Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Dec 1991

Vol. 130 No. 18

Maastricht Summit: Statements.

I propose to report on the outcome of the European Council at Maastricht on 9 and 10 December. The meeting was attended by the Taoiseach. He was accompanied by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Finance. The main issue before the European Council was the draft Treaty on European Union. The text of the draft Treaty which formed the basis for the negotiations at Maastricht and the documents which set out the agreed changes have been laid before the House. Consolidated texts will be provided as soon as they are available.

Senators will be aware of the main issues involved in the Maastricht discussions from the detailed debate which took place here nearly two weeks ago. I can report that the Maastricht meeting was a success. A new European union has been established. It will contain provision for greater Community involvement in an increased number of areas. It will involve eventual economic and monetary union. A common foreign and security policy will be established. There will be greater provision for social rights within the Single Market which is basic to the operation of the European union.

From Ireland's point of view the outcome is very satisfactory. We will play a full part in the evolution of the new European union. Its development will be to our benefit and in that development our economic and social interests are taken fully into account.

When the Treaty comes into operation in 1993, it will give concrete form to Europe's role in the world. Internally by creating an economic, monetary and political union it will reinforce the gains which have been made since the Community was founded. It will provide the agenda for development for the rest of this decade and into the new millenium. The new European union will reinforce the commitment of the Community to its people through a shared citizenship, economic and social cohesion and a stronger social policy.

The Community's role on the international stage has grown especially since the mid 1980s. With a population of 340 million, the Community now constitutes the largest single trading bloc in the world. Such a unit requires the instruments of a coherent internal and external policy to match its economic capacity. The new Treaty provides those instruments.

Already the Community has shown its ability to act on the international stage, especially in Europe. Within Europe it has provided an example to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as they make the long — and often difficult — move away for totalitarianism. In this regard I would mention the fact that on Monday of this week the Community signed the first association agreements with states in that region — with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Sweden and Austria have indicated their wish to become member states of the Community. It is notable that the Maastricht European Council declared that negotiations on the enlargement can begin after the discussions on future financing are completed in 1992. A Community which is about to be enlarged and which is establishing a network of associates elsewhere in Europe must be equipped with the strong instruments and policies which the new European Union Treaty will bring.

Turning to the main issues which were discussed at Maastricht, I would like to concentrate on the following points: first, economic and social cohesion which involves the principle of Community solidarity in distributing the economic benefits of the Union among states and regions; second, economic and monetary union with its ultimate aim of a single currency; third, social policy and the welfare of the individual citizen; fourth, institutional reform, in particular the so-called "democratic deficit"; and fifth, the common foreign and security policy which will embody the European union's identity in the world.

All of these issues are of vital importance to Ireland. We are fully committed to the concept of European union. This commitment applies to economic and monetary union and to political union. We welcome the fact that the links between these subjects are recognised and that there will be a Single Treaty bringing together the results of the negotiations which have taken place over the last year.

During the negotiations in both the European Monetary Union Inter-Governmental Conference and in that which examined the issues involved in political union, our negotiators were determined to ensure that Irish concerns were accommodated. This objective was achieved without in any way questioning our full adherence to European union.

I will now deal in turn with the five main issues which were discussed during the negotiations on European union. When I spoke in this House two weeks ago, I stressed that cohesion was an important priority for us in the negotiations in both Inter-Governmental Conferences. An economic and monetary union has to have firm provisions for sharing the benefits of the union with the less well off regions. Otherwise it would not be a union worthy of the name and would fail.

Without firm provision on cohesion, economic and monetary union would concentrate the benefits of the union on the already well endowed central areas of the union. This would be gravely damaging to the economic and social wellbeing of the less well off regions, particularly those like Ireland, which are peripheral to and distant from the main economic centres of Europe.

In the negotiations we had a clear strategy. From the outset we sought to ensure that the Treaty contained the fullest possible recognition of cohesion as a basic objective of the Treaty. We also ensured that their recognition had to be accompanied by firm commitments to the measures, including financial measures, to achieve cohesion.

At a very early stage of the Inter-Governmental Conference we took the lead in tabling amendments to the existing cohesion chapter to ensure full recognition of cohesion as a basic objective of the union. We were extremely successful in our negotiations. As a result the new Treaty contains provisions which are highly satisfactory and a substantial advance on the provision of the Single European Act.

These provisions comprise the inclusion of cohesion and solidarity between member states among the basic objectives of the community; the inclusion of rural development among the basic cohesion objectives contained in the EEC Treaty; the requirement that the formulation and implementation of all other Community policies, such as those on agriculture, trade, R & D and state aids, and the implementation of the Single Market, will have to take account of cohesion and must also contribute to its achievement; and the obligation on the commission to report every three years on progress towards cohesion and on how the various policies have contributed to it. These reports are to be accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate remedial proposals.

These provisions will ensure that the cohesion objective is complied with in the future. However, we were not satisfied with Treaty language alone. We made clear in the negotiations and in all bilateral contact with partners that the Treaty would have to be accompanied by firm commitments on practical measures to bring about cohesion. Without these commitments we would find it impossible to accept the Treaty and we could not recommend it to the Irish people.

Ireland was the first member state to advocate that these practical commitments should be contained in a Protocol to the Treaty. This was necessary to ensure that the commitments had the highest legal status short of being in the Treaty itself, which would not be appropriate for details of a programme nature. Thus it was a major success that a Protocol on cohesion was adopted reflecting the concerns and commitments we wished to see included in such a Protocol.

The Cohesion Protocol had clear new commitments which the union must now honour to assist the achievement of greater economic and social cohesion. These commitments include two we were particularly concerned to obtain. The first is that the rates of Community intervention under Structural Funds can be varied to avoid excessive increases in budgetary expenditures in the less prosperous member states. This is a very important provision to have gained as Structural Funds is not beneficial if the burden of the national matching contribution is excessive.

The second new commitment is that the scope of the Structural Funds will now be extended beyond the traditional areas of funding in order to cover the specific needs of individual less prosperous member states. It is quite clear that a widened scope for structural funding is a particular advantage to Ireland and on which will meet a need which has been very evident in the administration of the funds. These two additional commitments will be of major importance in easing our budgetary difficulties in matching increased structural funding.

The Protocol reaffirms the continued role of the Structural Funds and provides that their appropriate size from 1993 onwards will be decided in 1992. This is also a firm commitment which prefigures a further increase in the funds.

The most important achievement in the cohesion area, however, is the provision in the Treaty and the Protocol that a Cohesion Fund will be established before the end of 1993. This new fund will make a financial contribution to action designed to promote cohesion in the fields of the environment and the trans-European networks.

Our particular position in relation to this new fund is acknowledged in the fact that it is provided that in the case of transport infrastructure special attention will be given to island and peripheral regions. This new fund is confined to member states whose GNP per capita is below 90 per cent of the Community average and who fulfil the conditions of economic convergence under economic and monetary union or have programmes underway to do so. Ireland fully meets these criteria.

The Cohesion Fund will have special significance and application in Ireland. We suffer more than most countries economically from our peripheral location from our markets because we export the equivalent of two-thirds of our output. The deficiencies in our transport communications with our export markets impose a heavy economic cost which significantly affects our competitiveness.

As regards the environment, we have a major environmental programme to finance in this decade in reducing water and air pollution and developing our water supplies and water purification systems. We know from our discussions with the Commission that our peripheral and environmental needs were specially intended when the fund was proposed.

It is appropriate that this new fund should have the environment as one of its key objectives. The protection of the environment is an essential issue and one which more than most has transfrontier implications requiring action by the Community on an international scale.

One very important consideration about the new fund is that it will be additional to the Structural Funds. Thus, one of our major concerns that there should be an increased flow of funds to assure and accelerate cohesion has been met. Ideally, we would, of course, like to move towards more automatic transfer mechanisms. However, the result of Maastricht is not sufficient to achieve the degree of political homogeneity which would produce such a mechanism. An automatic mechanism will remain Ireland's long term objective and one which we will continue to pursue in future negotiations.

The outcome of Maastricht, therefore, in regard to cohesion has been an outstanding achievement. First, we have secured a whole range of binding legal provisions in the Treaty. Second, we have secured firm commitments in a legal Protocol. As a result of these provisions we can expect substantial increases in the transfers of resources, thus complying with a fundamental negotiating position which we adopted in the negotiations on economic and monetary union.

Ministers for Finance attended the Council for the discussion of economic and monetary union, which was central to our consideration of the move towards European union. Fortunately, the bulk of the Economic and Monetary Union Treaty provisions had been agreed before the European Council meeting. The main item which had to be considered was the decision-making arrangements for the transition to Stage III of the Economic and Monetary Union, leading to a single currency for the Community. There was a great desire on the part of most countries, including Ireland, to ensure that the process being set in train would be irreversible and would lead within a reasonably short and certain period to the establishment of full economic and monetary union.

The agreement which was reached provides for two possible procedures. The first, which will apply at end-1996, provides for a decision by qualified majority at that time to set a date for Stage III, if a majority of the member states fulfils the necessary convergence conditions for the adoption of a single currently and it is considered appropriate for the Community to enter Stage III. If by the end of 1997 the date for the beginning of Stage III has not been set under this procedure, then the date of 1 January, 1999 will be set. This date will apply automatically, without the need for further decision. However, a decision will be needed, by qualified majority, on which member states fulfil the necessary convergence conditions. Only those countries will move ahead to full economic and monetary union at that time.

The UK and Denmark sought and obtained special Protocols which allow them to take a further decision on their participation in Stage III at the time that the date for transition is being decided. This arose because of special circumstances in those countries. All the other member states, with the exception of the United Kingdom, are firmly committed to moving to Stage III. The United Kingdom at this point is not committed to such a move: neither are they committed against it. They say that the decision to go ahead or not to go ahead will be taken at the time.

I am confident that Ireland will be in a position to move to Stage III of the Economic and Monetary Union with the first group of countries. The convergence conditions which must be met are set out in the draft Treaty documents. They relate to price stability, a sound budgetary position, convergence of interest rates and a stable currency in the exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System. We are already in a better position than many member states to meet these conditions and intend to continue with the necessary policies to sustain and indeed improve this position over the coming years.

Overall, the economic and monetary union decisions now envisage that Stage II will start on 1 January 1994, with the establishment of the European Monetary Institute. Stage III will start any time from 1997 onwards and at the latest on 1 January 1999. The European Central Bank will be set up just before the start of Stage III and the single currency and single monetary policy will apply from the start of Stage III. The economic side of the economic and monetary union will be characterised by close co-ordination of monetary policies and by provisions to avoid excessive budget deficits.

Social policy was certainly the most difficult of the topics under discussion at the European Council in Maastricht and one, as Senators will be aware, where it did not prove possible to reach agreement among the Twelve. For our part, we were determined to ensure that the social dimension of the Community should not be ignored in the process of deeper integration. Our proposal that the promotion of employment should be among the first objectives of social policy was a clear example of this and was accepted during the preparatory work for Maastricht.

It is a matter for regret that the concerns of the United Kingdom could not be met in the course of the negotiations and that as a consequence the other 11 member states felt obliged to agree among themselves on language which was more in keeping with the aims and objectives of the Social Charter and to permit the UK to go its own way.

The outcome of the negotiations on this important subject is that the present Treaty, as amended by the Single European Act, remains unchanged. The other 11 member states have agreed to strengthen the Community's scope for action in the area of social policy by setting out a series of objectives for the Community and the member states. Of particular importance is the extension of those areas where qualified majority voting will apply. Areas of particular sensitivity, such as social security and social protection of workers, will be reserved for unanimity.

The definition of working conditions contained in the list of issues where decisions will be taken by qualified majority lacks the clarity which we would have wished. We will, of course, in any negotiations on draft legislation brought forward by the Commission seek to ensure that in relation to any additional financial burden which may ensure our concerns are taken fully into account. We will be relying on several important aspects of the new Treaty in this regard.

First, the Community now has a strong and comprehensive definition of subsidiarity. This principle will have to be taken into account in the formulation of the social legislation, in particular. Secondly, there is provision that social policy directives must avoid imposing undue burdens on small and medium sized enterprises in such a way that might inhibit their creation and development. Given the situation which now exists on social policy, we will be insisting that this requirement is fully and scrupulously observed by the Commission in its proposals.

Thirdly, there is a requirement that directives should have regard to the conditions in each of the member states. The UK, our major trading partner, is not party to the new social policy, and this could have implications for competition. Again, we will expect that this factor will be fully taken into account by the Commission.

Fourthly, there is the provision, arising from an agreement between the European Trade Union Confederation and the European employers' body taken up by the Intergovernmental Conference, that before submitting social policy proposals the Commission shall consult management about the possible direction of Community policy and that, if the Commission then decides to go ahead with Community action, it will obtain the opinion or recommendations of the two sides of industry on the envisaged proposal.

There will, understandably, be concern that if our major trading partner, the UK, is not party to the new social policy, this could have certain consequences for competition. We will look to the Commission to have due regard to this factor; but it is worth recalling that many countries inside the Community, and indeed beyond, are able to combine high standards of productivity with advanced social legislation.

I believe it was right for Ireland to join with ten of its partners in moving forward in an area of major importance for the Community and for its citizens. To have done otherwise would have led to the possible breakdown of the negotiations as a whole and would have sacrificed gains in other areas of fundamental importance to Ireland and to the Community as a whole.

The need to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the union has been a major issue of the negotiations on political union. I am firmly of the view that in our country democratic legitimacy is guaranteed by the Oireachtas and by our local government system. However, I do recognise the concern that at the European level some deficiencies do exist. The role of the European Parliament and the powers which it has in the legislative process of the Community have been significantly strengthened as part of the agreements reached in Maastricht. The Parliament's position in relation to the legislative process has been strengthened, rights of petition and inquiry have been formalised and the appointment of a Community ombudsman has been entrusted to it.

The most important development, however, is in the area of decision taking where Parliament will now have a right to reject the Council's position in a number of important areas of Community policy. This will allow Parliament to have a greater say and influence on the nature of future Community legislation. The areas which have been selected include education, culture, consumer affairs, research and technology, trans-European networks, environment and the Internal Market.

On 4 December the Minister for Foreign Affairs set out our overall approach to the negotiations on a common foreign and security policy, which was one of the most sensitive aspects of the negotiations on political union. We were anxious to ensure at Maastricht that the European union we were negotiating would have both the mechanisms and the mandate to address the challenges which we will face as a Community as the decade of the 1990s proceeds.

Under the new Treaty a common foreign and security policy is to take shape alongside other policies which took to the outside world, such as the Community's development policy and the common commercial policy. The common foreign and security policy will be based on stated objectives. These are set out in the first article of the Common Foreign and Security Policy chapter and conform closely to our own approach to international relations. The Common Foreign and Security Policy will be determined by the Council — Ministers will no longer wear a separate "EPC hat" when they consider questions of foreign policy. Although the Common Foreign and Security Policy will to a considerable extent take the form of an expanded co-operation broadly based on European political co-operation as now practised, there is also provision for joint action — essentially a more binding form of co-operation — in cases where the member states have clear common interests.

