I warmly welcome the Minister and have pleasure in calling on him to open this important debate.
European Union Treaty: Statements.
I am glad to have this opportunity to speak to this House on the current situation regarding the European Union treaty.
First, I would like to outline the reasons Ireland will be going ahead with the referendum on 18 June. As Senators are aware, the Government deeply regret the decision of the Danish people in their referendum on 2 June to reject the Treaty on European Union. I would like to make one thing very clear. In my contribution at the Council of Ministers yesterday I indicated to the Danish Foreign Minister, Uffe Elleman-Jensen, that he was not there in the capacity of a whipping-boy. The Danish people were entitled to take the decision they took. It was a democratic decision taken by a community of people who decided in their wisdom that they were entitled to say "no". That was basically the tenor of my contribution, in addition to other explanations I added in the context of what I perceived to be a positive response in Ireland to the referendum process and the outcome of the referendum on 18 June with a "yes" vote.
I thought it was important to support my Dutch colleague in the sense that in any democracy the people are entitled to take whatever decision they want to take. People have to accept that. I did not say it in a patronising fashion. It is just a matter of fact in a democracy. The rejection by Denmark was by a very narrow margin, under 50,000 out of an electorate of nearly four million people. Nonetheless, it was a rejection arrived at by the Danish people through the democratic process and, as I indicated at the meeting of Foreign Ministers which I attended in Oslo yesterday the other member states of the Community must respect that decision.
The decision by the Danish people to reject the Treaty on European Union and the continued process of European integration is a matter for Denmark to consider and to deal with. For our part we must rely on our own interests of what is best for Ireland and for the process of European integration.
Our partners have decided, like Ireland, to continue their ratification procedures in their respective member states. They have excluded any reopening of the European Union Treaty. Like Ireland, they have decided they are obliged to do so in the proper discharge of their international obligations. They are continuing their necessary parliamentary procedures with a view to completing the ratification process by 1 January 1993.
I was struck at our meeting yesterday in Oslo by the determination not to allow the Treaty to fail. There was widespread sympathy for Denmark, but there was also a strong view that other member states should also continue with the ratification process.
As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the Treaty on European Union will come into force on 1 January 1993 if it has been ratified by all 12 member states of the European Community. I have also pointed out that in the event of one state deciding not to ratify the Treaty, the other member states would want to press ahead to create a European union with a number less than 12.
This was abundantly evident at our meeting in Oslo yesterday when the 11 reaffirmed their intention to continue the ratification process on the basis of the existing Treaty and in accordance with the agreed timetable of the end of the year.
The 11 member states realise that the Danish decision is important. We decided to leave the door open for Denmark. However, the view of my fellow Foreign Ministers was that the first priority was to complete the ratification process and not to bring them to a halt because one member state has a problem.
The Treaty on European Union involved enormous negotiating effort by every member state before the final effort at Maastricht in December 1991 which concluded the agreement. But above all the Treaty on European Union required enormous political will by all member states to reach its conclusion. The political will and effort required to reach agreement will not be thrown away just because one member state found that it was unable to ratify the Treaty. Again, this was very clear at the meeting yesterday in Oslo.
The Treaty on European Union is like all international agreements. It does not reflect the exclusive interest of one negotiating partner. It reflects the process of negotiation and compromise required to conclude any Treaty involving 12 negotiating positions. The Government are satisfied that the Treaty on European Union reflects and advances Ireland's interests which are bound up with the process of European integration.
On 18 June, in just under two weeks, the Irish people will be asked to vote in favour of the Treaty on European Union and for the process of continued European integration. In that regard, I say once more that the suggestion the Government are using bullying tactics or terrorising people to vote "Yes" flies in the face of the campaign we are conducting. We have our political agenda and our political agenda asks the people in as calm, reasonable and proper a way as possible to vote "Yes". That has been the Taoiseach's approach. It has been my approach and the approach of other Ministers. People are entitled to say "No" if they want to. We are asking them to say "Yes". It is as simple as that.
We are entitled to ask them to say "Yes". There seems to be a point of view among those who are anti-Maastricht that we are not entitled to do that. In just under two weeks, on 18 June, the Irish people will be asked to vote in favour of the Treaty on European Union and for the process of continued European integration. They will take the most important step in a process which will require approval of the Treaty and its implementing legislation by the Oireachtas later this year if the people allow the process to continue. Why is this Treaty so important to Ireland? Let me briefly set out the main reasons, five in all.
First it reaffirms the commitment which we made to Europe 20 years ago. This commitment brought Ireland back into direct contact with the rest of Europe and balances the relationship, valuable though it is in many respects, which we have with our neighbouring island.
Second, the Treaty provides a legal basis for economic and monetary union. It puts in place a procedure to achieve full economic and monetary union by 1999 at the latest and, subsequently, a single currency which will replace the individual national currencies at present in use. European monetary union is a natural extension of the Single European Market and it is necessary if the full benefits of a Single Market are to be realised. It is estimated that the long term benefit to the Community for European Union and the Single Market could be up to 15 per cent of GDP. Furthermore, if we were not part of economic and monetary union, Ireland would not be able to participate in decisions that have the most fundamental consequences for our economy and for our currency.
Third the Treaty on European Union includes the promotion of economic and social cohesion as one of the aims of the Community. This is the first time that this aim has been written into a Community treaty. This development is very much to Ireland's benefit and in Ireland's interest. Furthermore, the Treaty will establish a Cohesion Fund. This is a totally new element outside the Structural Funds. It is in addition to the Structural Funds which will contribute financially to environment projects and trans-European networks in the less well off member states. The reason for establishing the promotion of economic and social cohesion as one of the aims of the Treaty and the creation of the fund was to ensure that the central prosperous regions of the Community would not gain at the expense of the regions on the periphery.
