On the last occasion, which was quite some time ago, I was beginning my contribution with the reflection that although in the past, over ten or 11 years' intermittent membership of Seanad Éireann, I had not made any great contribution to these debates, these periodical reviews of the European Communities, because of my lack of commitment to the whole idea of the European Community, and even though I am still very far from being a Community enthusiast, I have changed my position to the extent that I accept our membership as a fact of life. To that extent, therefore, I am motivated to contribute to these debates more than in the past.
I made the point in beginning my contribution the last day that 1992 in many respects is a more important and a more unknown step than our initial membership in 1972-73 and that none of us has any real vision of what may develop from 1992. People like Senator Robinson warned us about deficiencies in the legal sphere and almost every day we are lectured on economic and commercial aspects of 1992. What I propose to do today is to dwell on the broader issues and to do so from the cautious standpoint of one who, although accepting the Community as a fact of life, will continue to be very criticial of the ongoing implications of our membership, keeping a very close, vigilant eye on Ireland's interest in the Community.
When we last considered this matter on 2 November the Minister made the usual bland and conformist contribution to these debates — and I do not mean any reflection on whoever wrote the speech. I would like to take up some of the Minister's points. For example, reference was made to the European Political Co-operation process and, while I intend to say something more about foreign policy later on, let me at this point once again make the observation that if all of us, especially public representatives, are to take an informed interest in the EPC process, obviously we must have the machinery and the mechanisms for being informed. Once again this draws attention to the absence of an Oireachtas joint committee on foreign policy. As the Minister knows, some of us have attempted to make good that omission by setting up our own joint committee. Clearly, that is not satisfactory. I propose at every hand's turn in this House to raise the matter of the glaring absence of any joint committee on foreign policy and the stubborn refusal of the Government to approve such a committee.
With regard to foreign policy and security, the Minister later on makes the point that the super powers hold by far the greatest numbers of nuclear weapons. We all welcome the IMF Treaty and welcome even more the spectacular announcement by Mr. Gorbachev at the United Nations on arms reduction. Nonetheless this is the place where I should comment that the possession of nuclear weapons is not a super power monopoly and that two of our European partners have these disastrous notions of grandeur because the possession of a nuclear weapon is in the worst sense a folie de grandeur, because the idea that you can control your foreign policy by the possession of a nuclear weapon is a kind of madness and it is a madness that we should not entertain. I am coming to believe that Ireland in the Community, far from absenting itself virtuously from discussions on security, should contribute vigorously and contribute with a view to talking sense to its nuclear-obsessed partners. But I have very little hope that that will be done because as far as I can see the main mentality dominating our approach to the EPC is one of conformism and acceptance.
Later on the Minister refers to the Iran-Iraq ceasefire, which was welcomed by the Community. Might I point out that perhaps a little noticed echo of that ceasefire was a statement — I am very sorry I do not have the newspaper reference but there was a definite statement — by a leading Iraqi spokesman which expressed great appreciation of the fact of Ireland's neutrality in this conflict. I think the experts in the field will be able to track down the reference. What I am drawing attention to here is that, in a disastrous conflict that seemed to have little reference to Ireland, it did not escape unnoticed that we do have this image of being impartial and neutral in the world at large, an image which we should be at pains to preserve and expand.
Finally, I endorse in the Minister's speech his reference to the highly appropriate award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the United Nations peace-keeping forces. Since that speech was delivered the prize has been awarded and it was very good to see one of our own soldiers as part of the contingent symbolising the peace-keeping role of the United Nations, something which again is further evidence of the particular image which we have in the international sphere and which we should be at pains to maintain and develop instead of considering abandoning it in the name of some bland common Community policy.
Moving on from the Minister's speech, I would like to refer in the context of developments since January 1988, which are the terms of reference under which we are speaking, to the matter of regionalisation and regional policy. There is a lot of public discontent about our whole approach to the development of a regional policy with a view to availing of the Structural Funds. There is a lot of public disenchantment about this, and I think rightly so. There is a suspicion that the Government have little real interest in developing a real regional policy and there is widespread rejection of what would seem to be a phoney regional policy without any real regard to the needs of communities and regions. Yet, a proper regional development is vital for the future of the Community.
Again, much as we condemned the British Prime Minister in another context in recent weeks, I think we are grateful to her for reminding us of the danger of a Europe of centralisation, a Europe of bureaucracy, though it is somewhat ironic that the warning should come from the prime minister of a state which is itself highly bureaucratic. Nevertheless, the future, it would seem to me, would either be a centralised bureaucratic Community or a Community where there is healthy and evenly balanced regional development. Therefore, an authentic regional policy is vital for us in more senses than one. It is obviously vital for us from the point of view of the economy. I would draw the attention of Members of the House to a letter written to The Irish Times on 8 September by no mean expert in the subject, T.J. Barrington, on this topic of regional development. He reminds us that, and I quote from the letter:
....in no western European country, not even the UK, is local democracy treated with such contempt as in this country. To match this, in few countries is the central bureaucracy so arrogant or so incompetent as ours.
