We have come to the conclusion of the second debate in a week in the Oireachtas on the process of European economic and monetary union and of political union. Both debates have been extremely positive in nature and have provided these Houses with the opportunity to explore the issues involved in next week's historic European Council.
I am grateful to all those Senators, from all sides of the House, who have contributed to the debate. I cannot agree with a comment made by my friend, Senator Staunton when he said the debate was a charade. It was particularly important and welcome that a debate on these issues take place in this House, which has an important consultative function under the Constitution in that it is a forum for different social and economic interests to come together and inform the Government. The many and varied contributions that have been made here over the last two days have been an excellent reflection of that. They were important not just in showing solidarity with the Government's position prior to Maastricht, but also, as Senator Doyle pointed out, in fulfilling an educative function by explaining to the people of this country the scope and implications of the decisions to be taken at Maastricht next Monday and Tuesday.
For Ireland, our principal objective will be to solidify our position in the Community, of which we are a committed member, through pursuing an active and positive role in achieving the goal of a closer union. I can assure Senators Mooney and Staunton and the others that in doing so the Government will ensure that Ireland's national interests are protected.
I feel that the debate over the last two days has been constructive, allowing the Government to go to Maastricht secure that there is considerable and tangible support here in the Oireachtas for the positions taken thus far in the negotiations and those which we will adopt next Monday and Tuesday. The negotiations are not yet over and all delegations, including Ireland, will have to show considerable flexibility and determination to reach agreement.
The road to Maastricht has been long and arduous. This country, together with our EC partners, has expended much energy in a year long process of negotiation and it would be disingenuous to travel to The Netherlands unless it was with the aim of seeking agreement. We have made this abundantly clear in the recent past both in domestic and Community fora. However, agreement between all Twelve implies that there must be an element of compromise to take account of different — and sometimes conflicting — national interests. This will mean that for some there will be disappointment that the conclusion will not be more imaginative and far-reaching, while others will argue that an erosion of sovereignty has taken place. I do not share these apprehensions.
I feel that it is important to look at the conclusion of these negotiations in a positive light, and ask whether the Community and its member states are better prepared to face the future than they were prior to the opening of the Inter-governmental Conferences? I am confident that this is the case.
We should not forget that the purpose of these two conferences has been to expand the areas of Community competence, to bolster its institutions and to create new frameworks for common action in the areas of foreign policy and home affairs and judicial co-operation.
In setting such an agenda for itself, the Community had to fulfil an obligation not only to its citizens but to its nearest neighbours on the continent of Europe. Increasingly, the actions of the Community have an impact on the whole world. There is admiration for its unique development and success in harnessing the multiplicity of interests of its member states for the good of all. It undoubtedly played an important part in encouraging change in Eastern Europe where it was respected as a model of democratic values, human rights and fundamental freedoms.
I strongly believe that a closer relationship with the European Community will facilitate the process of reform which is now taking place in all these countries and will ultimately contribute to greater stability in the area.
It is not a secret that many of these countries aspire to eventual full membership of the European Community. They see their economic and political future being intrinsically bound to that of the European Community. They are already seeking to establish a broad political dialogue with the member states of the Community through the mechanisms of the European political co-operation process.
In the light of these developments and in the context of the applications for membership already received from Austria, Sweden, Malta, Turkey and Cyprus, it is possible to envisage in the long term a very different Community from that which now exists.
Clearly there are a number of important implications for the present Community before it could develop into a larger assembly of nation states. The whole institutional structure of the Community, the decision taking process and the financial instruments necessary for sustaining the policies of the new Community and for contributing to the economic and social development of all of its regions would have to be reviewed. All of these issues would have to be carefully examined and the implications for the individual member states as well as the Community as a whole would need to be measured. The outcome of Maastricht will provide a basic framework on which a future expanded Community can be built.
I should like to respond to some of the specific issues raised by Senators and I regret that time will not allow me to respond to all of them.