Fourth, the Treaty on European Union will give the Community competence in new areas of great interest to Ireland — education, public health, consumer protection, industry, development cooperation, trans-European networks and culture. In all these areas national action will be supplemented by the Community. This can only be in Ireland's interest.
Fifth, the Treaty on European Union contains provisions for greater co-operation in the areas of justice and home affairs and for a common foreign and security policy. These are two of the three pillars provided for in the Treaty. The provisions on common foreign and security policy respond to changes which have taken place in Europe in the last three years. They do not involve military commitments. They will enable Ireland to be a full participant in shaping the views which, together with their partners, Europe will take of world events.
These are the main broad reasons it is manifestly in Ireland's interest to ratify the Treaty on European Union. The Treaty represents another stage in the development of European integration. The process of European integration began more than 30 years ago. It has served Europe well. It has ensured that the devastating wars that have pitched European against European twice this century are no longer possible. Ireland became part of the process of European integration when we voted by an overwhelming majority to join the European Community 20 years ago. We reconfirmed our commitment to that process in 1987. On 18 June we will have the opportunity to say "yes" to Europe again. I would like to once more stress that those people who wish will have the opportunity to say "no" on 18 June as well.
I have no doubt that the Irish people believe in the idea on which European integration is based. I have no doubt they favour the further integration of the peoples of Europe. I also have no doubt that they know that the Treaty on European Union is in the interests of Ireland, our economic and social well being and the future of our children.
Other states and peoples know that European integration and the Treaty on European Union are essential to the short and long-term interests of this nation. What has been brought home in recent days is the contrast between one member state which has rejected the process of European integration and the many other states outside the Community who want to be part of that process. This has given rise to what is called the Scandinavian irony. The Scandinavian irony is interpreted as on the one hand, Denmark opts out and, on the other, there is a queue of other Scandinavian countries to get in. These states do not want to be part only of the Community; these states understood and accepted when they made their applications that what they were seeking was membership of the European Union.
I am most grateful to Senators of all parties for their attention. I may not be remaining for the full debate, for which I apologise, as I must take the Estimate for the Department of Foreign Affairs in the Dáil later this morning. I assure Members that I will study what they say and take very serious account of and pay particular attention to their points of view.
The House appreciates the Minister being here this morning, particularly after the important meeting he had yesterday in Oslo and that was stated by the Leader of the House before the Minister came in here.
I welcome the Minister to the House. He has the advantage of living in interesting times. I wish him every good wish in his new job as Minister for Foreign Affairs. There is genuine goodwill for the Minister on all sides of the House.
First, I would like to put the present problem into a certain context. The decision of the Danish people to exercise their democratic right is not the end of the world or the end of civilisation as we know it. The heavens will not fall in because of what has happened. I am a great believer that where there is the political will usually there is a way.
The history of the European Community is of a series of advances followed frequently by setbacks, periods of retrenchment and reflection followed by an advance more securely based. From Messina to de Gaulle to the antics of Mrs. Thatcher in the eighties, we can see that it has not been a steady road pointing in one direction. There have been many setbacks but on almost every occasion where the political will existed it was possible to make progress. In that context I want to put on record and reaffirm the commitment of my party to the process of European Union, to the principles enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty and to the direction in which that Treaty is leading this country.
However, having said that, the gravity of the present situation cannot be exaggerated. There is a huge cloud of uncertainty hanging in the longer term over the whole Maastricht process but in the very short term over our referendum. Nothing we have heard so far and, regrettably, nothing I heard from the Minister this morning, has either clarified that situation or removed the very genuinely held doubts which exist. The essence of our problem at present is this uncertainty and lack of clarity. The Taoiseach, I am sorry to say, has adopted a bland, it will be all right on the night attitude to the whole process in, perhaps, a deliberate attempt to play it down but he has not told us how it will be all right on the night. He has shown much the same sort of complacency which characterised the approach of the Danish Government to the referendum in their country and which many commentators believe may, in part, have been responsible for the negative outcome there.
The position as I see it is that the Government here, with other EC Governments have taken an extraordinary high risk and adopted what I would call a reckless policy of ploughing on regardless in the hope that the Danes will come to their senses by the end of December and then all will be well; it will simply have been a hiccup along the way. This is an extremely high risk policy. There appears to be no element of contingency built into what is happening at the present nor is there any evidence to back up the assumption upon which this policy is based. We may ask upon what basis is this policy being followed?
There appears to be an element of bullying in this. I would hasten to add that I do not include our Minister or our Government in that because, of all people, we have to be conscious of the rights of small nations to assert their indepencence. There appears to be an element of bullying the Danes on that part of some of the bigger EC states — the threat of almost immediate and terrible war unless the situation is rectified by the end of the year. My colleague, Professor Bridget Lavin, said this morning on RTÉ Radio 1 that the Danes are very unlikely to be bullied or pressurised. I hope there is some basis we have not been told about for the Government following this particular policy.
We face a referendum which is enveloped in uncertainty. What is the status of a referendum? If people vote "Yes", as I hope they will, on 18 June and the Danes do not change their minds, does that mean, as I believe it does, that the Treaty is null and void? Does it mean we will have voted to change our Constitution to facilitate a Treaty which no longer exists? In other words, are we voting in a vacuum on that date? Does that mean the referendum may only be aspirational and may not be legally binding? This is the key question hanging over the referendum. Unless we have a clear answer on the exact status of the referendum on 18 June it may have a very negative effect on people who may feel it does not really matter and they may not vote at all. As a small country, we may vote "No" on 18 June but I hope that will not happen.