That is the theme of the letter. He draws the contrast, which sounds very impressive, between the respective budgetary or fiscal positions of Denmark and Ireland. Starting from a 1981 base both countries had a large budgetary deficit. In 1981 the deficit of both countries was more than 7 per cent of GNP, but by 1986 Denmark had reached a surplus of 3 per cent where we increased our deficit to 8.6 per cent and it will still be around 6 per cent this year. There has been some but not enough examination of the comparative performance of both countries. I think we should study much more what Denmark has achieved. Certainly much of its achievement has been due to more effective financial management, but much of it has been due to keeping national government in its own place, in reserving the role of national government for national affairs and putting the maximum emphasis on local autonomy and regional control. We would do well to look at that particular model.
Denmark has another interest for us in the Community and it is this. The Danes send a number of MEPs to the European Parliament who are highly critical of Denmark's role in the Community. That is to say they keep the same kind of vigilant eye on Community affairs that I would myself approve of. In Denmark it is not, apparently, regarded as objectionable or evidence of eccentricity that one should be highly critical of the Community. We should develop the same kind of mentality here. From our very first time of membership in the Community there prevailed an atmosphere among what I might call the political establishment that to criticise the EC was seen somehow as slightly odd and disreputable. That consensus among 80 per cent of our politicians still obtains so that the genuine critical attitude to the Community is not appreciated as it should be appreciated, as a mark of genuine doubt as to Ireland's place in the world, but is stigmatised as somewhat insular, backward looking and reactionary. That is not the case in Denmark and that should not be the case here.
In passing I want to refer to the fact that in the forthcoming European elections in the Munster constituency there will be a candidate who will run on Danish MEP lines, that is to say, he will run and if elected keep a watchdog eye on the proceedings in Europe, a watchdog eye on Ireland's behalf, keeping the national interest in mind. He certainly will have my full support in his campaign.
Therefore, regionalisation is obviously a vital aspect of Community development, and not alone for the economy. If we did have genuine regions up and running in Ireland based on the natural needs of particular areas — and let us remind ourselves of the paradox whereby we have inherited the most centralised systems from the UK — there is no country so naturally rich in regions as Ireland. For its size it is a remarkably diversified country and lends a tremendous richness, if you like, to our potential for tourism and so on. Historians in the great revolution of discovery that has been exciting historians for the last generation emphasise the importance of understanding a region in detail in order to understand any particular phenomenon of social, political or economic history. If we could develop regions in accordance with genuine local and regional imperatives it would not alone benefit the economy, not alone restore public confidence, but it might well make a more than minor contribution to our greatest national problem — North-South relations. If we could really develop the country along regional lines many aspects of the ancient quarrel might well become irrelevant or at least show the combatants, if you like, how much they really have in common.
In many respects what is going to happen now is more exciting than what has happened since our entry 15 years ago. Earlier I mentioned the need to look more closely at Denmark but we should look at all regions of the European Community for the lessons it may provide us with in our economic and other policies. Part of our retarded development as a nation is our servile imitation of English models which we adhered to, not alone since the foundation of the State, but which were foisted upon us under the Union. In other words, in the regions of public health and the economy generally we were presented with only one model, the English model, in many respects totally unsuitable for our circumstances. We could have looked to whole areas of Europe for lessons in agricultural policy and so on. Instead, our horizons were contained by the Anglo-Irish prison in which we were bound. Now we have a more pluralistic opportunity to look at models elsewhere. I hope this will enrich us in all the areas of our national life.
Part of the residual servility we have inherited as a result of the long Anglo-Irish relationship is that we have not really thought positively enough of what we can contribute to the Community in its new phase. There is much talk about a rich diversity of cultures, but do we ever really consider seriously this concept that our culture for example, our language, our literary heritage and many other aspects of our culture are unknown in continental Europe? The year 1992, among other things should mean that we should show off what we have and should put it forward for entertainment and cultural satisfaction as part of pluralistic Europe. In offering them our cultural richness, we would rediscover ourselves in turn.
That richness, of course, includes as its brightest jewel, the Irish language and its associated culture. Much has been said about 1992 and the need to learn continental languages. We will all take that as read. There are problems in making a virtually monoglot people acquainted with the idea of other languages. In our own university, for example, we are suddently faced with an influx of first year students who want to learn French, German or Italian. That is welcome but it presents the greatest of problems to small and understaffed departments who are now being asked to act as a kind of Berlitz or cram school of languages, instead of teaching languages in a proper way at university level. That is a problem we have to overcome.