In his speech to which I have referred the Minister for Foreign Affairs set out a number of specific issues which were of concern to Ireland in the negotiations. It was our view that it would have been inappropriate to rely on majority voting in an area such as the Common Foreign and Security Policy, where member states continue to be inspired by different historical legacies and where issues of principle frequently arise. It is largely because of this factor that the Common Foreign and Security Policy is regarded as a separate pillar of the union, although one that stands close to the other pillars.

We have every reason to be satisfied with the Maastricht text on majority voting. Although the door is left open for recourse to majority voting in particular instances, this can only happen through a procedure under which the Council defines by unanimity those matters on which majority decisions are to be taken. Our own interests will be fully safeguarded. But we will be able under controlled conditions to acquire experience of whether and how majority voting can have a useful part to play in the foreign policy field.

Another area to which Ireland devoted particular attention in the negotiations is that of security. The parameters of our approach were first, our readiness to work with our partners towards defining common policies on a broader range of security issues than under the Single European Act; second, our longstanding commitmement that we would be prepared to enter into negotiations on a defence arrangement for the Community; and, third, our sense of the limits of what the Community should attempt to achieve in this field at the present time; it was our position that the scope and nature of a common defence policy would be matters for a future negotiation and would have to be agreed by unanimity. Our negotiating objectives in this matter have been fully achieved.

The Treaty provides that the policy of the union will not prejudice the specific character of Ireland's security and defence policy. This provision, in Article D of the Common Foreign and Security Policy chapter, reflects the recognition of our traditional position which was secured at the second Rome Summit last year. It is a formulation which demonstrates, I believe, the goodwill and understanding with which our Community partners addressed Ireland's concerns.

The Treaty also makes it clear that joint action by the European union will not extend to defence issues. As far as decision and actions of the union have defence implications, they will be matters for the Western European Union. Any requests made by the European union to the Western European Union must be agreed by unanimity among the Twelve.

It is envisaged that the security aspects of the European union will be reviewed in 1996 at a further inter-governmental conference. This too corresponds to our preference. It entails an evolutionary approach to the development of European union and an approach to which Ireland will contribute fully.

The background to the security provisions of the Maastricht Treaty is, of course, the major transition which is underway in European security affairs generally. I do not need to spell our those changes. They involve a recasting of NATO's role, a stronger western European identity in the security field, enhanced prospects for confidence building, arms control and, in general, for a spirit of mutual accountability and responsibility through the full range of security issues in Europe.

At Maastricht the nine members of the Western European Union have in a separate declaration set out their views on the future of European defence, including the practical organisational arrangements they intend to make to enable the Western European Union to implement issues referred to it from the European union. The matters covered by this declaration are essentially for the members of the Western European Union. From Ireland's point of view, although we understand their desire to proceed in this way, what is important are the legal commitments we ourselves will enter into through the European Union Treaty itself. These are the only obligations that we will take on; these will not involve us in a mutual defence commitment; they will not oblige us to join an alliance. The Treaty will not involve us in taking on obigations under the Western European Union Treaty or subscribing to policy platforms adopted by the Western European Union.

The advanced and stable societies of the Community — a Community which has such economic weight — have a responsibility to act coherently and positively on the international stage, not least where our European neighbours are concerned. The instability which threatens relations between the republics of Yugoslavia, the profound changes occurring across the territory of the Soviet Union, are illustrations of the urgency of this task.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy provisions of the Treaty give the Community the mechanisms needed to live up to its responsibilities. What is now important is to define the actual policies to be pursued. I believe Members of this House will share my satisfaction that in an enterprise so central to the future of Europe, and so important to the wider world, Ireland has an equal place at the table. We will not fail to bring to discussions under the Common Foreígn and Security Policy the values which have long been characteristic of our approach to international relations.

The outcome of Maastricht and the new Treaty which was agreed there will require careful and mature consideration in the months ahead. The Government are committed to encouraging the fullest debate on the issues involved. In advance of Maastricht we arranged detailed debates in both Houses. The Government will publish a White Paper on the new Treaty early in the new year. In order to permit ratification a referendum will be necessary and the Government intend to ensure that the people are fully aware of all of the issues involved before they are asked to decide.

In the course of next year, both the Dáil and the Seanad will have a series of opportunities to discuss the Treaty and related issues involving Ireland's participation in the new European union. I am sure that as a result of this deep consideration of the issues involved by the Irish people and by their legislators we will be able to renew the commitment to the European vocation which Ireland has espoused for three decades.

There can be no doubt that the new Treaty marks a historic step forward by the Community. It will have immense consequences for the future development and prosperity of Europe as a whole. The Community's role as a source of political stability and as an economic powerhouse has been reinforced. Its attraction to other parts of Europe is clearly evident. Ireland has participated fully in this historic development. Other coutries in Europe are now seeking to follow the path of membership which we took nearly two decades ago. They realise that in the Community they will find the support and solidarity which we have found since 1973. The new union will increase this solidarity. In its provisions on cohesion there is a clear indication of the very high degree of commitment to the less prosperous regions. The social dimension underlines the fact that the Community is not simply a monetary and economic entity but has a wider concern and duty to its citizens. The new chapter on Community citizenship is also relevant in this respect.

The Maastricht European Council represents a crucial step in the creation of a Community that is responsive to the needs of its citizens, that is conscious of its role in the world, that is equipped with the necessary economic and monetary powers to provide a stable and prosperous environment and a high degree of solidarity between its regions, that is conscious of the importance of the natural environment, the health and education of its citizens and, not least, of their culture, which has both a common heritage and immense diversity.

The Government are very glad to recommend the outcome of Maastricht both to this House and to the Irish people.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement on the Maastricht Summit. However, unlike the Minister I do not see it as being the panacea for all our ills.

The summit set out to change the Treaty and bring about economic and monetary union, political union and changes in the Social Charter. To some extent it succeeded, particularly as regards economic and monetary union though we still have a problem with our nearest neighbour and our largest trading partner. Britain had a clause inserted which allows them to opt out of the single currency. We will be the only country in the Community with a land border with people who will have a different currency. We will have to change our money and go through all the difficulties and costs that money changing imposes upon people when trading or travelling.

Our neighbours had a problem with the Social Charter and opted out altogether. I wonder if the 11 can sign a Treaty. This is a Community of 12 countries. I doubt if it is legal for the 11 to sign a separate Treaty excluding Britain, on the Social Charter. I hope it is not legal because we will be put at a disadvantage vis-á-vis Britain, the only other English-speaking country in the Community and one of our biggest competitors in attracting mobile capital for setting up industry. We do not want to see Britain gaining a competitive advantage over us in attracting capital simply by using cheap labour, having poor working conditions or whatever.

Political union is a mixed bag. The Treaty creates a European union covering the Community's existing and increased responsibilities and has specific new features. These are: the creation of a common foreign and security policy covering the formulation in the longer-term of a common defence policy, although for the present this policy will retain an essentially intergovernmental character; an increase in the role of the European Parliament which includes specific measures such as a right of inquiry, a more formal right of petition and the appointment of an ombudsman plus an improvement in the Parliament's legislative power by the introduction of the co-decision procedure: redefinition or extension of Community competence in education, training, research and development, environment, trans-European networks, industry, health, culture, consumer protection and development co-operation.

For the first time, citizenship of the union was introduced with certain specific rights for citizens. For the first time, too, the Treaty covers a substantial range of issues in the area of judicial and internal affairs but a large part of this is also intergovernmental. The Treaty and an annexed Protocol also reinforce existing commitments towards cohesion, levelling up living standards or so it seems but I have my doubts about that. It includes a provision for a new Cohesion Fund.

The Commission will in future be appointed by member states after investiture by the Parliament. From 1 January 1995 the term of office will be five years to coincide with the term of office of the European Parliament.

My party, as part of the Christian Democratic Movement which is reponsible more than any other political movement in Europe for the Community we have today welcome most of these developments. We are committed to a single currency, to a stronger European Parliament, a deeper political union and the greater distribution of the wealth generated in the Community. We have always made that quite clear. I have personal reservations about the commitment in relation to cohesion. True, there is a commitment to set up a new Cohesion Fund for the poorer regions but there is no indication of the size of that fund. There is no guarantee that this would be in addition to existing Structural Funds. In my view, the commitment is probably not legally binding although the Minister has a different view on that.

I doubt if there is real commitment to cohesion in the Community. A country such as Ireland has only two real natural resources apart from its people, agriculture and fishing, and development of these resources has been capped. A country that depends so heavily on agriculture and fishing should get better treatment. We will never achieve cohesion or convergence on the basis of handouts alone. The only way we can reduce the disparity between ourselves and the richer parts of the Community is to develop our economy with the aid of Cohesion or Structural Funds. Being deprived of developing the only two natural resources we have will forever prevent us achieving the standards of wealth in the centre of the Community.

Let me put it another way: even if our economy grew at twice the average of the Community, which is a most unlikely scenario given our history to date, it would take us between 20 and 30 years to reach the standards obtained in Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Germany, France and Italy. In other words, we will not see cohesion given the present circumstances, given our performance to date and the fact that we are no longer allowed to develop the areas where we have some comparative advantage. It is a mirage and it is a cruel deception to lead our people to think it is otherwise.

We deserve a better deal for the following reasons. I welcome economic and monetary union and have always argued for it but we must, at the same time, recognise that this will deprive us of the right to use the exchange rate to protect the competitiveness of our industries. If cohesion is to be achieved we will need compensation to guard against this. The proposed reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy, as we are all aware and nobody can deny, will have a very serious impact on our income nationally and at farm level. There will be a drop of between £500 and £600 million in output from agriculture. That is almost equivalent to the entire Structural Funds we get per annum from the Community. On the one hand, we are getting something from the Community which is only right and proper but, on the other hand, changes in policies made in Brussels take something out of the other pocket from us just as fast.

The changes in eastern Europe may cause a disproporationate loss to an agriculturally dependent country such as Ireland. There is no doubt that since the reunification of Germany the centre of gravity has moved to the east in the Community. With the fall of communism in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union it is inevitable that mainland Europeans will be more concerned with peace, stability and markets on their eastern flank then they will be about poverty on the periphery in the west. There is little doubt about that. In order to achieve that, more Community money will be donated to the east and they will be granted access to the Community markets particularly for goods that are competing with ours — agricultural goods and commodities such as beef, milk, bacon, grain and so on. It is a process that is irreversible. Apart from pragmatic reasons for doing so the Community has a moral obligation to help in the east but I am afraid that it will be at our expense unless we are given some extra consideration in that area. It is a contradiction in terms to say we will have cohesion or convergence because we are getting a few thousand million pounds over a period of years when at the same time the potential of our agriculture and fisheries is not only contained but be cut back as a result of changes in the Common Agricultural Policy. I wonder if wealthy European taxpayers will get tired of sending us a few pounds. I would prefer to see us getting opportunities than handouts.

It is important to recognise that, with the exception of Britain, the declared aim of all the states who gathered at Maastricht was to build a genuine federation, in other words, to build a kind of United States of Europe. Federations like the US operate on the basis of automatic transfers from rich to poor. Europe cannot claim to be a genuine federation if transfers from rich to poor depends on good contacts and special pleading. It should be automatic but I do not think it will be. We should be entitled to opportunities rather than pleading for handouts.

There is no commitment to consider an elected European Senate. I welcome the changes and the increased powers of the European Parliament. This will probably focus the minds of the electorate to pay more attention to European elections and we will have a higher turnout at the polls. It will also emphasise the importance of being associated with the more influential groups in the European Parliament. I am happy to say that Fine Gael are associated with the most influential political movement in the Community — the Christian Democrats — which is not only a powerful political force in ten of the 12 countries, it also has six European Community Prime Ministers. If we do not have a system of getting true representation in the European Parliament, we may suffer for it. One possible scenario would be to have a Senate, a second chamber, where each country would have representation, not based on its population but similar to the United States Senate, where even the smallest state in the union — which I think is New Hampshire — has the same representation in the Senate as the state with the largest population — California, with about 30 million people.

The tax and revenue provisions underpinning the Treaty are weak. It cannot be an effective federation or bring about the kind of cohesion we want without an effective means of collecting a sufficient amount of tax to achieve all its objectives. The legal structure of the Treaty is weak. The Commission, the traditional guarantor of small states, is effectively excluded from taking the initiative in large areas of work — justice, defence and foreign policy. There are many other criticisms I could make but I will sum up how this will affect various areas in the short amount of time I have left.

For the traveller particularly the first big difference it will make — except for people going from southern Ireland to northern Ireland — is that we will use a common currency, whether in Cork or Copenhagen, Athens or Athenry, to buy a pint, a loaf or whatever. That is an enormous advantage to people who are travelling and to those doing business because there are massive costs involved in currency exchange, and there is a disincentive to invest, borrow and so on because of currency exchange risks.

Central banks will be largely independent of their governments. Already the German Central Bank, the Bun-desbank and the Dutch Central Bank are largely independent. Central bank policy will be decided by an autonomous institution with very little, if any, poliical interference. National central banks will turn into sub-bureau of the European EUROFED or the European Central Bank. Finance Ministers will lose some sovereignty, there is no doubt about that, and we might as well admit it and accept it. I do not shed too many tears about that because we have used our sovereignty in economic and monetary matters very badly and to the disadvantage of the electorate. Finance Ministers will not be able to use the kind of mechanisms they had in the past to curry favour with the electorate.

New rules will encourage Foreign Ministers to agree on common foreign policies for some subjects. A special foreign policy secretariat in Brussels will become an embryo EC Foreign Ministry. I am sure the Commissioners and Commission officials will not be too happy with that. They will be playing second fiddle in the area of foreign policy. Governments will find it harder to pursue policies at odds with the rest of the European Community as Britain did when it lifted sanctions against South Africa and, more recently, as Germany was trying to do in giving recognition of Croatia. We will have to act in unison.

On defence, our soldiers could find themselves fighting under the banner of the Western European Union which will become the European Community's defence wing. If the European Community Governments decide on joint military action, for instance, in the Middle East or in Eastern Europe, they may ask the Western European Union to run it. NATO will, of course, continue to handle defence against any attack on its members but the more troops the US pull out of Europe — and that is an inevitable process I believe — the more such a role will fall upon the Western European Union.

In relation to citizenship, citizens of EC countries will have the right to live anywhere in the Community. When outside their own country they will be able to stand and vote in local and European elections. Outside the Community they may get consular help from any European Community Government. Citizens may petition the European Parliament and if they feel badly treated by European Community institutions, they may complain to the European Community ombudsman.

Workers in 11 countries can expect more laws intended to improve their lot. I welcome that but, unfortunately, our neighbours and our biggest trading partners do not see fit to grant workers in their country the kind of rights and working conditions the other 11 Community countries are prepared to offer and guarantee. Unfortunately, that could have serious consequences for us. They are out nearest neighbour, our biggest trading partner and our biggest competitor for mobile foreign capital.