The position of the Danes has brought into focus the whole question of a two-speed Europe. Is it possible? How is it possible? What are the enormous legal implications and complications which would be involved? Perhaps the Minister, if not today then at a later date, can spell out to the Houses of the Oireachtas how this two-speed Europe would operate, how it would come into effect, how it would affect us and if is a real possibility facing us if we vote "No" on 18 June. I say this as somebody who does not want a two-speed Europe.
I will deal briefly with the question of the wretched Protocol. The only positive factor which will flow from the Maastricht Treaty failing would be that the Protocol would no longer exist. We have still to be told, however, how and why of this infamous addition to the Maastricht Treaty — how it was inserted and why it was smuggled into the Treaty.
I turn now to the bizzare performance of the Taoiseach in this controversy. The Taoiseach said yesterday to the political correspondents that nothing had changed in Ireland as a result of the Danish situation, nothing. That is simply not true. If nothing has changed why are we having this debate here today? Why did the Minister fly to Oslo, on the fringe of a NATO meeting yesterday, to take part in discussions there? Why is the turmoil in every capital city and in every Parliament in Europe at present if nothing has changed? Why does the Taoiseach talk like this? Is he trying to insult the intelligence of the people when everybody can see that the situation has changed, and changed dramatically? If nothing has changed, why have we this legal uncertainty hanging over our referendum?
The Taoiseach also said yesterday "I have put the abortion area to bed." That is just a brazen statement; he has not. We have no idea what the Government's intentions are on the abortion issue. We have had one long process of fudge and procrastination. The one thing that is missing in all of this is any sense of clarity or certainty in what the Government do. It is Government living from day to day, making it up as they go along, flying by the seat of their pants.
It is not good enough for the Taoiseach to say as he did yesterday: "Politicians do their own business and the legal people follow and facilitate it." That again is rubbish and the Minister more than anybody must know as a lawyer that it is rubbish. Europe is based on law; it is based on a whole series of legal treaties solemly entered into, solemnly enacted. They cannot be changed by political fiat or diktat or by the Taoiseach simply playing them down. Law is at the very heart of the European process. The Taoiseach is talking about Europe as if it were simply a question of changing a few urban by-laws to get what he wants, changing a few rules and regulations as he goes along.
The Taoiseach has embarked on a very dangerous game. What he is saying is disingenuous and is wrong. If he is trying to talk this crisis out of existence by playing it down, all he is doing is trivialising the issues and his role, and he will give credibility to those who want to vote "no" or those who vote "no" because they want to because they have genuine doubts about the Treaty. It is time for positive leadership, clear speaking and thinking from the Taoiseach on this issue. I say this because I passionately want the "yes" vote to succeed on 18 June. I want the process to continue. I believe it is emphatically in our national interest that the Maastricht Treaty goes ahead, but this can only happen if the procedures and the process is correct and if it is legally watertight. That is why the two words I emphasise this morning are "clarity" and "certainty" following the Danish decision.
It is not just an Irish problem. There must be a clear statement from the European leaders well in advance of the Irish referendum, that is less than two weeks away now. The Minister had a chance this morning to reassure us that the policy being followed is not the policy of trying to bring the Danes into line. He has not, I am sorry to say, reassured us on that issue; he has not removed the doubts and the question marks hanging over the whole process. He did not refer to the uncertainty in the other countries, the juggernaut that has been let loose by the Danish decision — the uncertainty of the Tory Party in Britain, the French referendum, or the doubts in Germany, all of which may well have a knock-on effect.
I want a meeting of the Heads of Government of the Twelve European countries at the earliest possible date. Of all issues, this is one that calls for leadership. We are not getting leadership from the Taoiseach or the Government; and we are not getting it from the Heads of the Governments of Europe. Unless it is forthcoming very rapidly we may find ourselves sharing the Danish nightmare without any Scandinavian irony to soften the blow.
We would not be debating this issue this morning were it not for the fact that the Danes voted as they did. By a very narrow majority they voted not to proceed at this stage with ratification of the Treaty on European Union. Some people have suggested that we should vote in like manner and have been comparing Ireland and Denmark. We can be compared with any nation, but the conclusions drawn must be logical and accurate.
Denmark and Ireland have very different identities both economically and historically and any comparisons are misguided. We are net beneficiaries of the European Community and the Danes are not. We receive more European Community funding per head than any other member state. Consequently, we have a great deal more to lose from a "no" vote than do the Danes. There are historical reasons for Danish caution regarding the Community motivated by World War II fears of loss of sovereignty. The Community, they fear, would be dominated by Germany. We do not have that antipathy. Community membership has been beneficial to Ireland. Membership of the European union will be even more so.
In retrospect, the Danish vote should not be seen as too surprising. Unlike Ireland, the Danish Parliament rejected the Single European Act in 1987. It was later passed in a referendum by a small majority. On the other hand, unlike the Danes, we voted to join the European Community by a massive majority. Ireland's commitment to the Community and to the European ideal has always been much stronger than the Danish commitment. There is a clear parallel between the current situation and 1973 when, if Senators remember, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Norway applied to join the European Community. At that time, Norway decided not to join the Community. However, this did not prevent the other three countries, including Ireland, from joining and reaping the benefits of membership. As in 1973, Ireland must not be influenced by the decisions of other countries. We must do what is best for us as a nation and this can only be done by a "Yes" vote on 18 June.
What have the Danes achieved by voting "no"? A political crisis now exists in Denmark. Foreign investment has been halted. It is highly unlikely they will be able to renegotiate the Treaty and they will now find themselves in the second tier of a two-tier Europe. Ireland does not belong to the second tier. Ireland belongs in the first division and a "yes" vote on 18 June is the best way to help ensure this.