One of the things that is being wrongly said in this new emphasis on the need for us to learn continental languages is that somehow the Irish language must suffer and must make room for the European languages. An entirely false antithesis is being posed between the position of the Irish language and the need for us to acquire European languages. Of course we agree on the importance of European languages.
Do thuigeamar i gcónaí go raibh tábhacht ag baint le na teangacha Eorpacha, agus aontaímid ar fad go mba chóir go mbeimís in ann labhairt le daoine as pobail eile in a dteangacha féin. Ach ní hionann san agus a rá go gcaithfimid ár dteanga féin a thréigint. Ba chóir gur féidir linn na teangacha seo a fhoghlaim de bhreis ar ár dteanga féin, ní in áit ár dteanga féin. Níor chóir go mbeidh orainn roghnú a dhéanamh idir ár dteanga féin agus pé teanga Eorpach a bheadh i gceist againn. Níl aon chúis nach mbeadh gá le ceann nó trí nó ceithre cinn de theangacha Eorpacha a bheith againn mar atá ag go leor de mhuintir na MórRoinne.
Mar sin, tá sé tábhachtach athrú a chur ar an mbéim sin atá á cur faoi láthair agus a rá arís nach aon bhac é ar fhoghlaim aon teanga eile foghlaim na Gaeilge. Ar an dul céanna, ba chóir go mbeadh na háiseanna go léir atá agus a bheidh ar fáil do lucht foghlamtha na dteangacha Eorpacha ar fáil chomh maith do lucht na Gaeilge.
It is important that in agreeing with the need to learn European languages, because we cannot understand our new Community unless we are able to talk in one or more of the languages of that Community, we should emphasise that this does not mean the abandonment of Irish. The Community has committed itself to safeguarding and expanding the role of lesser used languages, as they are called. It should be a leading task of our MEPs and others who are involved full time in the Community to press for the real application of this resolution stressing the importance of the lesser used languages which was moved by the European Parliament.
Though it has not anything directly to do with the motion on the European Communities, it seems that there is in other ways, great hope at the moment for the Irish language despite the rapid destruction of the Gaeltacht areas. I have believed for a long time now that Irish will not survive in the Gaeltacht areas and that the Gaeltacht areas are doomed. Irish will survive outside the Gaeltacht regions and will become a very important flavour of life outside of the Gaeltacht areas. The enthusiasm for Gael-Scoileanna and other expressions of enthusiasm for Irish gives some support to my views.
It is absolutely vital that those who believe in the Irish language should stress that it should have nothing to do with extreme nationalism or terrorism. Some day, in a happier Ireland, the Irish language and its rich culture should be on offer to the Unionists of the North who might see it as something that presents no threat to their own way of life but will be an additional enrichment of their life and perhaps will even recall some of their past history when Presbyterian Ulster was quite involved with the Irish language.
It is vital that we should uphold the language, as against those who would see it only as part of their cultural armoury, as a kind of a supportive blood-stained cultural attribute of provo-ism. The friends of the language need to stand up and be counted in that respect also. I repeat that there is not any real antagonism between the imperatives of European languages and the importance of safeguarding and expanding our own language.
Culturally and educationally, one is glad to note the developments in the Erasmus programmes and the Comet programmes. Those of us involved in third level education find that virtually every day there is some communication to do with the Erasmus programme. More and more of our students are caught up in European university life. Even if one did not believe in the Community and its political goals, obviously one welcomes this European dimension of third level education.
In relation to foreign policy and the general political vision of Europe, I am fearful of 1992 in many respects. Much of the economic optimism about 1992 is on very flimsy ground. I see no reason why in a market which is going to be unified and where there will be a free flow of capital and labour, that free flow should benefit a peripheral part of the Community. The notion that Ireland stands to gain from 1992, without being shown some good reason why, runs counter to the whole general philosophy of the single market. I am fearful of the effects on employment and emigration, and so on. That is why, among other reasons, I favour the candidature of Members of the European Parliament who are not just lackeys and yes men but who will represent the national interest in Strasbourg or Brussels and who will protect the national interest in Strasbourg and Brussels.
I am always surprised that the kind of Irish politician who gets very upset and narky if one suggests relinquishing Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution, because it would be an unacceptable abdication of our sovereignty — though the sovereignty is purely a paper sovereignty, a theoretical sovereignty — frequently has no reluctance in cheerfully surrendering what remains of our State sovereignty to the common pool of the European Community. That is why I am in favour of Danish type Members of Parliament to protect our national interests.
I very much support the idea of looking beyond the Single Market — not on the Single Market alone will Europeans live — to the wider vision of the best kind of European Community. I commend, for all of us who are contributing to similar debates in the future, a series of four articles by Richard Kearney, who is seen as one of our leading philosophers, published in The Irish Times in late October. This series taken from a new book he is editing, Across the Frontiers—Ireland in the 1990s, examines the implications of Ireland's role in the 1990s in Europe. Many of Kearney's ideas have been disputed. I would not agree with all of them myself, but he tries to evoke a vision of a self-respecting Ireland in a diversified Europe in a series of articles which command our attention. In a later debate in this House, on a motion put down in my name and in the names of many Senators, I hope to discuss the implications for our position of nonmembership in any military alliance and the implications of 1992 and after for our neutrality, a word that is shortly, if somewhat unsatisfactorily, descriptive.