Crooks and gangsters will probably find the going a little tougher. They will find it harder to escape the law by crossing the European Community's internal frontiers. A new body, Europol, will act as an information exchange for the struggle against drug dealing, terrorism and other international crime. Asylum seekers and immigrants will face simpler, perhaps tougher, rules when they try to enter the Community. Its members will work towards common rules for people wanting to enter or live in the Community. This will be one of the big difficulties facing the Community in the foreseeable future with immigrants coming from parts of the Soviet Union. Germany is already under terrible pressure from millions of these people claiming German extraction; under the German constitution, they are obliged to accept anybody who can prove they are of German extraction.

In 1993 members of EFTA can start negotiations to join the Community and after EFTA there will be other countries lining up — Malta, Cyprus, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic countries and, I expect, the Ukraine and probably Byelorussia.

I welcome the Treaty changes in general. I cannot see that we will achieve the fruits of this Treaty that other areas will achieve. Our biggest problem, as I have already said so many times in this House, is that our main source of capital or wealth generation is now frozen at a particular level of development. To give a specific example, our milk quota per hectare is only one-ninth of what the Dutch have achieved because they had reached that level of development before the introduction of the quota system. Those countries who joined the Community earlier and had developed their agriculture and fisheries got a much better deal than we did, but we should remember that there is no other country in the Community as dependent on agriculture as we are and we do not have the resources of countries like Germany, France, Italy, Holland or Denmark. We depend heavily on agriculture and that source of wealth and job generation is now constrained. I fear that the Cohesion Funds will not of themselves be able to give us the standard of living and job creation we aspire to.

My party support this Treaty change and I support it with reservations. There is no realistic alternative.

In welcoming the debate on the Maastricht Treaty we should say that it is not the end but rather the beginningn of the debate. So many elements make up the Treaty that we should set aside time each month over the next few months to debate them. As Senator Raftery said, it is not the panacea for all our ills but, nevertheless, it is a step forward and has been inevitable since the Treaty of Rome was entered into 34 years ago.

European monetary and political union will not solve our problems or those of other countries, but will provide the basis for a more successful economic, political and social union within the Community countries. Ireland has done reasonably well in the negotiations so far. We have done exceptionally well in certain areas and have a long way to go in others.

I do not agree with Senator Raftery that since the British have not gone along with some of the provisions of the Treaty we should not welcome it. He said that if Britain did not opt in we would have a major supplier and customer with a different monetary system. The Protocol referring to the UK is called the opt-out clause: the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by its Government and Parliament. There is nothing there that says they will not opt in; it suggests that they can, by decision of the Government and Parliament, opt in. The United Kingdom shall notify the Council whether it intends to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union before the Council makes its assessment under Article 109 F. Unless the United Kingdom notifies the Council that it intends to move to the third stage, it shall be under no obligation to do so. The United Kingdom shall not be included among the majority of the member states which fulfil the necessary conditions to move to economic and monetary union. The United Kingdom shall have the right to move to the third stage provided only that it satisfies the necessary conditions.

There is a long way to go between now and the third stage of this union. The political situation in Britain and throughout the rest of Europe could change. This Protocol was necessary for Mr. Major at a time when his support in England was not as great as he would like. He wanted to come back from the Maastricht Summit with the semblance of having won something. He did not want Maastricht to be seen to be too powerful. The fact that he blocked EC powers in relation to employment allowed him to claim a triumph, but it is triumph with a very small "t".

The inclusion of cohesion and solidarity between member states in the basic objectives of the Community is a great step forward as is the addition of rural development in the basic cohesion objectives in the Rome Treaty. The requirement that the formulation and implementation of all other Community policies — agriculture and trade policies, the policy of research and development, State aids, and the implementation of the Single Market — must take account of cohesion and contribute to its achievement. The fact that all these things must take account of cohesion means there will benefit for Ireland; Ireland will have a better transfer from the Social Fund and from the special funds that will be set up.

The requirement is that the Commission report every three years on the progress towards cohesion, how the various Community policies and funds and national policies contribute to it, and these reports have to be accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate remedial proposals. Senator Raftery stated that the new Cohesion Fund would not be in addition to current Structural Funds but my impression is that the Treaty provides for extra funds. The Protocol reaffirms the continued role of the Structural Funds and provides that their appropriate size from 1993 onwards will be decided in 1992. This is also a firm commitment which can only be interpreted as presaging a further increase in funds in view of its linkage to the Community in the area of economic and social cohesion.

Our biggest success, however, in the area of cohesion was the provision in the Treaty and the Protocol that a Cohesion Fund will be established before the end of 1993 to make a financial contribution to action designed to promote cohesion in the fields of environment and trans-European network. These are two major areas for us because we have special needs that do not apply to the rest of Europe. When the Channel Tunnel opens, probably in 1994 the British will find themselves in a better situation when it comes to the trans-European network. The new fund is confined to member states whose GNP per capita is below 90 per cent of the Community average and fulfil the conditions of economic convergence under European Monetary Union, or who have programmes under way to do so. Ireland fully meets these criteria. When we talk in terms of the member states working towards economic convergence, it is essential that our national debt should not increase. It must be reduced or we will have a tremendous problem meeting the criteria.

It has been suggested that for price stability there should be an inflation rate of no more than 1.5 per cent above the average of the three EC countries with the lowest price rises. Long-term interest rates should be within two percentage points of the average of the three members with the lowest rates. National budget deficits must be less than 3 per cent of GDP and the public debt ratio must not exceed 60 per cent of GDP. Our internal budgetary task over the next few years is to get as close to these criteria as possible.

National currencies must not have been devalued in the previous two years and must have remained within the normal 2.25 per cent fluctuation margin to the exchange rate mechanism. At present we stand reasonably well on the criteria that would establish the European currency. On long term Government bonds we satisfy the criteria; our inflation rate is similarly satisfactory. Our budget deficit is too high — Belgium has the highest public debt percentage of GDP and we are second at 103 per cent of GDP. The criteria on public debt are not met by us. Our currency comes within three of five parameters and it is only by strict budgetary control over the next few years that we will be able to satisfy all parameters set down. France, Luxembourg and Denmark are probably the only countries at present to satisfy the criteria. Britain just about satisfies them and we are on the same level as Germany and Belgium, while Holland, Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal do not meet the criteria. Greece and Portugal do not satisfy the criteria in any area; Spain does on public debt only and Italy satisfies the requirement that a currency should not have been devalued and should be within a 2.25 per cent rate of fluctuation.

Budgetary control is extremely necessary. The extra fund will have special significance and application to Ireland because we suffer more than most countries from deficiencies and inefficiencies in our transport communications while our mainland is relatively far away. There will have to be dramatic improvements in the funds made available to us for improvements to national roads, harbours, airports, ferries and transport facilities generally. I am glad that within the last week the Government gave the go-ahead in terms of finance for the Bellferry service in County Kilkenny, which will be the biggest ferry port in Ireland, even though the Waterford people consider it a Waterford development. It was welcomed and announced by the Taoiseach recently in Waterford but we should not forget that Bellferry Limited will have their main ferry port in County Kilkenny.

It should be in Waterford.

No, it is exactly where it should be.

I think there is a dispute of Yugoslav proportions going on down there.

As long as we get the rates from it we will not mind where it is. It was unfortunate that Senator Raftery and I were dealing with the same set of economic papers when looking at this item because his summing up formed part of my speech, and it was taken directly from the Brussels correspondent of The Economist of 14 December.

I would like to refer the Minister to one item stating that asylum seekers and emigrants will face simpler but perhaps tougher rules when they try to enter the Community and that members will work towards common rules for people wanting to enter or live in the Community. The EC is committed by 1993 to common policies on how to deal with asylum requests. The reason I mention it is that during Maastricht 300 Jews from the Soviet Union were seeking asylum in Holland, in Eindhoven, a holding place for refuge seekers. Of these 300, some had come from Israel having left the Soviet Union originally. They did not want to stay in Israel so they went to Budapest and then flew to Holland. They are now being expelled by the Dutch Government and were told by the Dutch authorities refusing them refugee status that they would be given the option of returning to the Soviet Union or settling in the former Dutch South American colony of Surinam. The prospect of going back to the Soviet Union or of going to Surinam was not found acceptable. Dutch Jewry suffered greatly at the hands of the Nazis, yet Holland is now expelling Jews who want to stay in Europe. They are going back to Israel against their will.

Sending them to Israel is scarcely sending them to concentration camps.

Because of changes in the Soviet Union and in Russia these people could get passports which would allow them to stay in Europe or to go anywhere else, but they are being sent back to Israel against their wishes. According to European protocol refuge and asylum seekers are to be helped, yet at the time of Maastricht the very opposite was being done.

A racist emigration policy on the part of Maastricht.

It is important to understand that the new fund on cohesion which will be suitable for us is in addition to the Structural Funds. It is one of our major concerns to ensure an increased flow of funds so that cohesion objectives can be met. The outcome of Maastricht in regard to cohesion has been an outstanding achievement. We have secured a range of binding legal provisions in the Treaty and, in addition, have secured firm commitments in a legal Protocol which far exceed in status and certainty the declaration of the Structural Funds adopted on the occasion of the Single European Act.

Between the Treaty provisions and the Protocol provisions we can expect substantial increases under more flexible conditions than ever in the transfer of resources to aid our cohesion. This was our fundamental negotiating position in agreeing to economic and monetary union.

The free movement of goods throughout Europe is of major importance to us and Europe generally has suffered because of difficulties in moving goods throughout the Economic Community, as it was called up to now. A few years ago a survey stated that 9.5 per cent was added to the cost of goods in Europe because of difficulties in paperwork and difficulties associated with transferring goods from one EC country to another. We have experienced problems associated with exporting Irish goods when because of paperwork and foul ups, goods have been held for quite a long time. This has often proved costly and resulted in 9.5 per cent being added to goods as they move around Europe.

There could be no European union without a single currency. The situation at present is ludicrous with different currencies in each European country. Mention was made earlier of problems associated with banking. The cost of changing European currencies is much too high at present. The banking system, whether the main banking system or a sub banking system all charge too much for this service. It is essential that money for capital purposes be free to move around Europe as well as money for services and for personal use.

To have common rules on competition, taxation and the approximation of laws is extremely important because without a common taxation regime there is no point in having a European union. Of course there will be problems associated with this levelling off of taxation particularly for Ireland in terms of VAT. Major problems may arise with certain goods; the lower level of VAT will go up but we have a very high level of VAT and it is essential to reduce it. I hope the common VAT level to be fixed will not be any more than 15 per cent. There is talk of 15 to 18.5 per cent but I hope it will go no higher than 15 per cent.

A major environmental concern will be the low environmental standards tolerated in former East Germany; significant expenditure will be required to raise that economy to a reasonable level of efficiency particularly in environmental areas. I hope that can be done without depleting moneys available to support less well off areas in the rest of Europe.

The debate today is a general debate on what took place only a few days ago. We do not have copies of the actual Treaty nor have I seen a copy. We are relying on documentation sent out before the Treaty and on recent newspaper cuttings and in this case the speech made today by the Minister, Deputy Calleary. I thank him for his excellent speech and for the excellent statement made on 12 December in the Dáil on Maastricht.

There is a long way to go before we can get to grips with the implications of this Treaty but the Minister did say that a White Paper will be issued shortly which will, no doubt, give a better indication of future implications. There is a long way to go also before Irish people will be satisfied that their needs will be met by the contents of the Treaty. Nevertheless we are going down the road of ever closer union in Europe and that has to be welcomed by everybody. The problems associated with the Treaty can be ironed out and I am sure we could meet here regularly to discuss the various elements that make up the Treaty. There is no point in going on dealing with it in this broad way but I welcome the fact that the debate was brought to the House today.

May I have the agreement of the House for Senator Brendan Ryan and Senator Norris to share 20 minutes. Is that acceptable to the House? Agreed.

I am intrigued by the contradictions of Europeans in this country. Many of the most passionate advocates of European union fail to understand the degree to which European economic and social policy has been a direct antithesis of the advice given to Irish Governments. Most of the developed countries of Europe favour activist states with relatively high levels of taxation, including personal taxation as in Germany, state involvement in the priorities of the economy and state involvement in many areas which in this country we consider a bad thing. We have a vision of Europe which seems to me more properly to be a vision of the United States of America which many of our advisers would pretend is effectively a mirror image of Europe. With all its limitations, Europe is the centre of economic and social policies based on values much easier to subscribe to than those of the United States of America, values relating to the collective provision of healthcare, education, income support and housing. The procedures for collective provisions may vary but the principles exist.

One of the great contradictions inherent in this country's view is that most of the advocates of Europe on both sides of this House in their domestic policies advocate a view of the world which is a direct antithesis of what has been successful on the Continent of Europe. They are more more attached ideologically to the outmoded and socially disastrous experiment of Thatcherism in Britain over the past ten years.

The other thing that intrigues me is the imagery that comes to mind when you watch successive Irish Governments dutifully expound their position as good Europeans. It reminds me of a small boy desperately trying to be allowed to play with the big boys and who glows with pride when he is finally let in for a moment to play with them. Every time one of our Government leaders is allowed they get this feeling, whether Taoiseach or Minister for Foreign Affairs, that they are being allowed to play with the big boys. They may get this wonderful feeling it may feel good but it does not make a scrap of difference because the structures and the institutions are loaded against us.

Of course little boys get even more excited when the big boys let them play with their toys and they are going to let us play with their guns now. Are we not doing very well? That really is the bottom line, because let us remember that the National Economic and Social Council warned this country in report No. 89 that the Single Market will be bad for this country without a degree of cohesion in Europe which nobody dreams can be achieved. Let us be careful about it. The NESC report said that economic and monetary union without central fiscal union also which would involve large-scale transfers from the European centre to the periphery would result not in even distribution of the gains of free trade but in the cementing of inequalities because of what it calls economies of scale. I have heard nobody on either side of this House, in the other House or on television address those arguments. They have gone on vaguely about cohesion but let us remember what is said about cohesion.

The same economist who wrote the NESC report which was accepted by Government, industry, trade unions and agriculture, wrote in the publication, Economic and Monetary Union published by the Institute of European Affairs on the faulure to achieve cohesion up to now, that the faulure was not just due to insufficient structural funds; clearly, increasing funds will not do. The author of the NESC report said in that other publication that knowledge of the nature and processes of regional development has not reached a stage where plans capable of reversing regional decline or initiating regional growth are available. In other words, those who have advised us, those whose views the Government accept, tell us that they do not know whether it will work. I would like either this Minister, some other Minister or somebody to address that and tell me why they think that extra expenditure will achieve cohesion.

Are we hanging on to the coat tails of the big boys in the hope of a gesture indicating they recognise our existence, that we are not so puny that, though we hang on to their coat tails, they do not even notice we exist? We want them to look around and recognise our existence and throw a few bob in our direction. If there is a coherent economic policy behind the talk about cohesion, I have not heard read or seen it. It does not exist in the paper on economic and monetary union, nor in the NESC report; it does not exist in various ministerial speeches or anywhere else. It is a hope, an aspiration and no more than that.