The political reality is that the integration process will continue and it now seems likely that the other 11 member states will forge ahead with European integration. If anything, the Danish has reaffirmed our determination. I am sad that the Danes may be left behind but I am hopeful that some way may be found in the future for them to come on board again. This does not seem possible right now. The process must continue and it is in Ireland's best interest that we be a part of that process. The most positive and unambiguous way to indicate our committment to European Union is by voting a resounding "yes" on 18 June.
The majority of our political parties, the employers, unions and farmers have all indicated their support for a "yes" vote. The confusion caused by the Danish vote should not blind us to our own interests. These are closely tied to a more integrated European Community. European Union is about creating jobs, protecting the environment, equality of opportunity and the promotion of peace. The union will be an anchor of stability in Europe as a whole. God knows, we need it when we look at places like Yugoslavia.
There are those who have expressed reservations and this is only to be expected. Their views must be respected also. I will not deal with all of these as they have been covered in earlier debates on the Maastricht Treaty. It has been stated that some women have fears, for example, with the right to travel and the right to information. The Government are committed to dealing with these by way of referenda. They have said they will do so and I have no doubt they will. People should not have any fears regarding women's issues because European Union and the European Community have helped women along the road to equality which should be theirs by right.
There are some people in what is called the pro-life movement who have reservations. I know some of these people. They are decent, honourable, sincere and concerned people. The Government have given a commitment to deal with all the issues arising from the Supreme Court judgment as soon as possible after the referendum on 18 June. They are two separate issues. It is not helpful for these people to continue to campaign against European Union. I am as pro life as anyone and so is everybody here. My views on the matter are well known. Here is one pro-life person who has complete confidence in the Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, and his Government for the way they have handled the issue. Here is one pro-life person who is calling for a massive "yes" vote on 18 June. As Minister Máire Geoghegan-Quinn said last night on television, European Union is all about peace, prosperity and potential. Mar a dúirt an tAire freisin, bhíomar fiche bliain ag fás, fiche bliain ag bláth. We have been growing now for 20 years, let us blossom in the next 20 years.
One last point, to all those doubting Thomases, whom do they doubt? I think perhaps they doubt themselves. I was speaking recently at the AGM of the Corporate Treasurers of Ireland and I said, let us have faith in ourselves, in our own negotiating abilities and skills. If an Irishman, a Dane or a Swede are in a room together and people want to hear a point of view, the Irishman has as much chance of giving his point of view as anybody else. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, proved this recently in Brussels with a fantastic piece of negotiation. Let us have faith in ourselves and let us look at what we can give to Europe as well as what we can get. Let us have vision and let us not be fearful.
In the final analysis, European Union is about peace and we should never forget that. It is a peace that has reigned for almost half a century. I know that part of our own country is still sadly racked by violence and division, but European Union points the way forward with regard to solving that problem. With the eventual elimination of Customs and other barriers between people, Irishmen and women of all creeds and classes will be able to live in peace, harmony and prosperity on this island of Ireland. This may not become a reality for some time to come but it is an aspiration that can only be helped by European Union, not hindered by it. That alone, in my opinion, is sufficient reason for looking for a massive "yes" vote for this treaty on 18 June.
I also join in the welcome to the Minister but we should not overdo this effusive welcoming of a senior Minister to the House.
I would not want the Senator to do that.
With respect, I am making an important point. It should be the normal expectation of this House that at important debates there should be a senior Government Minister present. Our expectations have been greatly lowered as a result of the indifferent treatment we got over the years.
I do not want to waste time by referring to that part of the Minister's speech where he deals with the substantive case for European Union. However, I cannot allow the occasion to pass without commenting on one sentence in his speech in which he talks about the provisions in the Maastricht Treaty, "they do not involve military commitments". That at best is a half truth. I have no doubt whatsoever that Article J.4 locks the European Union into a military alliance——
Quite untrue.
——and furthermore puts us on course for the gradual, imperceptible absorption into that alliance but I will not waste time talking about that.
It is a matter for the Irish people to decide by referendum.
Excuse me, I am speaking. I want to confine myself to the Danish fall-out and its impact on our situation here. I agree with Senator Lydon that the two cases of Ireland and Denmark are quite different and Denmark voted for quite different reasons but we should know of one or two interesting similarities. There is one very interesting difference and that is the Danish people were extremely well-informed by a campign of information which was funded by Government and which presented both sides of the case, as should be the constitutional norm everywhere in these matters.
Secondly, they have a very active foreign affairs committee which I understand commands great public attention on is televised appearances and so on. There is no doubt that the Danes were exceptionally well-informed in making this decision. I believe there is one basic similarity, that essentially what the Danes were saying was "We think that Danish people can best look after Denmark and make the important decisions for Denmark, not some faceless bureaucracy, not some undemocratic super-state which makes no compensation for its new powers by offering in compensation new democratic dimensions." What the Danish people were saying is a lesson we could take on board, that in the end the interests of Ireland are best looked after by the people of Ireland and by no outside body.
The Danish decision also was a reproof to the politicians. Last night the Taoiseach, as Senator Manning said, made a distinction. He claimed it was the politicians who built Europe and not the lawyers. To the extent that any building goes on anywhere, it is the people who build and not the politicians. That is what the Danes were saying, too. They were saying, "You may go and make your great decisions in your charmed circles, cocooned by Euro-jargon and rhetoric which blinds you to a lot of what is going on but we, in the end, will decide what we want to do." It is a salutary lesson for us, that the alignment of the establishment in Denmark on the "yes" side was massive, as it is here — political, trade unions, and academics — so we should not expect that that alone will prevail.
It should have taught a lesson to politicians but I am not so sure that it has. Some of the reaction from the political establishment both on the Continent and here has been disappointing, to say the least. For example, the dismissive attitude that Denmark is only a small country — the Minister echoed that sentiment when he referred to the allegedly negligible size of the Danish differential — and that it should not influence the affairs of 340 million. The time for that kind of language has passed.