The other day I came across a speech that I made on 22 May 1987 in a debate in UCC in the course of the Single European Act campaign. I was struck by one sentence of what I said as being prophetic. I do not wish to be vain but I said on the Friday before the referendum: "If we say ‘yes' on Tuesday, we can be sure that our own politicians will be persuading us in five or ten years time that we cannot expect to enjoy the economic and political benefits of European union while continuing to shirk our defence obligations." I said "in five or ten years time". That was the only flaw in my prediction because it is happening already. Over the last year there has been a flurry of statements from continental politicians and from our own politicians which give us to understand that our non-membership of a military pact is unsatisfactory and fundamentally incompatible with the future of the Community. I do not wish to list a catalogue of names in that regard but Fine Gael Deputies, in particular, have been flying this kind of kite. In Cork, the kite was flown both by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and by the Lord Mayor. I challenged them both publicly to explain what they meant by this rather obscure talk that we could not continue as we were and so far they have failed to answer my challenge. There is a tocsin being sounded that we must play our proper role in some vague and unspecified European defence. I am concerned to dispute that. European politicians, wise and all as they are supposed to be and reverentially as names such as Delors and Tindemans and so on are sounded here, do not understand anything about our neutrality. Tindemans is on record as saying that he understands our neutrality is not a real neutrality, that it is really an expression of anti-Britishness. It may have been in some respects a long time ago. If he is not aware of all the factors that have contributed to our particular outlook on the world over the past 20 or 30 years, someone needs to tell him. I wonder if Commissioner Sutherland and others have been positively telling him about us, rather than passively advocating what they are telling us to do.
Much of the rhetoric we hear from those who talk about us joining a European defence league is really stale cold war rhetoric. I wonder if the people who say these things have really thought deeply about what they are saying. I refer, in particular, to a speech made by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, in Cork on Friday, 2 December 1988, speaking at the Schumann lecture in UCC which laid it on the line that full membership means a defence union. Is he talking about a common militarisation across the board? Is he talking about shedding our blood for Europe, or rather shedding European blood against other Europeans? That is the implication of European defence pact.
Such a defence organisation would have one target only and that would be the Soviet Union. It is obscene that a Europe of vision, a Europe of the future from the Atlantic to the Urals should be thinking in these outmoded cold war terms — especially outmoded now after the dramatic developments of recent months and of the past two years under the most remarkable Russian leader of the century. The idea that the Soviet Union presents the same kind of threat to Western Europe — if it ever did present a threat — as it did in the forties is to ignore the most exciting developments that are taking place.
Much of the thinking in these circles about the implications of 1992 for our foreign policy is not really thinking at all. It is simply rehashing cold war ideas in what is a mistaken belief that it will somehow make us more acceptable to our European partners. That is why I was glad to see that only last week ex-Commissioner Sutherland said something which I took to be rather different. Obviously, nobody can challenge his credentials as a European. He said that whatever place we had in the world we would have it as a member of the European Community. That is something with which I do not agree as we have a standing in the world entirely independent of the European Community.
Nonetheless, I found it interesting that he said that, instead of isolating ourselves in a "holier than thou" way from the various discussions on security which take place, we should be wholeheartedly involved in them, that the real reason we would be seen as being at odds with the Community would be if we said more or less that security was none of our business. He said that we should get in there and contribute. He did not say that that meant becoming a member of a military pact. He did not say that it meant becoming a member of the Western European Union. He said that we should make our own contribution to the meaningful discussions on security within the Community. I would agree with that but by that I would mean things which, perhaps, he might not approve of, for example, that we would be in there telling our partners to stop their cynical arms trafficking, to stop their mad obsession with nuclear weapons and so on, and that we would be there as a force for peace and not as some piddling little contingent of a new communal military policy. However, I hope to return to these ideas later on when we are discussing fully the neutrality motion.
Meanwhile, I repeat that not through the Single Market alone will Europeans live which is why I recommend the Kearney articles and the whole idea of reflecting on what Europe will mean in cultural terms. Up to now at least, the European Community has not inspired the people of Ireland. It has inspired certain people who have a vested interest in Europe and I do not mean anything sinister by that. It has inspired the Eurocrats, and so on but the whole European Community idea has left the ordinary people of Ireland cold. It will be my hope that the implications of 1992, transcending the mere economic and commercial implications, will have something to say that will appeal to the imagination and attract the loyalty of the people in Ireland to the European Community of the future.