There is a lot more one could say on this but because people always ask what the alternative might be I will say what we could have done. We could have insisted that the price for economic, monetary and political union for this country would be the restoration of this region of Europe's control over its own fishery resources. We could have said we are now a region of Europe, that nations do not exist anymore, and logic dictates that the resources of this region should be used in this region. We could once and for all stop giving away the richest fishery resources in Europe to every other region of Europe. We could have insisted that all those who catch fish in this regional area should process their product here, but we did not. We watched the spectacular hand over of that asset 20 years ago and we did nothing about it. We could have insisted on specific guarantees for Irish agriculture in terms of the development of organic agriculture for the future but we did not.

We have aspirations and hopes and we end up with European dole to replace farmers dole for an increasing number of farmers. We could have insisted on the right to continue to give preference to recognised indigenous industries growing to the scale where they would overcome the economies of scale built into the European Single Market concept. We could have insisted on special provisions to ensure that domestically originating innovations and development would be developed and processed in this country.

The major multinationals of Germany, etc., are not going to hand over to us the rights to develop our own ideas; they will be ready and willing to buy them. I invite anybody to read the NESC report to inform themselves on the concept of an economy of scale to see how they might maintain their monopoly on knowledge, on new ideas or their control of new ideas. Everything we need to draw back to ourselves the imbalances, the inherent disequilibrium related to economies of scale, has been taken from us. Instead we have to promise to be good boys. We could have had compulsory transfers related to the degree of divergence from the average per capita GNP, but we did not.

Let me remind the House that the aspirations, or promises as the Minister called them, would be the sort of promise any President of the United States would make about economic cohesion there; yet, they still have the Appalachians and other regions of appalling inequality. They have not achieved cohesion in that single market after 200 years, while we are supposed to believe that vague promises will achieve it. That is one half of it.

The social side of this Treaty I will leave to the derision of history. The idea that we are now going to negotiate toughly for a Social Charter which will guarantee our workers rights that British workers would not have is a joke. The Government have been very clever and have left it to the British to scupper the Social Charter. Now they know that issue is on the long finger and will never achieve much because we will not allow anything that would make our competitive position in the ideological rigidities that dominate our thinking any less significant.

In the three minutes remaining I want to address the issue of so-called security and the obscenity of the word "defence". I love the idea that we are not involved in a defence arrangement; we are simply arranging that other people will carry out this obscenity called defence on our behalf. Let this House remember that the Western European Union is not a European defence arrangement. The Western European Union claims the right to act anywhere in the world in defence of so called European interests. It would for instance, have smiled benevolently when France murdered a Greenpeace activist in New Zealand because that was European interest. How dare these troublesome environmentalists object to a European nuclear deterrent being developed at the expense of the peoples of the south Atlantic? So one of the Governments of the Western European Union deliberately and cold-bloodedly murdered people involved in the objection. We are now going to ask those countries to look after our interests out of area. That is the truth of it and let nobody kid the people of Ireland with nonsense about defence. This is an offensive arrangement with the capability to kill half the world. It has used its armed forces frequently and individually outside the area and participated in the massacre of thousands of disarmed Iraqi troops on their way home by burying them alive with bulldozers. That is what is going to defend us.

By next October a large section of the Irish people will know better than to believe in that so-called defence arrangement. They have shown their wisdom up to now and I can promise the Minister and the Government and Fine Gael, if they want to be on the Government side, that this argument is only beginning. We are not going to give up our sovereignty freely. We are not going to participate in their murderous defence arrangements and we will stop it this time.

I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Ryan, for allowing me time to participate in this debate and I agree with virtually every word of his. I would like to expand a little and deal with four points.

There is an inevitable dynamic to the question of economic and political union. In the 19th century in Germany the unification of Germany — which some people regarded as an historically sinister development and which led to a form of dictatorship, damaging to Europe — was preceded by a customs union. This new arrangement in Europe seems to be part of the same growing world dynamic.

Some of the concerns felt by people and certainly by me, relate to the sheer scale of this unit. It is the world's largest trading bloc and I quote from figures produced by the European Community itself: 16.2 per cent of world imports and 15 per cent of world exports relate to Europe compared with the United States with 15.6 and 12 per cent, respectively; Japan at 7 per cent and 9.1 per cent, and the USSR and Canada, 3.8 per cent each. In other words, we are five times the size of either USSR or Canada and three times the size of Japan in world trading terms. That makes us an extremely powerful bloc and, like Senator Ryan, I am not convinced that there is a parallel development in morality nor am I convinced that there is anything like an appropriate democratic response. The European Community, perhaps deliberately, surrounds itself with a kind of Eurobabble, Eurospeak that is unintelligible to the vast majority of the citizens of Europe, which comprises one element of the democratic deficit.

One of the publications of the European Community refers to a flash poll taken on the Euro barometer. I am a little suspicious of a flash poll because it suggests that they simply shoot something out expecting and anticipating a particular kind of response. I do not take it seriously because I do not think it is part of an informed process.

The majority of Irish people appear to believe in the necessity of a common defence and foreign policy. In the nine other member states, including neutral Ireland, a clear majority are in favour of a joint Community defence policy. I support what Senator Ryan said. For example, many people believe that attack is the best form of defence and the recent Gulf War confirms that.

May I point out that the three strongest countries in Europe — the United Kingdom, France and Germany — were implicated in the Gulf War by providing the means for Iraq to produce chemical and germ warfare? The United Kingdom added the great bonus of building the sections of the enormous super gun for Iraq. I wonder how comfortable we are colluding with those kind of well known international criminals — Britain, Germany and France. I support what Senator Ryan said about the murder of the Greenpeace worker in New Zealand. I am concerned about the defence policy and the common foreign policy.

With regard to social policy, I am interested in what the Minister says. He talks about personal human rights and so on. I know he is a very decent person, but I wonder how serious is this. I am concerned at the British derogation. I was interested that sensitivity was displayed towards the provision for outlawing abortion in the Irish Constitution. I believe that sensitivity was appropriate, although I do not personally support the provisions in our Constitution; I think they are regrettable.

I will deal now with a couple of other areas which might be somewhat troublesome. For example, let us look at the Government's response to the judgement I received in the European Court on the question of the human rights of homosexual citizens. Three years later, the European Court is still being treated with contempt. There are implications for this country in the harmonisation of social policy in this area. For example, the rights of same sex couples in housing, employment, transport and pensions are guaranteed in quite a number of European countries. If we agree with the free movement of workers, presumably we also agree with the transfer of those workers' right as guaranteed by the independent state in Europe. What will be the Government response to this? Perhaps it will be civilised in view of the Protocol introduced by the Department of Finance governing those areas in the Civil Service, but I will await with interest their response.

There was a reference in a rather partisan way, by Senator Lanigan to the question of an asylum policy. I think he just wanted to take a bash at Israel; it is not a serious point but there is a serious point underlying it. I raised the question of harmonisation of an asylum policy on a number of occasions in the House. What actually is happening is that, as a result of the establishment of a group called the Committee of Monitors, responsible to nobody, appointed undemocratically by the European Commission, we are likely to have a situation where what comes into operation is the lowest common denominator.

I am not so worried about the Soviet Jews who applied to go to Israel under false pretences, their ultimate objective being to get to New York; they are economic refugees. The European Community routinely rejects people who are genuine political refugees and asylum seekers and returns them to jurisdictions where they know they will be subject to torture and, perhaps, murder. The Minister is shaking his head but I would be happy to quote him facts, figures and cases that are on the record of the House. This is already done by the Community and the situation will worsen unfortunately, after the decisions entered into by the Maastricht Summit. I think we have a serious problem with the lowest common denominator factor in terms of asylum seeking.

May I turn now to the question of the so-called democratic deficit. This is a term that has just been introduced and behind the comfortable reassurances of politicians there seems to be a suspicion of democracy in most European countries. They are prepared to have a little democracy but not too much. I understand the Irish position in this area; it is a human one. We tend to think nationally and, because we have one-twelfth of a say on the Commission or on the Council of Ministers, we feel that this gives us much greater power for our own national interest than, for example, the smaller percentage representation in the European Parliament. However, because I am, at the end of the day, a committed European, I hope we will contribute to a decent Europe. I do not include in this defence or the kind of outrageous militaristic policies of most of the major European countries, but I believe in a decent Europe. I hope I will not hear any further groaning from Senator Dardis about——

Nothing the Senator has said so far indicates he is an enthusiastic European.

Individual national politicians experience difficulties because they simply think in unit terms of the national countries from which they originate. The European Parliament should be much more ideologically orientated where alliances are formed across national boundaries; people should ally themselves along these ideological boundaries and gradually the national self-interest will, I hope, wither away.

I welcome the Minister to the House. From a Progressive Democrat point of view, we welcome the overall thrust of what has taken place in Maastricht. I am pleased with the outcome in broad terms. However, on a personal basis, I have reservations about some of the specifics, particularly about extending the powers of the Parliament, where I believe we could have gone further. The question of the democratic deficit, as it is called, still persists. I am an enthusiastic federalist — to use the notorious "f" word — and I am disappointed that we have not progressed further in that direction. I also regret the British dog in the manger attitude to the developments within Europe. It is about time Britain integrated with the European Community and did not always have reservations about its development. It is by speeding up rather than slowing down that we can reach a point where all the citizens of the European Community will benefit from decisions such as those taken in Maastricht. I realise, as Senator Lanigan said, that the British Prime Minister faced significant internal difficulties but, nevertheless, I think Britain is being left behind as a second rater in the European Community. It will have to integrate sooner or later and it would be better to do so now rather than later.

I will restate what I said when we debated this issue before the Summit. My party welcome the move towards political and economic union within the European Community. As enthusiastic Europeans we believe we are now entering a very exciting phase, what has been described as the great European adventure. We believe it is an opportunity for this country in which we must participate fully and to which we can contribute substantially. The option of dissociating ourselves from events within the Community and in the wider world no longer exists. Therefore, we must consider how best we can influence these events rather than withdraw from them and assume we can live in comfort as some detached offshore post of Europe.

The Government will publish a White Paper in the New Year — the Minister will confirm that — and I await it with interest. As we all know there will be a referendum on this matter and the recent opinion polls give cause for concern as to the degree to which the Irish public support the European adventure. In my view it would be an immense step backwards, to reject by referendum what has taken place in Maastricht and what will emerge when the Treaty is finally drawn up. Of course, as yet we cannot give a definitive opinion on Maastricht because the Treaty will have to be considered in the context of the Treaty of Rome to ensure there are no inconsistencies. Therefore, it will not be until some time in the New Year that we can definitively express an opinion on the final outcome of Maastricht. Having said that, I realise the parameters are drawn up and I welcome what has taken place.

I commend the Minister on his comprehensive and positive speech. He indicated that the question of economic and monetary union is now irreversible and that it is to our benefit to proceed towards a single currency and achieve the objectives set out for economic and monetary union.

I support enlargement of the Community, but once Sweden and Austria come within the framework of the European Community and Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary become members and they have already initiated proceedings — it will be very difficult to sustain the pace of economic and monetary union given the huge divergence between those economies and that of the Twelve. I envisage difficulties on that front but I hope they can be overcome because it will be to our advantage to get rid of some of the things that cause us economic pain.

The example of changing £100 in each of the Twelve member states and ending up with less than £30 on returning to Ireland, has been well documented in both Houses and there is no point referring to it again. However, this underlines the benefits of economic and monetary union in terms of transaction costs alone. Of course, there is the question of hedging exchange rates, and so on, but one thing is clear, we will not be absolved from managing our domestic economy to the best of our ability.

I applaud the move towards cohesion covered in the Treaty. However, there is a perception abroad that cohesion will solve everything and that there is no longer any obligation on us to manage our economy, but, of course the reverse is the case. If we are to benefit from economic and monetary union we must move towards the process the Minister described where the debt-GNP ratio and the other economic parameters allow us to accrue the benefits when we reach the stage of having a single currency, and eventually a European Central Bank. We must continue on the road to economic prudence we embarked on in recent years, otherwise the gains which will accrue to us will be lost.

As I said earlier, I acknowledge the political difficulties Britain had in agreeing to economic and monetary union but I believe Britain will be marginalised and excluded and that, as happened in the case of the exchange rate mechanism, it will have to agree to Economic and Monetary Union sooner or later. The Deutsche Mark will decide the exchange rate and whether Britain likes it or not, that will be the case, although I concede there are difficulties for Germany as a result of reunification which were graphically spelled out by a German banker at a recent meeting in Dublin.

As I mentioned in the debate before the Summit, the single greatest priority from this country's point of view must have been the question of economic and social cohesion. This question must have been uppermost in our minds and, to be fair, we achieved a considerable degree of success at the Summit. The Minister stressed that cohesion was an important priority for us in the negotiations at both Intergovernmental Conferences and I accept that. He also said that without firm provisions on cohesion, economic and monetary union would concentrate the benefits of the union on the already well endowed central areas. Our main fear was that there would be such a pull toward the centre that the divergence which is there at the moment would become even greater and, of the 160 regions within the Community, Ireland is fourth from the bottom in terms of wealth. There is a huge gap and with Common Agricultural Policy reform and the GATT agenda facing us, that divergence will increase if positive measures are not taken to ensure that the pull towards the centre does not accelerate and become greater.

My colleague, Mr. Pat Cox, said in the European Parliament that Ireland arrived at Maastricht on a bicycle and left in a motor car. We can argue about the quality of the car — it might be short of a Rolls Royce — but that is the scale of the achievement and from that point of view, I welcome it. The fact that two new Structural Funds on environmental and transport infrastructure are to be put in place is welcome. However, given our fears in relation to reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the huge disproportionate effect that will have on the Irish economy compared to other economies within the Community which are less dependent on agriculture, cohesion must be the single greatest priority from an Irish point of view. It is fortunate in many respects that it was the Spanish socialist government who did as much as any government to assist us — and, of course, themselves — in getting the Protocol into the Treaty. A major problem for us in relation to cohesion and the Structural Funds was that of additionality. Given our economic circumstances it was obvious that it would be difficult for us to avail of all the extra funds coming from Brussels if we had to find substantial additional funds ourselves.

I applaud many of the aspects of the Treaty which the Minister covered, but I will not deal with them in detail now. He said we were committed to European union and that also applies to economic, monetary and political union. However, as I said at the outset, I would go further than political union; I favour the federalist model. There is a danger that intergovernmental conferences will have too much decision-making power. To bypass the European Parliament and domestic parliaments would not be a healthy development. It is a very cosy arrangement for the heads of Government to meet in a comfortable hotel in Italy, Germany or Holland and decide the future for all of us but we will be excluded from having an influence on developments if decisions are made at intergovernmental conferences. I support the devolution of more powers to the European Parliament but I would ensure that there was a reporting system through which final decisions would be brought back to us for ratification — to be fair, in this case the Minister has reported back to us.