What struck many people on Wednesday and Thursday was the unbelieveable disarrary into which the Community leaders and our Government were thrown by this result. People used the phrase "the unthinkable has happened". Why was it unthinkable? We have been told for months that this was a likely outcome. It does not inspire any great confidence in European politicians generally, judging from their reaction to the Danish result.
I welcome it for other reasons also. Overnight it has transformed our attitude to those who intend to vote "no". Up to last week the people who intend to vote "no" were looked upon as somewhat faintly eccentric and disreputable but I think that has changed. It is very interesting that the Minister went out of his way on several occasions to emphasise that those who intend to vote "no" had every right to do so and that is good.
What may we expect in the next couple of weeks? I expect an intensified campaign of blandishment and threats. This has already begun. We have been favoured with the attentions of M. Jacques Delor who incidentally has some responsibility for the outcome in Denmark because of his attitude to the role of small states in the Community. We have been favoured with this attention of course for his own reasons: ar mhaithe leis féin a dheineann an cat crónán.
We will be told that it is now our business to save Europe on 18 June. We have trouble enough saving Ireland, and it is our business to save Ireland, so that argument does not impress me. In my view, Ireland will not be saved through the Maastricht Treaty. The differences between the Danes and ourselves will again and again be emphasised, as Senator Lydon did this morning. We will be reduced down to one crude and simple line: "we cannot afford to say no", which is the same as saying that we have failed, that we are bankrupt materially and morally and that our native Government have failed to govern us. That is a shameful situation.
The Minister has left us totally in the dark about the legal and constitutional implications of what we will be doing on 18 June. I asked a number of times leading up to this debate if the Minister would present us with an authoritative constitutional statement on the significance of what we will be doing on 18 June but he has not done so. As other Senators have said, yesterday Oslo was a prime example of the way in which the whole legal situation was swept away as if legalities were something for pedantic lawyers instead of being the whole foundation of international law and government. We are told the important thing is to express our political will on 18 June and the legalities will be looked after afterwards. That simply is not good enough. As far as I am concerned, the Minister did use the phrase that "Oslo would give the kiss of death to the Maastricht Treaty". It is still in cardiac arrest, if it is not quite dead.
I used the expression "kiss of life".
I am sorry, that was a Freudian slip on my part.
I am sorry for interrupting the Senator. I should not interrupt him.
Indeed the Minister should not, but there is no point in saying it when he is constantly interrupting me.
I was correcting the Senator. We live in a democracy so I am entitled to do that.
Democracy does not govern the rules of this Chamber. Order governs the rules of this Chamber. Please do not interrupt me again.
Do not suppress me either.
(Interruptions.)
I am entitled to clarify the position.
Senator Mooney, please resume your seat.
It is significant——
The Minister was correct in the situation. He explained very simply that the phrase was "kiss of life" not "kiss of death". I think Senator Murphy should accept that.
I would have corrected it in the Official Report. I do not need the Minister's correction.
We passed legislation in relation to the referendum to prepare the way for the people to authorise ratification. That legislation was in the context of 12 member states so whatever happens on 18 June we are not talking about 12 member states, therefore we are not talking about the European Union as laid down in the Maastricht Treaty.
I hope that before the Minister leaves he will have an opportunity to reply on this specific point and explain why what we will be doing on 18 June is anything other than a glorified opinion poll.
On behalf of the Progressive Democrats I thank the Minister for fulfilling Senator Murphy's expectations. I am glad he has attended this debate and that he has stayed with us, given the constraints on his time. If at any stage during the course of the debate he feels that he needs to clarify anything for me I will be quite happy to have clarification.
Thank you, Senator.
I share the regrets expressed by the Minister about the Danish decision. It is regrettable. I welcome his determination, and that of our European colleagues, that the Treaty should not fall and that the political will which is there overwhelmingly to support the direction in which the Treaty points us will not be thrown away.
The enthusiasm of the Progressive Democrats for the broadening and deepening of Europe is undiminished. As I said when we debated this matter on 14 May, since the time I began going to Brussels in the early seventies, I have been a committed European. I supported the decision to join the then Common Market; I supported the referendum on the Single Act and I unreservedly support a "Yes" vote on 18 June.
My party, as a member of the Liberal group of parties in Europe, subscribes to the European ideal, an ideal which has brought tremendous advances and brought Europe to a point where we hope the wars that devastated it will be a memory in the history books. That is the aspiration which drives Europe and is one to which I subscribe. There is no need to repeat the arguments we advanced on 14 May when we debated the Maastricht Treaty. They are well known and are now common currency within the country.
I do not under estimate the legal difficulties presented by the Danish decision. Nevertheless, I take the point that the political will is such that the momentum will not stop. As has been said, the train is not going to come off the rails. We have had very narrow interpretations of the legal consequences of the Danish decision for this country and for the Maastricht Treaty. One can easily envisage a situation where the brains within the Commission and the Council of Ministers could devise a legal solution as opposed to a political solution to this problem but I believe it is the political will that will prevail and will push us forward to a broader and deeper Europe. That political will is manifest.
There is legal confusion as a result of the Danish referendum, but it is obvious that, at a political level, the other 11 member states of the Community want to complete the process of building what I would hope to be a united states of Europe. Europe has been good for Ireland economically, socially and politically. As I said on 14 May, it has done an enormous amount to increase confidence in ourselves as a nation and to bring us out from the shadow of a colonial past. That has been an achievement in my view, and there are many other achievements to match it.