Senators Upton and Staunton claimed that this debate is taking place too close to Maastricht to enable it to have any real purpose or relevance. I must point out that both Houses of the Oireachtas have been informed of the developments during the Intergovernmental Conferences. In addition to a very full debate in the Dáil on 9 July — following a detailed and comprehensive report by the Taoiseach on the outcome of the European Council in Luxembourg — and last week, this House had the opportunity to discuss these issues in their broad context on 20 June and 24 October during the debate on developments in the European Communities.
Ireland has participated actively in these negotiations and, at a crucial stage — this is important — we tabled texts on education, health, culture and economic and social cohesion. Those issues are of direct concern to the people of this country and are the subject of frequent debates in this House. The Government are aware of the concerns of the Members of both Houses and in preparing their overall negotiating position they took full account of these. We can take some considerable satisfaction from the fact that the proposals we made in the areas I mentioned have been accepted very largely unchanged by our European partners.
Senators O'Toole and McKenna referred to the priority which should be attached to educational policy in the Community. I fully agree with him that this is an area of fundamental importance for the future of the Community. The new provisions of the Treaty will provide the basis for valuable and useful initiatives in the field of education. We will be looking to the Commission to bring forward some imaginative proposals.
Some speakers have voiced a general concern that not enough has been done to develop the social policy of the Community sufficiently to complement the progress being made towards completion of the Internal Market. The Government recognised this and have consistently viewed social policy as one of the key issues under negotiation. For that reason, we insisted, initially with little support, on the overriding need to promote employment. Our tenacity has paid off and there is now a reference to the promotion of employment at the beginning of the chapter on social policy. I note that in the amendments to the Government's motion the question of employment figures largely.
The Government are fully committed to the development of a strong social dimension as part of the overall move towards economic and political integration. We have accordingly participated constructively in the Intergovernmental Conference's deliberations on social policy. Our overall objective is to ensure that the Treaty framework is conducive to the progressive improvement of employee conditions in an economically sustainable way.
As Senators will be aware, the negotiations on the proposed reform of the Common Agricultural Policy are separate from the work of the Inter-governmental Conferences. It is accepted by all member states that the mechanisms of the policy have to be adapted to meet the challenge of the changing circumstances in which it now has to operate. Nevertheless, most countries, including Ireland, have major difficulties with aspects of the Commission approach to reform, a matter which was mentioned by Senators Hussey, O'Reilly and others.
It is, of course, vital for Ireland that the capacity of the agriculture and food industry to contribute to continued economic expansion and to the maintenance of the fabric of our rural society is maintained. Senator Raftery alluded to this in his contribution. Our primary objective is, therefore, to ensure that the viability of the more commercial element of our agriculture is not jeopardised and that the income position of smaller-scale and other vulnerable producers is adequately protected. My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, will continue to pursue these and other important concerns vigorously in the negotiations with a view to securing the optimum result for Irish farmers and for the national economy in general.
Senators have raised many points of detail on European Monetary Union. May I say that the Maastricht Summit will consider the outcome of both Inter-governmental Conferences as a whole and will set in place an overall framework for European Union. We must also look on it in that light, not neglecting of course, the importance of detailed points.
Economic and monetary union is an important part of the whole exercise. It will, as the Minister for Foreign Affaurs stated in his opening speech, be introduced in stages. It will lead to a single currency in the final stage. In 1996 the European Council will decide on a date for that stage to begin, depending on its assessment of the stage of readiness of the various member states.
Ireland intends to be among those who join the final stage from the beginning. We have been following the necessary budgetary discipline since 1987 and are, therefore, well placed to undertake the obligations and disciplines of European Monetary Union.
Senators raised the question of the dangers of a two-speed Europe that could arise if some member states proceed to the final stage of monetary union before others. This is a very valid point, since the Treaty will certainly provide for the possibility of derogations for countries that may not have fulfilled all the necessary conditions for proceeding to the third stage. However, a derogation is in this case temporary, and the conditions of entry for the countries who derogate would not become more difficult later. We could not accept any situation where a small number of member states could go ahead on their own and then set the conditions on which others could join them.
