but recognises the difficulties which will arise after enlargement and recommends a policy of, to use their own words, "pragmatic flexibility". With the greatest of respect, that is a piece of mumbo-jumbo and we shall have to get to the basic of the meaning of such a policy. Senator Yeats is right in saying that there is a problem there. It appears that the Three Wise Men have put this on the long finger and, on the basis of what the Three Wise Men have said, a solution to the problem may not be found in the very near future. The European Council asked that the Foreign Ministers should examine the report with a view to preparing discussion at the next European Council on the language question, so it is being given priority. Certainly if the recommendations of the Three Wise Men are to be taken into account we cannot expect much movement there in the near future.

The European Regional Development Fund was mentioned and the matter of the social fund was raised by Senator Harte. The Senator vouchsafed that his party opposed Ireland's entry to the EEC but, the people of Ireland having adjudicated and given their support to our entry, he and his party accepted the inevitability of Ireland's entry. He accepts the democratic process and his party now support but question the existence of Ireland within the EEC.

Senator Harte and other Senators raised the question of the amounts received from the European Regional Fund and the European Social Fund. Since the foundation of the European Development Fund, in March 1975, Ireland's receipts have been: 1975, £1.8 million; 1976, £8.5 million; 1977 £8.5 million; 1978, £11.1 million; 1979, 18.1 million, that is to this date. Receipts for the European Social Fund have been: 1974, £3.6 million; 1975, £4 million; 1976, £4.6 million; 1977, £8.1 million; 1978, £19.3 million; 1979, to this date £25.8 million.

Senator Harte and others expressed their concern about the amount of money being received by this country from the European Regional Fund and from the European Social Fund, and I know the Government share the concern expressed by Senators in this regard. We are not at all happy and we are going to pursue a policy which, because we have always been seen as a good nation in the Community sense, will not rock the Community boat. It is about time we looked to ourselves in regard to the European Regional Fund and the Eruopean Social Fund. This country will have to begin to make noises in regard to the relatively small amount we have been receiving from both funds since they were founded in March 1975. In 1977 we received £8.1 million under the European Social Fund and this figure jumped quite considerably in 1979, to date £25.8 million, nevertheless we are still not happy.

I am avoiding replying to some of the very good points made by Senator Staunton because I would only be repeating myself. He said that there was much in common between the Irish people and the people of the Greek Republic, the love of life, the agriculture based economy, a maritime nation. They are all matters of fact and nobody can disagree with them, and if for no other reason we should be welcoming a nation that is not unlike ourselves in many regards. For the economic reasons that Senator Staunton properly mentioned, the Government must ensure that this country does not suffer by enlargement. Again I can only refer to the resolution made by the Council in July 1976, and we must take that Council's resolution at its face value, and we must ensure that if there is any attack on Ireland's position we must raise it time after time.

Senator Staunton said that the Minister for Foreign Affairs must be vigilant for Ireland's interests, and it is fair to say that successive Ministers for Foreign Affairs have been most vigilant. They can continue to be vigilant in relation to the regional and social funds. These are two of the greatest priorities facing any Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Senator Lambert mentioned, in a very positive contribution, that the EEC is being increased from nine to 12 members nations and said the enlargement would create new problems but also new opportunity. Vigilance, again, was a theme of his contribution.

I have already adverted to Senator Harte's contribution and I do not think I need to allude to it any further. He generously welcomed the accession of Greece to the EEC. Senator Conroy in his usual positive contribution said we would have an added important market for our agricultural produce having regard to the dissimilarity between Irish and Greek agricultural products. He also mentioned the theme articulated by Senator FitzGerald on the maritime nature of both countries and the addition of a huge merchant shipping fleet to the existing Common Market fleet by the accession of Greece. As Senator Conroy said, it may encourage us to build up our own navy, which needs building up. This in no way, of course, underrates the contribution being made by the Irish Naval Service to the nation at present. Senator Markey, whose contribution was effective by virtue of its brevity, congratulated Greece on entry, on its return to democracy from the rule of the colonels. He said that Greece's entry to the Common Market would be good if it was to ensure the continuation of democracy in Greece. I have no doubt that will be the case.

Senator Mulcahy made the point that competition is the life of trade and that entry of a new country will not adversely affect the position of existing countries in the Common Market.

I hope I have covered the ground as well as possible on all the points of view expressed during the debate. I am grateful to Senators for the way in which they spoke. On behalf of the Government I again express our pleasure at Greek entry and thank the Greek Ambassador in Ireland and our Ambassador in Athens for the work they have done on behalf of both countries to protect the interests of both countries, to ensure that the Common Market will be a better place because of the presence of a country like Greece.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.