As a farmer I am aware of what Europe has done for me and for my family. As I said, the Progressive Democrats believe our participation in Europe has been overwhelmingly positive and beneficial for this country. It has raised our horizons and enhanced our influence and our sovereignty. We now have the opportunity to reciprocate by putting the whole process of European integration firmly back on the rails and by demonstrating to our fellow Community citizens that Ireland's commitment is simply not a matter of monetary advantage but a full blooded commitment to the European ideal of building political structures that bring us all together. These are the reasons which were taken into account yesterday by the Progressive Democrats Parliamentary Party when we unanimously agreed to redouble our referendum campaign efforts to secure an overwhelming "Yes" vote on 18 June.
The facts are that there have been immediate dramatic effects upon the Danish economy in terms of the Stock Market, exchange rates and so on. Presenting those facts, the economic facts and the other facts associated with this Treaty is not bullying, it is a legitimate democratic right to present those facts in as balanced and calm a way as possible. That is what we have been attempting to do over the past few weeks, and we will continue to do so between now and 18 June. People talk about conscription and forcing abortion on the Irish nation, if that is not bullying and intimidation I do not know what is. I disagree fundamentally with pretty well everything Senator Murphy said, particularly on defence implications. Having read the article to which he referred, I do not agree that that will necessarily bring us into a defence arrangement.
We have the second so-called pillar of the Treaty on common foreign and security policy leading to the formation of a common defence policy and which might, in time, led to common defence, but only on condition of ratification by unanimity by an intergovernmental conference and only by ratification by a referendum of the Irish people. If it be the wish of the Irish people to enter into a defence arrangement, so be it. I subscribe absolutely to one thing Senator Murphy said — the interests of Ireland are looked after best by the people of Ireland. I have confidence in the good judgement of the people of Ireland that on 18 June they will overwhelmingly endorse this Treaty. I am content to abide by the decision. As a democrat, how can it be otherwise than content to abide by the decision of the Irish people on 18 June? I have the confidence in their good judgement to expect that the result will be "yes".
I share some of the disquiet that has been expressed by people who have concerns about the abortion matter and what they might or might not do, and I was glad to hear Senator Lydon ask for a "yes" vote, given his reservations. Because of those reservations it is the intention of the Progressive Democrats in the lead up to the vote on 18 June, to publish our wording of what we would regard as a proper amendment to the Constitution so that people know what our position is on the matter. It would be my desire that the Government as a whole would do the same, but in the event that that does not happen, it would be the intention of my party to issue our own wording.
The balance of advantage, in my view, is overhwelmingly in favour of a "yes" vote on 18 June. That is not to say that in the compromise the Minister mentioned, there are not deficiencies. Of course, there are but the balance of advantage is overwhelming, and that balance of advantage has been subscribed to by the farming organisations, the trade unions, the employers and pretty well every sector of Irish society. In that circumstance, I believe it is legitimate to vigorously press the case for a "yes" vote on 18 June.
Perhaps the Bard got it right, perhaps he measured the Danish temperament correctly when he put: "To be or not to be" into Hamlet's mouth, but I hope that after 1 January 1993, and in the years following, we will not be able to say of Denmark: "Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well".
I am pleased the Minister is present. I am grateful to him for coming to the House — irrespective of whether we should have taken it for granted that he would be here — given the sort of schedule he has had over the last few days. I am also pleased to see in the Visitors' Gallery the Dutch Ambassador who seems to take a great deal of interest in this House. That is to be very much welcomed.
The Danish rejection of Maastricht raises both legal and political problems for Europe. However, let nobody have any doubt that the primary and basic problem is a political one. It is all too obvious that the legal difficulties which exist, arise now, at least in part, from the fact that no real consideration was given to the question of how Europe would cope with the eventuality of a "no" vote in Denmark. That is particularly surprising given the fact that it was well signalled; the opinion polls in Denmark made it quite clear that the result at best would be doubtful.
I do not believe that we should become bogged down in excessive levels of legal considerations. From time to time lawyers and those with an inclination for law get carried away with clever debating points and interesting technicalities. The function of law in this matter is to provide a way for giving expression to the political will in Europe rather than that it should be allowed to determine the outcome of the political considerations that should set the pace and determine what is going to happen rather than that we should be hemmed in and bound down by legal specifications which, I believe, there must be ways of getting round. It is as simple as that.
As far as Ireland is concerned, the basic question remains: do we want to go ahead with Maastricht? The Danes, for their own badly understood reasons, have decided against Maastricht. Our interests, resources, history and our people are different and distinct from Denmark. We need to concentrate on the questions relating to Maastricht which are relevant to us and not to get too overwhelmed by what happened in Denmark for reasons, as I said, that are primarily related to Danish considerations. However, there can be no getting away from the fact that what happened in Denmark will have an overall effect on the European Community but it is not the end of the process of European unification and it should not be allowed to undermine the objective a European continent which is free from war and where people can live in prosperity and harmony.
There has not been a war in Western Europe for almost 50 years. The terrible scenes which we see night after night on television from Eastern Europe should leave nobody under any illusions about the potential for further difficulties and fighting in Western Europe if we and the Europeans get it wrong. Those basic considerations which, in the last analysis, were the fundamental reason for establishing the European Community, should not be lost sight of by anybody in this country. I believe it would be a great pity if we ignored them and if we were sidetracked arising from what happened in Denmark in the past few days.
I am in favour of the Maastricht Treaty. I said that here some time ago and I still hold that position. I set out the reasons why I held that position in earlier debates and I see no reason to change my views despite the Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty. Essentially there are three of four basic reasons why I am in favour of membership of the EC. I am in favour because of the economic prosperity it has brought to the country but I am also in favour of it because of the social progress and the social changes which took place here primarily because we joined the European Community. The equality legislation and the rights of women here would not be the way they are, even if they are unacceptably restricted at present, if we had not joined the European Community. The rights of people in relation to unfair dismissal and to many aspects of labour law would not be the way they are now if we had not joined the EC. We should not lose sight of those facts because they are very important.