I have certain reservations in that respect and I disagree with much of what Senator Norris said. However, one point of which I agree with him is in relation to the perception which exists that by going to Council of Ministers meetings and being one of twelve we are in a stronger position than as a small group of people in the European Parliament. Because of the group system that is a false presumption. There is a great deal of evidence to show that where issues of importance to Irish members of the European Parliament are involved we have been quite successful in making our case because of the many groups to which we are attached in the Parliament. From that point of view I have concerns about the democratic deficit, as it is called, whereby parliament, whether European or domestic, is by-passed by a cosy club system.

There was reference to regional development decline and I have reservations about the whole problem of regional development. That matter was addressed by the bishops at the conference which took place in the west and I hope the concerns of the people from the west and, indeed, from the island of Ireland can be addressed by cohesion.

The Minister referred to rural development. One of the problems we are now faced with is the perception which exists abroad that rural development will solve all our agricultural problems and that the losses incurred from agricultural policy reform will be made up by the advances in rural development. Of course, that is not the case. The funding for rural development is much less than the amount of money coming into the country through the Common Agricultural Policy transfers but rural development is certainly welcome and needed to sustain rural communities. However, lest anybody thinks this will replace agricultural production, they will have to think again because agricultural production will continue, and will have to continue, to form the basis of economic output and export from this country. Therefore, rural development is not the panacea although it is important.

Senator Ryan said that cohesion was a gesture to our economic existence but I do not share that view; it is much more than that. Senator Ryan totally misunderstands the ethos of the European Community and the European people. They understand the need for a total view of Europe, for an inclusive view of European society, and are prepared to take on board the needs of societies that are less well off than some of the richer countries. From that point of view we cannot adopt or continue to hold an a la carte position on membership of the European Community. The problem is that we might just decide to take what we like out of the Community, the things that are to our personal domestic advantage, and not participate more widely in the totality of the European Community. I know from my visits to Brussels, from talking to people in the Commission that they have criticisms to make of Ireland. When matters such as the Common Agricultural Policy and those of major domestic concern are involved we make our views known — and of course we should do so — but we do not participate in matters which may be more remote and that is not acceptable. If we are to get what is due to us we must participate fully.

I support the developments which have taken place and the way in which Europe is moving. However, I do not share some of the bogey-men attitudes which I have heard from the other side of the House. There are many benefits to be gained from an overall European view. On my way to the House today I was interested to see posters of Senator Norris promoting our city and culture which, having regard to some of the points he made here this morning, is somewhat ironic. I cannot reconcile the two positions, where he finds it acceptable to participate in something like that and not to agree with other aspects of the Community. We have embarked on the adventure which is a good one, and I hope it proceeds in the direction in which Maastricht has pointed.

I welcome the debate and the Minister to the House. It is proper that the Minister's contribution to the House should be acknowledged. He seems to be here more frequently than some of the Members and at this stage he is probably able to anticipate fairly accurately what most of us will say.

This debate is desirable and provides us with an opportunity to tease out some of the details arising from the decisions made at the Maastricht Summit. There is still a great deal of ignorance about the decisions which were reached there and how this country will cope with their effects. There is now a new urgency about the necessity to publish the White Paper. That is important so that a national debate can take place on what is at stake in relation to the decisions taken at Maastricht. Also, an information campaign on the issues involved is needed as they are among the most important issues we have ever had to face.

Developments in relation to social policy are a source of great disappointment. The failure to reach agreement on social policy is depressing. It appears the United Kingdom are committed to a minimalist approach to social advancement. That country appear to have a longing for a return to the social standards of the last century and they are anxious to go forward by facing towards the past. The effect of what the British have achieved at Maastricht will mean there will need to be unanimous agreement on matters relating to social security and protection. There will need to be unanimous agreement in relation to the protection of workers whose employment contracts may be terminated. There will also need to be unanimous agreement in relation to the standards set for the terms of employment of Third World nationals who work in the European Community.

In effect, as far as the European Community are concerned, very low standards are being applied across the board in terms of European legislation. That is a great pity and it is disappointing the British adopted the attitude they did. It also means, of course, that many of the provisions of the Social Charter are now up in the air. From now on Irish workers will be dependent on the Government to set the pace of change in relation to social matters. That must be a matter of concern given the history of the Government in relation to legislation on matters such as equality and other aspects of social legislation.

There has been a disturbing lack of interest here in relation to social matters and to the European Community. There has been a disturbing lack of enthusiasm on our part for the Social Charter. In many ways the British Prime Minister, Mr. Major, has given us a handy and convenient camouflage in relation to the Social Charter and, indeed, the need to develop a proper and comprehensive social policy in Europe.

The commitment to cohesion is welcome. The broad principle as outlined is, of course, very welcome. However, considerable worries remain about the extent to which there will be a closing of the gap in the standard of living for people in various parts of the European Community. Concerns remain that Europe will develop into a two-tier society, about the size of the Cohesion Funds, the mechanisms by which this fund will be distributed, the provisions for local involvement in the way the Cohesion Funds will be distributed and about the extent to which various other measures will be used to achieve a catching-up by those European countries, such as Ireland, which now lag seriously behind the rest of the Community in many areas. Concerns also remain about the capacity and the commitment of the EC to reverse the forces which draw economic activity, and indeed people, towards the centre of Europe.

I am beginning to wonder if there are not lessons from history that we ignore, at our peril. The population of the islands off our shore is now a very small fraction of what it was at the turn of the century. The people on those islands have been drawn towards the mainland, towards the centre. I am beginning to wonder if we will not see the same thing happen to this country when the people and the economic activity in this country are drawn towards the centre of Europe. To some extent that is now happening. It is happening in the west of Ireland where economic activity is winding down, and this is a matter of considerable disquiet. Entire areas are falling apart before our eyes. There are enormous forces at work and I find it difficult to see how this country can adequately and comprehensively confront those forces.

I am somewhat concerned at the tone of my colleague, Senator Brendan Ryan, when he spoke in terms of this country insisting on the Europeans doing a whole series of things in relation to developments and changes in Europe. It would be fine if this country could insist on all those things but I am at a loss as to understand how we are to press that insistence. I do not see how we would cope with the difficulties which would inevitably arise from that insistence. When you look at the consequences of taking very grim and difficult positions and facing up to the Europeans, it makes you wonder how we could do it and, indeed, whether we would have the capacity to bear the consequences of confronting the Europeans in the manner suggested.

I am not sure that we, in this country, have any very clear ideas how Europe should develop. Most of our ideas on development of Europe are broad based aspirations that anyone could agree with — such as more economic development, better regional policy and so on. They are light, fluffy, pleasant aspirations but when you get down to the brass tacks we do not have any real ideas. For the most part, as far as our activity in Europe is concerned, we seem to struggle on a day to day basis to get whatever we can from the EC. We seem to have very few ideas as to where Europe goes from here, and even fewer ideas as to how Europe could be directed towards the goals we would set ourselves.

How, for example, does this country see eastern Europe being integrated into the EC? How do we see the EC facing up to the enormous challenges which arise from the disintegration of eastern Europe? How do we think Europe should address the issues of peace which will inevitably arise from the disintegration of eastern Europe? How do we feel this country should balance the desire for peace with its knock-on effects and demands against the concerns of poverty and the achievement of total cohesion in order to attain an increased standard of living for the periphery and for the western parts of Europe? Where is the balance to be struck? Where are our values? To what extent would we be prepared to risk war, disturbance and turbulence in eastern Europe to enhance our position? Where do you strike the balance? What are our ideas? As far as I can see we seem to have very few ideas. Indeed, for the most part, such questions have not arisen, but I think that they will arise and they are important questions in Europe. They are questions which are concentrating the minds of Europeans on the mainland.

If my understanding of the European Community is correct, one of the central reasons it was established was to prevent war in Europe. That is a very worthwhile and desirable goal. If that objective remains and endures, as I believe it will, than a price must be paid in relation to development and the amount of money which will be put into peripheral areas. I would be quite concerned at the order of priority of many of the major players in Europe, in relation to the rights and claims of Ireland against the demands of the east.

Irish people do not understand the Europeans and Europeans do not understand the Irish people to any great extent either. I believe Europeans are grim, they are driven by logic, they set themselves goals and they are serious about attaining those goals. They are realists. They set about doing what can be done. We are not at all like that. We have an easy way of doing things. We are full of aspirations and dreams. Much of Irish life is like the hour before closing time, expanded over the whole day.

A very good example of that is the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party to the restoration of the Irish language. If I am not mistaken, it is one of their major top priorities. The language is fading away before our eyes. It gets weaker by the day and still it remains top of their priority list. We will not confront reality; we will neither change the goal of restoring the language and having it spoken by everybody nor set about doing it in a realistic manner. I do not think any of us can dispute the fact that it is possible to restore the Irish language to the full health it had in the last century or earlier but we are not serious about making the sacrifices and adjustments involved.

Europeans find such behaviour totally incomprehensible. They shrug their shoulders and are bewildered by it. That is the way we are in Ireland and that is part of the difficulties we will continue to encounter in our dealings with Europeans.

We do not seem to have taken a very strong position on anything at the summit. To a large extent we seem to be irrelevant. We seem to have been polite, to have been happy simply to be there. I realise we should not forget our position in Europe. There are three million of us and more than 300 million of them and our capacity to change things in Europe is very limited.

I was pleased to hear Senator Raftery talking in terms of the significance of his group in the European Parliament. He said they were the most important and, of course, that is a value judgment. I am more inclined to stay with the figures and say that our group in the European Parliament is the largest. That is a matter of numbers. In terms of the importance I also believe they are the most important and Senator Raftery and I will continue to disagree on that.

At present we seem to have fairly limited options on Europe. We are, as it were, on an enormous European train. It is travelling at a great speed and I do not think we can easily get off that train.

We have not given any real consideration to what would be involved in doing so. I so not say we should not, or could not ever do so, but if we are thinking in those terms it is absolutely imperative that we think through very carefully and very slowly all the implications of such a decision.

I sincerely hope that, in the run-in to this referendum, we will not be subjected to a sort of a pub-talk style of debate on the whole matter. That is the last thing this country wants in the present difficult economic circumstances in which it finds itself. I also share much of the concern expressed by Senator Dardis in relation to the referendum. I am not sure the passage of the referendum will be altogether that easy. The recent opinion poll of MRBI and The Irish Times indicates there is considerable objection to it already. Circumstances may arise in which there will be people opposed to the referendum for their own legitimate reasons. Another group of people may simply decide to draw a lash on the Government in an unthinking manner simply because they want to vent their frustrations on someone. That is a very understandable human response but we need to consider carefully all the implications of what we do in relation to the referendum.

We are now moving towards a united Europe. I still have some difficulties understanding how this country has changed since 1900. In the last century and the early part of this century this country fought bitter wars to make itself into a sovereign independent State. The heirs of that struggle are now moving headlong towards a united Europe. Were they right at the turn of a century and in the last century, are they right now, or were they right on both occasions? It is not for me to say. I am not a historian. We might all spend some time considering these questions. As eastern Europe and those federations break up they are moving in the direction of nationalism again and away from federation. People should consider these points.

I welcome the debate, I think it is very useful. As far as European development and the Maastricht Summit are concerned, we are only starting. When more of the details become available I sincerely hope it will be possible for the debate to be renewed.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute a few words on this very important Treaty. I would like to compliment the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Government who have successfully negotiated it.

This Treaty puts Ireland in a stronger position than it has been in in its entire history. The skill and negotiating ability of our leaders will be appreciated in years to come, despite the gloomy picture we get from the Labour Party, The Workers' Party and others. As they will never in the foreseeable future be involved in negotiating anything on behalf of this country, it is quite understandable that they would not be happy at the outcome regardless of what it might be. The Maastricht agreement actually sets targets and conditions that will be helpful to the whole of this island.

This country is the most peripheral part of the EC and to be equal with the other 11 partners, and more equal than some has been an enormous achievement. It is fantastic that this small country has been put on the same footing as other countries in Europe. That can only benefit our trade and our structural development and bring us out of the doldrums we have been in for so many years. We are a young country. It is not so many years since our people were told to go to hell or to Connaught but we have recovered to the point where we are now recognised as an equal partner in Europe. Anyone who does not see that as an achievement is very hard to please.

We are the only island member of the EC. I come from a Border county, which is the most peripheral part of this island and even our friends and colleagues in Government never fully understand the magnitude of the deprivation that has been caused in the Border region. I saw a map recently which indicated a black area on each side of the Border in relation to trade, development and unemployment. Strabane, which is just across the Border, has the highest number of unemployed in Europe. You cannot have the highest number of unemployed in Europe without serious consequences. This fact must be recognised by Europe.

I welcome the agreement at Maastricht. We can benefit from improved structures in transport, and in the provision of education, especially at third level. We look enviously at major development in third level education across the Border where £34 million was spent improving third level colleges in Derry and Coleraine right beside us. We would welcome, now, the opportunity of participating on a level playing field in educational development. Most people in Donegal look forward to vastly improved infrastructure. Structural Funds are now available and we can only stand to benefit from the new Treaty.

It has been a matter of concern in my country and in the west, that the takeover of B & I cost the Exchequer about £40 million of Irish taxpayers' money; Irish Rail cost the taxpayer £120 million; and An Bord Gáis got very substantial funding from the EC, but there was no benefit either to Country Donegal or to the west of Ireland. These things must be taken into consideration.

Córas Tráchtála Teoranta and Bord Bainne spend at least £50 million a year marketing products, none, or very little of which, I suggest, come from the west of Ireland. A well known brand of Irish butter is being marketed at a cost of millions of pounds to the Exchequer when the same people, at home, are producing spread to compete with their own product. There are many anomalies that have got to be put right. I hope this Treaty and membership of the EC will help us to look at ourselves. I see a great opportunity for the whole of the west of Ireland, and particularly my county, to have its infrastructure repaired or improved. I welcome the opportunities that will be provided.

I agree with Senator Brendan Ryan that in future agreements with the EC we must point out that our fishing industry is of vital importance to the people of the west, and particularly in County Donegal. The Minister for the Marine is today negotiating on this in Brussels and he will have to make some concessions at the expense of the fishermen from the west. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that funding will be put in place to provide infrastructure and jobs to bring the west of Ireland up to a standard comparable to that in any part of Belgium, Holland, or any member state.

I also welcome the intention to have a single currency, because people living in the Border counties have encountered difficulties; they never get full value for their Irish punts. Traders in the North have been short-sighted, charging an exchange rate and a handling charge above those charged by the banks. It is very important for us to have a single rate of exchange and single currency.

Like others, I wish Britain had been ready to join. However, I listen to BBC Radio 4 and I am aware of the many difficulties they have. When I look around the country and see the difficulty Cork and Limerick local authorities had striking a rate over the service charges and then look across the Border I notice they have less difficulty paying their £400 rates on a small bungalow or a small farmhouse in County Tyrone and there is no word of the councillors abandoning their responsibilities and abolishing the council.