The question of losing autonomy in economic and monetary policy has been mentioned by many Senators. On economic policy, co-ordination of policies will certainly increase. Disciplines, such as on inflation and budget deficits, will also impose disciplines on us. These are necessary disciplines in any case. They are disciplines we have accepted for some years now. On monetary policy, clearly we will have eventually one currency and, therefore, a single monetary policy, in which, of course, we will have our say.
The question of economic and social cohesion has, rightly, been the subject of comment in the debate. It is, indeed, a very crucial aspect of the negotiations. The text of the draft Treaty contains very much strengthened commitments to the principle of economic and social cohesion, compared with the existing Treaty — improvements based largely on an Irish submission at the beginning of the Intergovernmental Conferences. The Single European Act introduced significant commitments to cohesion. These were followed in practice by the Delors Plan, and the doubling of the Structural Funds. One can see the concrete evidence of these funds in any part of the country.
We naturally wish to ensure in every way that the commitments of the Treaty will continue to be translated into action. The strengthened Treaty texts and the political commitments that will accompany them will be of major relevance to this effort.
Senators have also remarked that certain other member states are seeking even stronger additional changes in the Treaty to support cohesion. I can assure the House that Ireland has taken as strong and constructive a line as any member state in the negotiations, and we will continue to ensure that the final package contains the elements that are essential from the point of view of this country.
I have heard criticisms on the one hand that we are not firm enough in insisting on cohesion, and, on the other, that we are damaging the image of Ireland by a begging bowl attitude. Neither is true. The phrase "begging bowl" is one I abhor. Cohesion has nothing to do with the concept of a begging bowl. It is simply natural that a Community or union must ensure, for the health and benefit of the whole union, that there is solidarity between the various parts.
Senators Lanigan and Doyle both referred to the fact that after the construction of the Channel Tunnel, Ireland will be the only member state without a direct land crossing to the other member states. As Senator Lanigan said, we will be the most peripheral of the peripheral member states. The Government are fully aware of the economic implications for the country of this and it is one of the arguments that has and continues to be made for a significant increase in infrastructural assistance.
One of the new chapters in the revised Treaty is that known as trans-European networks. This is, I am afraid, a classic example of the Eurospeak which Senators Doyle and Norris quite rightly dislike. In essence, what it involves is the recognition that in a Single Market in which goods, people, capital and services can move freely, the infrastructures which carry them — energy, transport, telecommunications — should be developed on a European scale sufficient to meet the increased needs of the Internal Market.
We have argued that unless due account of the peripheral nature of certain member states is taken, they will be unable to benefit from the opportunities which the Single Market offers. These concerns were accepted and I am happy to report that specific reference has been made to our needs. If I may quote from the text:
The Community shall take account in particular of the need to link island, landlocked and peripheral regions of the Community.
While the funding of these networks is expected to come chiefly from the private sector, provision will be made for possible Community financial support for projects of common interest. This is an important recognition of the needs of the peripheral parts of the Community. While it will not overcome all the problems we encounter given our geographic location, it is a positive development.
Senator O'Toole raised a question about the use of the word "union" and asked what its relationship to the Community was. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs pointed out in his statement to this House yesterday, the structure of the new Treaty is now made up of three pillars. These are common foreign and security policy, the Community itself and co-operation in the area of home affairs and judicial co-operation. Collectively, all three areas will comprise the union.
Co-operation in the area of home affairs and judicial co-operation has already been taking place between member states at inter-governmental level outside the Community structures. What is now proposed is to intensify the level of co-operation to cover new areas. including the fight against drugs which was mentioned by Senator Lydon.
Senator Lydon also referred to the question of the right to life. It would, therefore, be appropriate to inform the House that the Government, conscious of the concerns which have been voiced, arising from the expansion of the Community into new areas, about the implications for the provision in the Irish Constitution, which protects the right to life of the unborn, have tabled a Protocol to the draft Treaty on the issue which has been accepted by all other member states. This Protocol will now be attached to the final Treaty and will form an intrinsic and legally binding part of that Treaty. The decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard will thus not be affected. I trust that the inclusion of this Protocol in the new union Treaty will assuage the anxieties which may have been felt by certain members of the public.