It is also very important to keep in mind what the implication in relation to those matters will be if we vote "no" on 18 June. I have no doubt there are forces around this country who would have no hesitation in taking us back to the days of the comely maidens dancing at the crossroads. They would take us back further and would turn the clock back if they got their way. Those people are now polluting the city of Dublin with posters pasted on to lamp posts in a manner that certainly is not very friendly to the environment. I do not have any doubt as to where those people want to take this country. They want to take us back rapidly to the middle ages. If this referendum is lost as far as those people are concerned they will have won the semi-final. They will push ahead and demand that the final be played on their terms and I would not be too sure what the outcome of that would be.
It is a pity that the Government did not publish the White Paper on the Maastricht Treaty sooner and that the debate on it did not take off sooner. There is still, I think, a great deal of confusion and ignorance about the impact of the Treaty on this country. It is a pity that the information campaign has not got going. To some extent that is due to the fact that we have had a postal strike and it has not been possible to distribute some of the information. I also think it is a pity that some of the debate in relation to this matter has been conducted in the old format of the dialogue of the deaf. At this stage I find it difficult to see any great advantage in people on radio or television having these deaf dialogues with one another, coming on with set positions, which are sometimes worked out for them by other people, and exchange these views across television or radio studios. I do not see that that type of dialogue helps people who are puzzled or confused by the issues to understand them and to be able to come to some sort of analysis which would lead them to a reasoned basis why they should vote either "yes" or "no".
God be with the days of the meetings in O'Connell Square.
I agree with Senator Upton. Confrontational politics never won elections.
That is a very valid point the Minister has made. It is one that all of us from time to time perhaps lose sight of. Many people have been asking what the EC has done for this country and what has it done to solve our problems. Of course it has not solved all our problems. In many ways it is a valid question but it is equally valid for the EC to ask what have we done for the Community. Indeed, it might not be out of place for us to ask what have we been doing for the EC. There is a big problem in relation to the referendum and it relates to the fact that we seem to have taken the result for granted. The opinion poll evidence to date would make that a reasonable enough conclusion but it is highly dangerous in politics to take the results of any election or referendum for granted, no matter how cut and dried they appear to be early in the campaign. It is important that people who have a position to state should do so and give their point of view to the public. As far as I can see it is only the "no" side of the campaign which is up and running. It seems that only the people who want to do their thing in relation to the Protocol and so on, the SPUC element of Irish society and the pro-life element who are out vigorously campaigning. The other elements are not.
The questions raised by Senator Manning are very important. They relate to what will Europe do and where will Europe go if the Danes persist in saying "no". If the Danes persist in saying "no" that raises very important questions and it would be interesting to hear the Minister's views on that.
The other very important question is, what happens if other European countries go down the same road as the Danes? Certainly, the reports coming from other member states give rise to some degree of concern. The other side of that, of course, is that for once all the eyes of the Europeans will be on Ireland and in that regard we have a very central and vital decision to make on 18 June. What we will do on 18 June may, for once, be a key factor in determining what happens in the other member states.
I will conclude by emphasising again that for once we have a say and we are in a position to set a very important trend in relation to the future of the Maastricht Treaty.
I would like to welcome the Minister to the House and to thank him for giving us his time today, having met with his European partners in Oslo yesterday. Members suggested that the general public do not know what the Maastricht Treaty is about. It is four and a half years since we went to the National Concert Hall to hear about 1992-93 and the Treaty on European Union. Maastricht may not have been mentioned at that time but everybody knew what we were aiming for when the campaign was launched for European Union. The information was available and many people, including firms of auditors, accountants, banks, trade unions, farmers' organisations and the general public knew we were heading towards a European Union Treaty.
The problem now is that as we face the referendum people are trying to confuse the issues that have been spoken about over the past couple of years. I agree with some speakers who said that there was a deliberate attempt to confuse the Irish people by those who do not want European union in any circumstances. They hide behind various four letter and three letter organisations or behind movements which are supposed to be pro-life as if those of us who are pro-life have no part to play in the debate.
There are some questions I would like to put. What is the European bureaucracy doing to help us spread the message of Europe over the next two to three weeks? The bureaucrats of Europe have most to gain by the integration of the countries of Europe. We heard Commission President Delors say yesterday that the eyes of the world will be on the Irish people on 18 June. I have not seen him campaigning here for a "yes" vote but I sincerely hope that he and the Irish Commissioner will come over to campaign for a "yes" vote. Not alone the Irish Commissioner but the rest of the Commissioners should come over here in the next few days because if we are serious about this matter, they should be equally serious about it. They would not be intruding in national politics, they would be coming here to explain the benefits that will accrue to Ireland by being part of an integrated Europe. I sincerely hope that every Irish MEP will be campaigning on doorsteps over the next two to three weeks because, even if it were only in self-interest, they should be here.
I know that a certain Member of the European Parliament has been holding information seminars — I saw advertisements for the Fianna Fáil MEP in Munster Paddy Lane. I cannot say that I have seen advertisements for any other MEP holding clinics or seminars on Maastricht. Maybe they are doing it but that is not coming across in the media. If we are to be the standard bearers of democracy in Europe by having a referendum, as we are obliged to do under our Constitution, unlike the French who are coming in on somebody else's coat tails because they fear certain things in their own country, we must have help from people outside as well as inside Ireland.