This little country has done tremendously well. I come from the poorer part of Ireland: I am proud to be from Donegal and I am proud to be Irish. I am proud that we pay our Garda, Army, nurses and teachers more than their British counterparts. I hope that, working closely with the EC we will endeavour to find jobs for our many educated young people. The Structural Funds will help us to take many of these people off the dole. Unemployment is a cancer in society, as this Government have recognised.

We do not need the Labour Party or The Workers' Party to tell us that it is very embarrassing for us, as a country, to have large numbers unemployed. In my county we have had the scourge of emigration down the years, from the tattie-hokers to the present day. At present conditions of employment in Britain are very bad and that further affects the areas that have high emigration. We do not need anybody to tell us how much the British economy affects us. Here we have a great opportunity to make a new start. The average person realises that many opportunities will arise and I hope the Government realise that the areas in most need of infrastructural improvements are in the west. Recently we applied for an airstrip at Letterkenny, County Donegal but we are finding it very difficult to get funds, because we are in competition with other projects.

There are 32 private bus companies operating out of my county. This must indicate to any reasonable person the magnitude of our transport difficulties. An airstrip is essential if the people of Donegal are to have the same opportunities as people living in Dún Laoghaire. We must have a level playing field, and that is not just a slogan.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

I am glad it is Minister Calleary who is here with us because of his commitment to Third World development. I hope that in the ongoing debate on Maastricht the Third World countries will not be forgotten and I will be touching on minority groups from northern Africa and other migrant workers whose lot has to be looked at in relation to the 12 countries in the EC.

The latest buzz word now seems to be Maastricht. As a result of the summit Mastricht has been pinpointed on the map of Europe and people everywhere are aware of it. What worries me is that all buzz words have a short flavour-of-the-month life and already the impact of Maastricht which we had wished would be sustained and continued, is dissipating as the internal affairs of our own country take precedence, with the quoted high unemployment figures today on the Order of Business of 275,000 and 300,000 emigrants and the daily disintegration of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. This is not a good omen when we are thinking in terms of what has happened to the Social Charter in the Maastricht Agreement.

Understandably, we were committed but I wonder when I look back at the evolution of that Social Charter — properly termed the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers. It was initially undertaken in 1988 at the European Trade Union Confederation meeting in Stockholm and introduced there by Jacques Delors and subsequently adopted by 11 heads of State in Strasbourg. If you think in terms of Britain's passenger-like status from May 1988 to December 1990, I would have thought they had plenty of time in the intervening period to consider the Social Charter. Perhaps it is negative of me, but will this present Conservative Government, as long as it remains, ever sign the Treaty, if we have three and a half years to consider it? It is disappointing, particularly as there is nothing sinister in the Charter. All it does is lay down the broad principles underlying the European model of labour law and the place of work in society. With growing unemployment throughout the 12 EC countries, and further afield in America and in other continents, it is essential that we push very hard with the other ten members and try to urge them to persuade Britain that this has to be adopted. Unless we have a total European commitment to the creation of full employment the whole concept of social cohesion is not going to be concluded as ideally as we would hope.

Repeated calls by Members of this House and others for debates many months prior to the Maastricht Summit fell on deaf ears. Again, if you pitch something in a short term framework you will find that media and public interest will wane very quickly; whereas I believe a sustained debate over a 12-month period at least would have helped to concentrate the minds of the Irish people, because there are other things on their minds at the moment. What I would be afraid of is that, now that Maastricht is over, we will sink back into a trough and that the whole Maastricht development will lie there until the engines are revved up again in time for a referendum. I hope this referendum will not follow the sad pattern of the previous referenda where the issues to be debated were largely ignored and there were controversial and emotive discussions on matters that really had nothing to do with the central core of the issue in the first place.

If we look at the negotiating targets which the Fine Gael Party in particular would put as priorities, the overall priority was the whole idea of the creation of a democratic Europe with more powers for the European Parliament and the creation of an elected European Senate, which would be dear to all of us here, with an equal voice for Ireland with the larger states. We also look for the development of the Council of Europe so that the new eastern European democracies will not be treated as second-class Europeans. We know the psyche of second-class citizenship in relation to dominance by a colonial power. That still has not left us and we should emphasise very much with those member states who want to be part of a united Europe. Looking at European defence, we must agree it should be controlled in the European Community, and of course we welcome the positive aspect from Maastricht — the support for a single European currency.

The issue that has most engaged the media and politicians has been the guaranteed Treaty-based increases in funds for poorer regions. Looking at President Lubber's agenda, he outlined, as we heard in the Minister's speech today, the six issues: European economic and monetary union, economic and social cohesion, social policy — unfortunately this has not been accepted because of Britain — foreign and security policy, the democratic deficit and the perspective for the future development of the union, focusing on how best to continue the process of European integration.

Looking at the area of economic and social cohesion there must be very strong provision for sharing the beneficial aspects of the union with the less well off regions rather than concentrating the benefits on the better endowed central areas. The financial aspects and measures must be included.

There must also be provision for cohesion and solidarity between member states, rural development, which many Senators referred to, the formulation and implementation of all Community policies — agriculture, trade policies, a policy on research and development of State aids, the implementation of the Single Market. When all these policies are developed and formulated obviously they must take account of cohesion and the word "cohesions" is the thread running right through. One point arrested my attention which was the requirement that the Commission report every three years on the progress towards cohesion and on how the various Community policies and funds and national policies have contributed to it, the reports to be accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate remedial proposals.

I hope that when these three progress reports ensue we will not be the culprits when we look to our own country and see the lack of cohesion, as has been referred today, between east and west. I am not talking about eastern and western Europe; I am talking about the eastern region and the sad problems west of the Shannon. West of the Shannon is not "to hell or to Connaught" any more. It starts in Donegal, as referred to by Senator McGowan, and no doubt will be referred to by Senator Dan Kiely when we move to Kerry. I would take it from Donegal right down to Kerry and turning around the south west and including Cork. What I am really saying is that when we look to see whether we have adopted cohesion in our policy, I hope at that stage that the west will be awake and, not alone awake, but well developed.

How would we fare? I think if we continue to concentrate on Ireland as one region we are not going to fare very well. There is supposed to be a policy of decentralisation, but I would say that successive Governments are very strong on policies of centralisation. The pleas and the cries of the people in rural Ireland — those that are still left — are that they wish to remain on the land and they wish to have a say on how our society should develop and prosper. But they are told, "You are not mature enough to have such say. We will have the Minister for Finance, the Department of Finance, making your decisions for you". People will not accept that any more.

Though there are references to rural development, it is called agri-development, agri-tourism — there are about ten different names for rural development. Call it what you like, what is going to happen there is that those who are financially well off can get their loans, they can convert their solid, well-appointed country homes — almost stately — into luxury guesthouses, they can have pony trekking facilities to get the leisure grants and they can have their pitch and putt or their golf courses or whatever. That is only one aspect of rural Ireland. Unfortunately, those who are less well off have no hope of getting involved in agri-tourism or rural development because they do not have the time even to go to the community meetings to see how these can be set up because they are so busy trying to survive.

These are the realities of what economic and social cohesion mean to the small farmers of Ireland. Integrated with the small farmers — Senator Raftery has referred to this over and over again — you have the survival of our villages and our towns, all absolutely dependent on our farming communities. I cannot forget rural women who make up 51 per cent of the population but also 80 per cent of the unpaid workforce. I wonder how they will get on in economic and social cohesion? These are matters to concentrate our minds.

What has happened in relation to our use of European funds? We have to ask ourselves, did we make good use of the funds we got when we entered Europe? I would say, very definitely not. I would say there was a lack of coherent plans or strategies. Even since the doubling of the funds, we have not made the same strides as our poor peripheral cousins or whatever we want to call them — Greece, Portugal etc. We have only to look at our infrastructural problems. It is not good enough to say our national routes have taken all the funds. I travel three and four times each week between Limerick and Dublin and I see a decidely different type of infrastructure once I enter the Pale. I am convinced that Structural Funds have come to the East but if you are looking for bypasses in Roscrea and Nenagh, they will come eventually when all other towns have been bypassed. At that stage we will be well into the next century and maybe I will have given up driving on the roads. I do not know whether I can look at the situation of the railways?

In view of the extra funds the Minister mentioned today for transport development I will be positive in that context.

We must get rid of our domestic dependency. We just do not have domestic dependency; we have international dependency. We have the begging bowl image. We think money from Europe comes gift wrapped, that somehow or another because it is coming to us without our sense of working for it, it can be dissipated.

Another point I wish to make to the Minister is that I worry about the minority groups, such as the Turks in Germany. Germany was very worried about the infiltration of Turks in relation to retaining the sense of nationality of Germans, going back to the Aryan race concept or whatever. I am very worried about minority migrant workers because of the pressure from eastern Europe, from other democracies, that obviously will see themselves as European as the Europeans themselves — as the British used to say "as Irish as the Irish themselves".

I worry about the national debt. I suppose if we could have a magic wand we might have asked do we have to spend our Structural Funds on structures, do we have to have concrete structures that Europe can check and see how we spend the funds. I would love to see the national debt utterly erased by European funding. Then we could start with a clean slate, we could hold our heads up and maybe we could work on development so that we could take our place with the Twelve.

My last word has to be the need for domestic or Irish legislation for the women of Ireland, because anything we have got has come from European legislation. To sum up the Minister's speech: they are visions, they are aspirations; there is nothing wrong with having aspirations so long as we are realistic in how we go about achieving them.

There is a small townland in Cavan that is called Cooraghaloo and there is another townland just across from Corraghaloo called Derrykerrib. It is in County Fermanagh. Indeed, you get the change from the Cavan accent to the Fermanagh accent literally as you walk down the hill from one townland to the other. My grandparents had a farm there which literally stretched across the Border from Cooraghaloo to Derrykerrib and I spent a lot of time there as a child and I still go to that area. I used to wonder sometimes as a child where was the town. It is something we are all familar with here. I wonder, as we have this debate, what is the difference, what is the effect, what are we changing among all the very detailed, academic, economic, technical, political and other speeches and commentaries in the papers, the columnists that have been referred to and so on. What really does it mean to the townland of Cooraghaloo or for that matter the townland of Derrykerrib, both in Ireland? It is after all, as the Minister has pointed out in his speech, an economic, monetary and political union. In fact, we used to refer to it as the EEC — the European Economic Community — and in a sense, I suppose, it was in one way a pretence and in another way a reality.

The first starting point of the Community was the European iron and steel arrangement between the French and the Germans. It moved on to the Treaty of Rome and the EEC, as we used to call it — the European Economic Community. It has moved on the the European Community and now, political union. Quite rightly, we have the third adjective here before "Union"— economic, monetary and political union. It is very interesting to listen to the debate and to note all the comments. Yet somehow we are not trying to refer this to what it means on the ground in Ireland.

It is a political union. When I was a child if I walked down the round hill at the back of Cooraghaloo and went across what we called the Kesh — that is a little wooden bridge — I walked into the North of Ireland. Most people called it "The North" and on the southern side they still called it "The Free State". Under this measure effectively, both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are uniting with the other European countries of western Europe in a political union. That is what, almost unnoticed, we have basically agreed, and I am glad that we have.

It is a fairly momentous event and it will have effects down the years on a thousand townlands such as those that I have just mentioned on either side of what is, as from the other day, a very different Border, for good or ill — and I believe it is for good. It is going to have many other effects. In Fermanagh they are talking about more of the land being under water than is over it. This is a very beautiful area.

Senator Jackman has mentioned tourism. Upper Lough Erne with several hundred islands, is probably one of the most beautiful lakes in these islands. It is now increasingly attracting German, French, British and Irish people to sail in cruisers and I have no doubt that activity will continue. The land there is not very good; nor is the land in Cavan. The Minister and, I am sure, my colleagues opposite will know what I mean when I say that in winter if you let cattle out on the land they "poach" it very quickly — in a few days. They make a terrible mess that will be there for months, because there is a very thick undersoil and the water just lodges there. So if there are even two or three days' rain, you are finished as regards letting cattle out on the land.

When I was a child there was this dual purpose beast — the Shorthorn was for milking and for beef but we have come a long way from that. There are well off farmers, some of them have done quite well out of the European Community, and it is right and proper that they should, but there are many farmers in Ireland who are still finding it very hard to make ends meet, they can barely keep above the subsistence level.

Everything we can do about cohesion is important, and I think this union we have now entered into is going to cause very serious problems. As part of this union we have already made agreements with eastern Europe. It sounds very exotic, thousands of miles away, but the simple fact is that Poland produces huge amounts of grain, beef, cattle and milk. We talk about a milk lake and a beef mountain, but we really have not seen anything yet. In a few years ahead, under the agreements already signed, their agriculture will be a factor in the European Community. There is only a trickle coming from these countries at the moment. Of all the countries in western Europe, this will affect us most. I think our Ministers have done a magnificent job at these recent negotiations. But it will not be easy in the coming years for whichever Government are in power. We are going to have a tough time in the nineties with this economic, monetary and political union.

Again, I think about where I spent a lot of my childhood and still spend a good deal of my time. There is a goat farm not that far from where I stay; indeed, I pass it going to and from the few acres I have there. A goat farm may not seem very much but it is owned by two Germans. They have it very well organised. They export cheese to Germany. They used to transport it over there in a van. They also have tearooms, a very efficient, effective operation. Yet this is an operation we would probably have laughed at ourselves. If I had said I was going to start a goat farm, I would probably have been laughed out of it, but they are doing it very successfully. We are going to have to think about many new things, things which are very different and maybe which might have seemed a bit ridiculous once upon a time. However, we must consider a whole new era in agriculture.

Then there are other aspects about which I certainly had some notion as a child, but it was only later I really learned a bit more about them. There is another townland there which very few people ever heard of called Quivvy, a curious name. There are trees growing on Quivvy now. Some years ago the forestry people from what was then West Germany came over on one of their visits and were very surprised at the rate and quality of tree growth here. I am sure the Leas-Chathaoirleach knows much more about this than I do, but in timber you are concerned with the volume of growth, how much the tree is growing and the quality of the wood. The rate of growth and the quality of the trees — they are Forestry Commission trees — planted in Quivvy were so good that the Germans had to bring in a new classification above the top classification.

This is another aspect we will have to look at. I am not a person who believes we should cover the country in trees and have few people there, but we must have a combination of modern, different farming allied to making use of resources like our great quality timber growth — a somewhat different method from what we all took for granted as children and which had not changed for hundreds of years. Now there is a very big change — a change in mobility, a change in the general aspect.

I come back for a moment to the Germans in that area and I want to mention Germany itself. Something happened the other night, and I am very glad it happened because I raised it here in the Seanad on the Order of Business; I am referring to the situation in Croatia. I am glad that effectively the EC states — and our Minister played a very important role in bringing the group together — have agreed under certain conditions that those republics in Yugoslavia which are willing to adhere to these conditions will be recognised. Let us be clear about it. This was very much the result of the impetus of the German Government. It was they who made the first move and drew the others together. They are now the political leaders in this union we have joined.