In reply to Senator Ryan, I wish to point out that the Government are committed to achieving the UN target of GNP for official development assistance and will make progress towards it as economic and financial circumstances permit. However, it is not realistic, given our current circumstances, to expect that it can be reached quickly. In addition, I wish to remind the House and Senator Ryan that under the revised Programme for Government, we are committed to a planned programme of increases in Ireland's official development aid in the period 1992-94, so as to achieve a higher ODA/GNP contribution by the end of that period. I am sure Senator Ryan will not object to the inclusion in the new Treaty of a reference to development association.
Several Senators have referred to our policy on defence and security issues and the implications in the draft Treaty for our traditional positions. I agree that it is important to be clear about this. The new Union Treaty will strengthen Community co-operation on foreign policy and security matters, but it will be inter-governmental co-operation based on unanimity for all policy issues. The text under negotiation does not include a mutual defence commitment, nor would it oblige us to join a military alliance.
Senator Norris said he did not want Ireland to be a member of NATO. Nothing in the European Union Treaty would oblige us to do so. In addition, the draft on the table recognises our specific traditional position on security and defence matters in line with the agreement negotiated by the Taoiseach at the second Rome Summit last year.
Senator Murphy asked whether a future common defence policy would require another negotiation. The answer is yes. Another negotiation would be required to define any common defence policy for the European Union. The Treaty makes a distinction between the long term and the short term. So far as future security is concerned, the proposal in the draft text is that the formulation of a common defence policy is for a later date. This would be taken up in new negotiations in five or six years time. The nature and scope of that policy would be something to be negotiated then. We would participate in these negotiations in line with our long standing commitment to our partners, but the outcome would have to be agreed unanimously.
Senator Lydon and others asked about a European Army. It is important to distinguish between ideas put forward by certain countries for consideration bilaterally or in other organisations of which Ireland is not a member, and what is under negotiation in the European Union. I am glad to be able to clarify this point. The question of a European Army is not under negotiation in the Inter-Governmental Conference. What has sometimes been referred to as a European Army are proposals by France and Germany to strengthen and expand their own joint military co-operation that already exists but that is for those two countries themselves. It does not involve the new European Union.
Senator Lydon also asked whether there would be nuclear weapons on Irish soil. The answer again is no. The new Union Treaty will not involve military obligations of this kind. Ireland has long called for the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. It is a fundamental part of our policy on disarmament and it will continue to be. We shall continue to press in all relevant organisations for the complete and total abolition of all nuclear weapons.
Here I want to make a broader point which responds to points raised by several Senators. What the new Treaty will do is to provide a framework for strengthened co-operation and action between the members of the Community on foreign and security policy. The content of that policy is something that will be defined by unanimity in the years to come on the basis of the general objectives set out in the Treaty.
As in the past, Ireland will bring to these discussions and to the formulation of union policies values and approaches that have always guided our approach to international issues. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has listed some of them — our belief that security is wider than defence, our belief in diplomacy and negotiation as a means of resolving disputes, our support for the rule of international law and our support for the UN and UN peace-keeping.
Senator Honan, in her thoughtful contribution, referred to our Irishness. She is right. Senator Rory Kiely also referred to this. Europe presents no threat to our Irishness. On the contrary, I believe our full and committed participation in the Community and in the European Union will allow the fullest expression of our sovereignty in co-operation with our European partners. Does anyone seriously believe that a French man or woman will be any less French, or an Italian any less Italian, or a Dane any less Danish — or, dare I say it, a Mayoman any less a Mayoman because of membership? Of course not.
We live in an inter-dependent world. In trade, money and international affairs, countries must co-operate and work together if they are to promote their interests and prosper. We should not forget that the ideal of the founders of the Community was to bring their political and economic co-operation to a point when the wars that had scarred Europe twice within a generation would be unthinkable. We have a vital interest in this. This is sometimes lost sight of in the minutiae of negotiations and discussions. I believe that our best interests are being served in closer integration and in co-operation with our European partners. The new European Union will take us a further step in that process.
I commend the motion to the House.