There has been mention here in several speeches of the United Kingdom situation. Let us be quite clear about it. You can argue that the United Kingdom have been very clever in their negotiations in getting various exemptions, You can argue, probably more justifiably, that they have been very foolish, but the UK is now out on a limb. The only reason it was able to do that was because Dr. Kohl, the German Chancellor, encouraged and supported the United Kingdom Prime Minister in his endeavours in that regard. It is another example of the role which Germany is playing today. We are in a new union. We are in a new world. We are right to join it.

I have great pleasure in making a brief contribution to this debate on the Maastricht Summit held on 9 and 10 December. I thank those who went on our behalf, who worked so hard for us and returned home happy and satisfied that the Maastricht meeting was a great success. I hope that is correct and that in the weeks and months ahead the people will consider it was a great success and will endorse that in the referendum. Otherwise there will be serious problems ahead of us. It is intended to have a wide-ranging debate on the subject so that the people will be well informed before they make a decision.

I regret the Seanad had no opportunity to contribute to this debate before the Taoiseach and his team went to Maastricht to negotiate on our behalf. It shows one of the fundamental problems this country has and which will not change after 1992. It is the idea that in this country there is just a small section of people at the top of the Civil Service, at the top of the political scale, who know it all and who are not interested in listening to the views of the Members, for instance, of the Seanad who are, as I am always being told by my colleagues, democratically elected. We might have had views which might have been helpful in the early days before everything was finalised.

It is all very sad. If we feel that sort of frustration in Leinster House where power is supposed to reside, what is it like for the people outside — local authorities and so on? It is extremely frustrating and it is one of the great fundamental flaws in the way this small country is operated, that the Government, the civil servants at the top, do not want to hear or to listen to the views of other people. As I have said, they know it all. Unless that changes, unless we have something coming from the bottom instead of all from the top we will continue as we have and the country will not prosper.

It appears from the Minister's speech that we will reinforce the gains which have been made since the Community was founded. This country has not done all that well since we entered the EC in 1973. That has been well documented by experts who are in a much better position to vouch for it than I am. I hope our economic and social interests will be fully taken into account. Economic and political integration and all it entails — a centralised banking system and co-ordination of industrial and commercial regulations — is likely to continue to benefit the large countries at the centre of the EC. It is least likely to benefit countries like ours, small countries on the periphery.

The Common Market was created to provide outlets for the major players, so to speak, on the European stage, the large industrialised countries such as France, Germany and others. It was not in the best interests of small countries like Ireland who depend on indigenous industry, as I said, small countries who are on the periphery. How have they fared in in the past? They would need to fare a great deal better in future if the division in standards of living is not to get greater. We hear this will be avoided by the great word "cohesion" that through this the standards in less well off countries will be improved. I am quite certain the team that went to Maastricht did all they could to get the very best possible slice of the cake for Ireland.

I believe, and this is documented as I said last time in the NESC report, that nobody yet knows what precisely is required to bring about cohesion or convergence. It is quite clearly established that it is not just a question of more money coming in to the less well off areas. That will not be sufficient and the amount of money likely to be available now that Europe has so many other commitments on its eastern front and elsewhere will not bring Ireland into cohesion. We get money and then go frantic spending it on things like interpretative centres, many of which are not needed or welcomed by the local people and seriously damage the environment of this country, one of the things we greatly depend on for tourism, one of our big industries.

We see a whole range of policies being put forward. If those policies were linked to local initiatives and to regional planning, think what benefits could accrue from them. Instead, the RDOs were abolished because they cost too much money. If that was taken in the broad context of the money and the budget available to central Government, it would make one laugh if it were not so sad. What happened then? They were temporarily brought back so as to satisfy Europe that we really were doing something about legitimising the regional structures in this country. It was temporary. No permanent structures were put in place. Although they were mentioned in the 1991 Bill dealing with local government, nothing has happened and we know, sadly, that nothing is likely to happen.

Last week there was an Independent motion which I proposed that we should sign the charter on local self-government as a gesture of our bona fides in regard to bringing about decentralisation. I asked merely that we would sign the Council of Europe charter on local self-government. I believed that the Minister would say we were about to sign it but apparently, I was misled. The Minister appeared to be very satisfied with what had been done to reform local government and with the way we were going. They would keep under consideration the possibility of signing the charter on local self-government.

What we need is some sort of decentralisation. Every single political party, and the Minister's party par excellence, every organisation, chamber of commerce, the commercial, economic and industrial interests of this country, those representing the Community interest and the farming interest, have all said that decentralisation is a priority but nothing significant has happened and, according to the Minister's colleague, nothing will happen. The Government will not even take the initial step of signing the charter.

The application of Structural Funds is, was and continues to be centrally controlled. The EC is anxious that we should move away from that situation. That was why we had the little window-dressing operation when we were talking about the last tranche of Structural Funds. It was to convince them that we had involved in some way the regional and county organisations. They were utterly dismayed, and continue to be dismayed, by the fact that these funds are administered from central Government. The EC understands the pitfalls of excessive reliance on decision-making from the centre. Well-intentioned, logical and coherent planning from a central perspective often results in an unforeseen negative impact on individuals and local communities.

Many people, including the Minister and his Government, believe in and talk about subsidiarity that decisions should be taken at the lowest level, recognising the importance of bringing people not only into our structures of government but involving them in the effort for economic and social improvement. We hear words like "subsidiarity" mentioned. The Minister told us today that the Community now has a strong and comprehensive definition of subsidiarity. I can only say with deep regret that I find it totally hypocritical that members of the Government can go out to Europe and can talk about subsidiarity when not one iota of recognition is given to it at home. I find that totally and utterly unacceptable. I hope that somehow or other if our Government will not see the light themselves our colleagues in Europe will get the message through to them that subsidiarity is vital. Without it, this country will decline on the economic, unemployment and emigration fronts.

I saw a quote this morning from Mr. Gorbachev's book, Peristroika, where he said that the “individual in our society wants to be part of everything and this is a good thing. He does not like structures where his opinions are not sought... and his human and civic qualities are not appreciated”. Mr. Gorbachev who presided over a totalitarian regime was able to see that. I suggest that the Minister is presiding over an equally totalitarian regime which masquerades under the name of democracy.

The Minister spoke about the need for the European Parliament to be more democratic. I fully support that but there seems to be an implication that if we had the sort of system in the European Parliament which we have here in Ireland everything would be all right. I totally reject the suggestion that in our country democratic legitimacy is guaranteed by the Oireachtas and by our local government system. The Oireachtas is totally dominated by the political parties and by the Whips. The local authorities are totally dominated by the party whips at that level. They must control everything. They must control the local authorities. The Minister may smile but he knows as well as I do that if they do not, they will not get Senators elected to this House. They must control everything. I tell the Minister, until that changes we will continue to go down the slippery slope. I am not that disheartened because I know in Europe they have a more enlightened view of party politics. I am not opposed to party politics. It is part of democracy. What is wrong with party politics is the way that the Whip is implemented so that those who are subjected to it end up as nothing better than glorified robots.

I dtosach cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach. Mar a dúradh ar maidin caitheann sé go leor ama anseo ag éisteacht le díospóireachtaí agus ag cur eolais ar thuairimí Sheanadóirí.

The Taoiseach and the Ministers did a very good job at Maastricht. However, I will raise a few questions that have to be asked in the interest of the common good.

One thing that at times worries me is the very broad consensus regarding fundamental issues and the way people can make bland statements without subjecting them to scrutiny. I have spent most of my adult life swimming against the tide. As somebody from the east coast, who by choice went to work in the west, I was partly motivated by a resistance to the glib phrase, for example, that the west could not be developed and would always be a dependent society. The same attitude that made me question the perceived notions of what was possible back in the early seventies, raises its head again in relation to the general consensus regarding European unity.

How much we have benefited from EC membership? I have no doubt that the country is a lot better off now than it was in 1973. That is obvious to everybody but we must look at the price we paid for that prosperity. In any analysis of the period since our entry into the European Community, one cannot forget the injection in cash into our economy in terms of borrowing of £24,000 million and also the injection in terms of foreign borrowing during that period of about £8,000 million. That cannot be left out of the equation and it is something we will have to consider.

There are two other developments that have caused me concern since that time. The first is rampant unemployment. I have argued that we were not quick enough to recognise that we were in a changing world and must develop industrial policies in accordance with the realities of that changed world. I said here on other occasions that our industrial policy was basically flying on one wing which suited the high-tech industries.

The final major setback was the introduction of quotas. If we had said in 1973 that we would have quotas in milk, fish and possibly sheep, it would have raised very serious questions. Therefore, in any debate about European unity it is very important that we do not run away from issues that at times might be awkward and that people might not want to address.

It was mentioned this morning that people in Europe have the attitude that we are basically interested in our own well-being and that this was in some way strange. I would find it strange if our Minister's did not have as their first priority the interests of the people of this island. It would be very strange if they did not place great emphasis on the fundamental factors that affect the lifestyle and prosperity of the people of this country. It shows a total lack of self-confidence when I hear politicians perpetually going on about the need to be good Europeans, good boys all the time, not to raise awkward questions and not put first the interests of the country they are elected to represent. To me to do otherwise, while looking of course at the greater good of all mankind, would be basically a dereliction of duty.

On a scale of prosperity we are the fourth poorest country in Europe. If the EC means anything, that must be shouted again and again, just as we have people who represent the west of Ireland to shout again and again in Dublin to protect our interests as a small minority with smaller representation than the major urban areas. It is incumbent on our representatives to make sure that cohesion and subsidiarity are two words that are not forgotten after Maastricht.

On the question of cohesion and Structural Funds, it is very important that we address ourselves not only to the amount of money available but to the way it is delivered and for what purpose. In the west we saw money pumped into projects which were not the choice of the people they were meant to serve. They have not given a financial return for the money that was spent. What has concerned me over the years is the money which was given under various European headings which I and people on the ground know had very little effect in real terms. My view of subsidiarity is that it should be left to the people to decide basically on what to spend the money and not have the decision dictated to us by the interests of bureaucrats in Brussels.

If we are to develop the west we must face some facts. We have trained people and built all the motorways we can think of but if there is not some mechanism to reduce our cost structures and make us competitive there is no way we will operate on a level playing pitch. I will illustrate the point I wish to make. To post a letter from Dublin to Galway or from Dublin to Connemara costs the same as to post a letter ten doors down the street. We understand and accept that. Nobody ever thinks about it. It is the same with electricity charges. The equivalent of that in EC terms is access by telecommunications to the centre of Europe at a very reduced cost. It will have to mean that our carbon taxes which unfairly discriminate against those on the periphery cannot be applied on an equal basis across Europe.

If one compares an exporter operating out of Dublin, not to mention London, Berlin, The Hague or Paris, to somebody operating from Clifden or Cornamona, who exports 250 loads a year — the equivalent of one lorryload a day — the extra tax paid on the diesel alone by the operator from the west will be £10,000 per annum. These are the awkward matters about cohesion that people want to dodge but until they are faced up to all the money in the world put into other projects will not make our peripheral communities self-sustaining. As somebody who lives in a peripheral community, I know that the people are fed up of handouts and being dependent on some form of social welfare or grant-giving mechanism. What they want is a true level playing pitch where the real costs of getting to the market are equalised.

There has been an over-simplification of what the Single Market means. The advantage of the Single Market in real terms to a person operating from Belgium or Holland where they can drive straight across the border with no monetary change or custom tariff will be greater than it will be for those operating on this island, north and south. The reality is that we will still have paperwork and extra costs and trouble in getting our goods to the continental market. The amount of saving on paperwork as a result of computers will be relatively small because there will still need to be ship manifests or plane manifests, etc., made out in order to move the goods. I would go further and say that I have seen no evidence that there was any great deterioration in the economy when we broke with sterling. At least, if there was, I never heard anybody shout about it. It was said before it happened that there would be great disruption but I do not think anybody found it more dificult to export to Britain.

If we want to cut the cost of administration and duplication — and great play was made of this in regard to the banks — the best way we could do this on this island would be within the European Community context to rub out the Border, the one land border we have, to unify the island and get rid of the crazy duplication of two railway companies, tourist companies, two authorities dealing with industrial development, two tourist boards, two Education Departments, health boards and so on. In that way we would not be talking in terms of 3, 4 and 6 per cent savings; we would mean savings of 20, 30 or 40 per cent. Of course that has always been one of the great arguments in favour not only of European unity but of unity on this island.

Ba bhreá liom dá mbeadh deis agam go leor eile a rá ar an ábhar seo. Tá súil agam go mbeimid ar ais anseo arís chun tuilleadh plé a dhéanamh faoin gConradh fíor-thábhachtach seo a rachaidh faoi bhráid an phobail san athbhliain.

I would appreciate, if with the agreement of the House, I could share my time with my colleague, Senator Ó Foighil. Perhaps the Chair would remind me when my seven minutes are up.

The signing of the Maastricht agreement is another definite step on the road to political union but I regret the Minister did not circulate the Treaty. What we have received since the Council meeting has been substantial comment in the newspapers. It is difficult in parliamentary terms to establish from what angle one's material is coming from. If one reads the UK newspapers one gets one view of the outcome of the Treaty, our own papers reveal a different viewpoint and the Agence Europe yet another. That is taking a chance with public opinion in this country.

The Minister has told us a referendum will be necessary to allow the Irish people to declare whether they fully subscribe to greater European union. In the present political climate this could be a dangerous exercise because, whether we like it or not, our economy and our future is firmly tied to a united Europe. We must be seen here to make that association work to the advantage of every Irish man, woman and child.

We are not working hard enough on that. It would be to our advantage, as many speakers have already said, if the European Parliament were given greater democratic powers. The Council of Ministers are still extremely nationalistic; perhaps that is in the order of things. It is difficult for a Government such as ours, whether balancing the books or pursuing their own governmental policies not to become somewhat removed from the views, the aspirations and the hopes of ordinary men and women. I would like to see the representatives of the people themselves having greater control over proposals from the Commission. If, for instance, all the other 11 national Parliaments had the same input into European affairs and the affairs of the Commission as the Houses of the Oireachtas have here, that would be a small input.

It is one thing having an input but it is another having an opportunity to discuss decisions after the fact. Are we being conned here? It is not as bad as that but we need as early as possible to start a programme setting out the position in a positive way so that whenever the referendum comes up it will be carried. I do not think we can cut ourselves apart.

Democracy has to play a greater role in the evolvement of a closer European union and we must also take account of eastern European countries. It is regrettable that this involves encroaching on our own and the EC's marvellous tradition of aid to the ACP to Third World development. I understand that resources must be spread but nevertheless it is a pity that we seem to have neglected almost completely the plight of millions of Africans who are beset by an horrendous famine at present.

Our future is now firmly tied up in a united Europe and we must all try to work in a positive way to reach that goal. The previous speaker, Senator Ó Cuív, dealt with the problems that industry will have in exporting to a greater Europe. Before we concentrate too much on valid points he made, having regard to the problematic press coverage this country has received for the past eight, nine or ten months, we must start to rebuild the quality image of Irish products, especially agricultural products. We must work extremely hard to restore the good name of quality Irish products and that is going to take a huge effort.

I would like to ask the Minister what the Government are doing and if they have embarked on a programme to inform the electorate and to assist people to make a choice in the coming year. Even though the name of the Community has been changed from the European Economic Community to the EC, it is still important that we concentrate on trade and on aids to competitiveness especially after 1 January 1993.

Problems with Structural Funds still exist. Although we have gained much hard cash from Europe, it is difficult to see the additionality on the ground. I blame the policy of the Department of Finance for hijacking all of the funds from Europe. If we are going to talk about European union and a Europe of the regions, counties here should have the obligation and the right to order their own priorities as to where Structural Funds will be expended. This year we had the scandal of the LEADER programme. Counties moved into that at the 11th hour with little preparation. Therefore, I do not believe this country got the maximum return from that excellent programme due to indolence in certain sections of the public sector.

Is beag a bheidh mé in ann a rá i seacht nóiméad faoin ábhar tábhachtach seo, ach is féidir a rá go bhfuil cumas ann anois dul chun cinn a dhéanamh. Tá comhtháthú eacnamaíochta agus sóisialta curtha í dtoll a chéile, agus tá aontas airgid i gceist mar chuid den réiteach seo. Tá polasaí sóisialta i gceist ag an gcuid is mó de na tíortha. Tá leasú Phairlimint na hEorpa i gceist agus tá polasaí slándála idir tíortha na hEorpa i gceist. Tá na rudaí sin go maith. Más féidir linn feoil a chur orthu sin beidh job maith déanta leis an socrú a deineadh i Maastricht.

Ceárd a chiallaíonn Maastricht don duine in iarthar na hÉireann? Céard é an buntáiste a bheidh acu as i gcomhthéacs a bhfuil déanta ó 1973 nuair a chuamar isteach sa Chomhmhargadh don chéad uair riamh? Is é an rud atá ag teacht ansoiléir tríd na cainteanna seo uilig anuas tríd na blianta go bhfuil an focal "réigiúnachas" fíor-thábhachtach ar fad i gcomhtheács an ábhair seo uilig. Is í an chiall atá againne le réigiúnachas ná go mbeadh réigiún ann agus go mbeadh an réigiún sin i gceannas a bhfuil ag tarlú taobh istigh den cheantar sin, bíodh an réigiún sin mór nó bíodh sé beag. Tá áiteanna agus tá tíortha in a bhfeádfadh sé a bheith mór. Mar shampla tá an Basque country sa Spáin, Corsica, Gibraltar, Tyrol, Tuaisceart na hÉireann, Deisceart na hÉireann, Cúige Mumhan, Cúige Uladh. Is cuma liom ceárd é an réimse ag deireadh thiar. Má tá aon fhiúntas le bheith le haontas na hEorpa agus má táimid i ndáiríre faoin rud atá i gceist againn, caithfimid glacadh go huile is go hiomlán le fealsúnacht an réigiúnachais.

Níleor, mar a deirtear i mBéarla, pious platitudes a bheith againne. I gcuid de na doiciméid atá á gcur amach ag an Aire agus daoine eile, luann siad "the States agus na unions". Deireann an chéad cheann: "specific economic benefits of the Union among states and regions". Labhair an Seanadóir Ó Cuív faoi na réigiúin. Níl a leithéid de rud sa tír seo. Níl glactha ag an tír seo le réigiúnachas i gcomhthéacs na hEorpa. Tá an creatlach nó an foismea atá cruthaithe anseo inmholta agus inghlactha, ach mura mbeidh an leanúnachas ann i ndiaidh seo leis an réigiunachas seo a fhorbairt le go bhfeádfaidh na daoine seo a bheith in ann dul chun cinn a dhéanamh in a gceantair féin le cúnamh agus le cumhacht na hEorpa beidh cuid mhór den obair caillte.

Tá eolas maith ag an Aire Stáit ar iarthar na hÉireann agus luaigh an Seanadóir Ó Cuív an méid airgid a chuaigh isteach ansin. Chuaigh an t-uafás airgid isteach ón Eoraip. Mar sin, cén fáth go mbeadh gá le cruinniú i nGaillimh tuairim is mí ó shin ag easpaig iarthar na hÉireann uilig le chéile a rá go bhfuil teipthe air agus go bhfuilimid i bhfad níos measa as anois mar cheantar nó mar réigiún taobh thiar den tSionna ná mar a bhíomar i 1973? Tá an cruthúnas le fáil ann. Tugadh cúnamh an-mhaith, The Western Package, faoin ar cuireadh go leor scéimeanna ar bun, ach ní raibh aon bhaint bunúsach ag muintir an iarthair le caitheamh an airgid sin. Deineadh é sin uilig i mBaile Átha Cliath, sa Roinn Airgeadais is mó.

Ní gá ach a léiriú cén chaoi a bhfuil an structúr ag dul in iarthar na hÉireann faoi láthair. Tá cuile shórt teannta isteach i mBaile Átha Cliath. Dá dtarlódh an rud céanna maidir le Maastricht, bheadh chuile shórt súite isteach ag an ionad lár i mBrussels. Sin an chontúirt atá ann, go mbeidh an chuid eile den tír seo mar chineál chúl-sráid do Bhaile Átha Cliath, ag síneadh chomh fada siar is atá siar ann. Tóg, mar shampla, stádas Aerfort na Sionna agus an chaint atá ar bun ag an nóiméad seo ag iarraidh deireadh a chur leis. Táimid ag iarraidh an córas a shú isteach go Baile Átha Cliath. Tóg, mar shampla, an rud atá siad ag iarraidh a dhéanamh le Teagasc. Má tharraingíonn tú líne ó Dhoire anuas go Corcaigh, de réir an rud atá á dhéanamh le Teagasc anois, níl aon staidéar féidearthachta ar bun taobh thiar den líne sin ar son feirmeoirí iarthar na hÉireann. Tá an Common Agricultural Policy ar an gcaoi chéanna. Táimid ag dul ag tabhairt tuilleadh airgid do fheirmeoirí le tada a dhéanamh. Mar an gcéanna le iarnróid na hÉireann agus an chaoi a bhfuil siad á ngrádú síos all the way.

Is trua liom a bheith ag caint mar seo. Níl mé ag caint mar dhuine atá mí-shásta le Maastricht. Tá mé ag caint faoi fírinni a fheicim anseo. Tá cnámha maith ann ach caithfimid feoil a chur air. Agus domsa, ar chaoi ar bith, mar dhuine atá ag obair in iarthar na hEireann i gcaitheamh mo shaoil, ní bheidh feoil ar bith ar Maastricht mura mbeidh réigiúnachas ann, mura mbeidh ciall leis an reígiúnachas sin agus feidhm leis. D'fhéadfaimis leanúint ag caint faoi sin ar feadh scaithimh eile ach le cúnamh Dé tiocfaimid ar ais air sin arís agus tá súil agam go mbeidh an tAire ansin lán-sásta tacaíocht a thabhairt don réigiúnachas.

The dust has not yet settled on what happened in Maastricht. If we cast our minds back to when the Single European Act was passed six years ago it was a long time before we could look at what was agreed there. It was only later when other elements like budgetary stability had been agreed upon that the significance of that Act became apparent. The same will apply to Maastricht and what was agreed there.

One of the things we have is a union because that has been decided, it is in the title. We will not be the European Communities any more; we will by the European Union. It is not a federal union because the word "union" has been dropped in the aspirational parts of the Treaty and, more tellingly, in the structure of the Treaty. It is based on several pillars and only one of these, the traditional European Community per se, involves the pre-federal legal base, the independent Commission and a judicial review through the Court of Justice. However, it still claims to be a federalising union and it provides for an extension in the scope of the activities decided and regulated from the centre. At the same time, the Treaty embodies an important federal principle, namely, subsidiarity, that decisions should be taken at the lowest level of competence. That slows things up at times but, on the other hand, it ensures a more democratic approach.

The most concrete result from Maastricht may be seen in the commitments regarding European Monetary Union. We have a tight time scale and institutional arrangements are in place with specific conditions for staying in the first division. Having said that, several points remain to be made. First, commitment of itself does not guarantee success and the prospect of a formal two speed integration is, unfortunately, emerging more clearly than before. The ability of Ireland to meet the third stage conditions is not self-evident and, on today's figures, relies on a very permissive intepretation of one of them.

Cohesion is the other side of the coin and we do have a deal there. Supplementary funds, greater flexibility in the administration of existing funds and more favourable rules on matching funds are all on a legally binding Protocol. One might ask, what more do we want? What we need is a large federal budget, two or three times greater than the present budget.

Let us look at social policy. It is possible to see the policy scope of the union expanding in areas outside the Single Market or the European Monetary Union, but the most obvious short term lesson is that such extension is neither automatic nor limitless. A case in point is the Irish Protocol which insulates Article 43.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, thereby keeping murder of the unborn or abortion outside Ireland. Whether this can be seen as subsidiarity in practice or as an Irish backlash against the supremacy of European Community law remains to be seen.

A more dramatic demonstration of the limitation of the union's scope is contained in the extraordinary fate of the Social Charter of the draft Treaty which disappeared at the behest of Mr. Major, and I must say in this regard that he nearly excelled his predecessor, Mrs. Thatcher. This raises the prospect of the United Kingdom gaining an unfair advantage by holding onto its status as a second division, sweated labour economy.

Let us look at the issue of accountability. It is hypothetical but clear at this stage that one day there will be a European army. I asked this question before and I ask it again. Who will run the army? Will it be the generals, the Government, the Commission or who? If generals, will they be from Germany, or mostly from France, or mostly from Germany? These things need to be looked at.

That particular issue raises other issues of accountability. How accountable are the decision-making institutions, the popular control? The main issue here has been an extension of the European Parliament's powers. We heard little of this in the immediate aftermath of what was, after all, an inter-governmental conference, where the President of the European Parliament was brought on the first day to warm things up.

Institutional changes have taken place. The Commission and Parliament's terms of office are to be more closely matched but it will be hard to assess the significance until the Parliament itself goes through the fine print and formulates its own view. If democratic accountability is to have any meaning, our own Oireachtas must debate this, going through the fine print repeatedly because when we come to the positive ratification we are going to encounter cynicism which is already being expressed in polls by the electorate. Secondly, few people understand the complexities of the Treaty document. Parts of it are almost unintelligible to an educated or erudite person. Friends of mine going through it the other night read five or six sections and when they were referred back to another section they found that section had been scrubbed altogether.

What are the consequences of the various positions which can be adopted at ratification stage? We can ratify and expect the continued evolution of the union as an economic and political system with momentum towards another phase of institutional reform for larger union maybe in the mid-nineties or later on. Much still depends on events and has to be taken on trust. Are the consequences of rejection of the Treaty the end of the world? One must ask these questions because somebody will ask them along the line. Is it within the grasp of member states to turn down the work of Governments either because the Treaty does not go far enough as a maximalist rejection or because it goes too far, a minimalist rejection. Several national Parliaments, including Italy and Belgium, have threatened the maximilist rejection by making their decision depend on the approval of the European Parliament. I think another country is included here but I cannot remember which one at the moment. Other countries like the United Kingdom have evident difficulties with minimalist fears of further integration, and others still, like ourselves and Denmark, put the question to a popular vote.

The consequences of rejection by either maximalist or minimalist standards could lead to a stark choice for the Irish Government and voters and opting for the second division alongside the United Kingdom might be close to the 19th century Act of Union than anything which European Union could throw at us. I, for one, would rather see us in a European union than back in a commonwealth since it took so long to get out of that.

Speaking about European union and Maastricht and other elements of it, we are always in a fluid situation and will be from now because some people will be pushing frontiers forward while others try to hold them back. As the Taoiseach said one day, "It is true they keep changing the rules but it is the only club around". We have got to be in to win and that is what we are going to do.

I welcome the idea of Maastricht; I think it achieved something. We must keep reminding ourselves that this is about the prevention of war, not just economic or political union. I was small enough at the time but I still remember the consequences of the last war and anything that can stop that happening again must always be fostered.

I thank Senator Lydon for sharing some of his time with me and I will be brief of necessity.

First, I would like to make the point that Europe as we know it today has grown to enormous size in industrial and other spheres. It is now the biggest single trading bloc in the world with 340 million people. This has obviously given rise to the necessity for other new structures to work side-by-side with economic development. The EC has set the headline for the whole area of central Europe and systems of government there have been changed to emulate the situation in the EC. There are countries eager to get into EC at the moment, such as Sweden, Austria, and so on.

The Minister's speech highlighted five main issues on the Maastricht front which are worthy of brief reflection. First, there is the question of economic and social cohesion, a most important one for this country. We are not too clear at this point what economic cohesion means, precisely. It seems to mean that moneys would be given by the better off nations to poorer nations like ourselves. I submit to the Minister that by virtue of our location, our distance from the marketplace and our small population, we are probably the most underprivileged country of all 12 countries at present. This should be taken into account in 1992 and 1993 when the final sums are being done on the apportionments to which we will be entitled.

Economic and monetary union is the aim and by 1999 and 2000 we will have reached all stages and will adopt a single economic currency. Unfortunately, on social policy and institutional reform we did not reach the sort of agreement with the UK that we would have liked and this gives them an unfair advantage as set out by Senator Lydon a moment ago.

We have a common security and foreign policy which in the long term will help. Basically, we are talking about something akin to the United States of America on an even larger scale ultimately. I am satisfied that as we go along other countries including the Scandinavian and east European countries will want to be part of this arrangement.

I want to refer briefly to the question of the referendum. It is absolutely vital that we in every political party create a public climate to make certain that that referendum is successful; it would be horrific if that referendum were unsuccessful. While the EC has certain disadvantages for us, the disadvantage of being outside it would be so great that it does not bear thinking about. We all have the responsibility of selling this agreement to the public who are perhaps apathetic at present given the major problems on the domestic front. Nevertheless, we have a duty and a responsibility not alone to ourselves but to the people we represent to ensure that referendum is carried and that the people will give their stamp of approval to this agreement.

There are many other points which I would like to elaborate on but, unfortunately, time does not permit me.

I am sure all sides of the House will agree that the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister have been most co-operative. Throughout the year he has probably been one of the most sought after Ministers as we have had many debates on matters relating to foreign affairs. I take this opportunity, to thank the Minister and his Department for their cooperation.

I thank Senator Wright for his good wishes. Senator McDonald asked why we do not have a copy of the draft Treaty. As I said earlier, a copy of the draft Treaty and the agreed amendments are available in the Library. I understand the consolidated text will be made available either this evening or tomorrow.

I wish everybody in the House, Members and staff, a very happy and holy Christmas.

Top
Share