The Minister suggested that the process of European integration started 30 years ago an that we have been part of the trend to have an integrated Europe. I believe it is only within an integrated Europe that we can halt the trend towards war that is emerging again. Unfortunately, we have the break-up of Yugoslavia. There is a war going on there at present, a war of attrition that goes back to 1918 when there was a forceable coalescing of the people of Yugoslavia. I appeal to the Minister and to the European Foreign Ministers to get together to try to solve the horrific problems facing the people of Yugoslavia. If war can break out in what was considered the shining star of Eastern Europe, it could happen in Western Europe if the people of the former Democratic Republic of Germany do not agree with what is happening in the reintegrated Germany. There are dangers there and unless Ireland, as part of the European Community, gets involved in the resolution of the problems of Yugoslavia, I am afraid the process of European integration will not work because we have to be seen, as Europeans, to solve what is a European problem. It is essential for everybody in this country that we vote "Yes" on 18 June.
Some people fear that we might lose our Irish identity if we were part of an integrated Europe. I do not feel threatened by joining an integrated Europe. I do not think my Irishness will be threatened, rather it will be strengthened and in a fully integrated Europe our Irishness will work, in a positive way. There are those who suggest that in an integrated Europe there will be a lack of democracy and that we will be part of a super power. When I speak of "Super Powers" I am thinking in terms of the United States and the USSR.
There will be less need to have as many people in our army in an integrated Europe because, hopefully, the physical and paper borders in terms of the economy, social access, etc., will disappear. I was speaking to a small exporter in Kilkenny who travels to Italy every week. He has 19 sets of forms to fill in on his way out and on the way back, there are five different tax regimes and he has to make claims on VAT and repayments. It has been suggested that 11 per cent of GDP is wasted by bureaucracy in terms of trans-border transactions but in my view, that is only a minor element in the cost factor of the trans-border problems.
European integration is a positive thing for Ireland and I do not believe we are going to get £6 billion out of Europe. It may be £5 billion, or it may be £10 billion, but I am not worried about the amount we get from Europe. It is what we do with it that is important. Great progress has been made over the past number of years because of our European involvement. If we vote "No" on 18 June we will be reverting to the position we were in 20 years ago. The process of progress is slow but progress can sometimes hurt people. We must get involved in the process of progress and the only way to do that is to vote "Yes" on 18 June. This is very important for the Irish people.
Everyone recognises that the Maastricht agreements have not reached the objective of remedying the democratic deficit which characterises the way the Community institutions operate. Not everyone agrees where this deficit is most flagrant.
I have always believed that the true nerve centre lies in the habit the EC Council of Ministers have of deliberating behind closed doors. I believe this activity instils in the ordinary citizen of the Community a sense of distrust, frustration and an inability to get to grips with the intricate problems involved or to understand them. This may be the underlying reason the referendum in Denmark this week produced the negative result, a result that caused great unease and confusion not only in Denmark but in the other 11 member states as well. Perhaps the Council of Ministers could publish if not minutes of their meetings then a communique which would give not just an indication of the decisions taken but clearly indicate the stand adopted by the individual member states as expressed through their Ministers or permanent representatives. This would open the Community and instil a greater amount of confidence in the operation of the EC.
I appreciate the Minister's presence here this morning and his clear and enlightened views on the situation. While this is very welcome, it is exceptional. This House is three years behind in discussing the activities of the European Community, which is a six-monthly review, that the European Act, 1972, prescribed.
The decisions adopted by the Council of Ministers affect the lives and the businesses of millions of people across the Community, and the Council must have the courage to take the necessary decisions to bring the peoples of the Community along with them.
Our electors should not confuse the particular questions that are so important to this country with the questions which were prominent in the Danish debate. As far as I am concerned the playing fields are indeed quite different and distinct. The Danish economy is much healthier than ours. The Danes are fast approaching the day when they become a net contributor to the European Community, compared with our situation as significant beneficiaries.
The future of this country is entwined with and dependent on the benefit's emanating from the European Community and a united Europe. It is not sufficient for the ordinary person to say they are confused, that they do not know. They have an obligation, if not to themselves, to the younger people, to ensure that their economic future is safeguarded. I totally reject the calls of the groups who try, for narrow reasons, to confuse this issue. It could be said that the fondest aspirations of the founding fathers of the Community, Adenauer, de Gaspari and Schuman, just after their experiences of the Second World War, have been fulfilled. Taking just one hill in Europe as one travels on the train from Paris to Strasbourg, one sees on the left handside a Taj Mahal-type white building on top of the hill of Verdun. It commemorates over three quarters of a million young men whose lives were lost in defending that hill on two occasions this century. That was the motivation for the founding of the united Europe.
Is the dream of a united and free Europe not also pro life or does the maiming, killing and murder of people not offend once they are born? Before the EC was founded under the Treaty of Rome, unemployment across Europe was not such a visible problem because there were horrific wars at least every 25 years before 1940. Like it or not, the essential logic of a European Community is based on a supernational vocation that is being created under the Maastricht Treaty. It is a unitary state in which every single person in the 12 member states will be a citizen of a European Union.
The main condition for the success of European Union, for which Maastricht is paving the way, is that citizens should feel they are taking part in this collective adventure and have the possibility of doing so. It is the ordinary citizen who, to my mind, will make Europe. This cannot be done without a democratic consolidation. Therefore, I appeal to everyone who is registered to vote to exercise that vote on 18 June in a positive, unselfish way, not necessarily for themselves but for the future of this country.
Political union is a necessary counterpart to economic and monetary union. In our small country we must have the security and support of a united Europe, because the world is vastly changing. The population of the Arab world, for example, is estimated to double to 400 million over the next 20 to 25 years.
At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro the focus is on the Third World and the planet of the poor will be highlighted. I expect we will be reminded that the 800 million people who make up the northern hemisphere are about 17 or 18 per cent of the world's population. We in this hemisphere consume four-fifths of the world's energy in raw materials and are the prime polluters of the world. How does anyone think that this one small nation could survive aloof and alone? I doubt very much if we could.
Fr. Faul from Dungannon when speaking at Knock on last Saturday appeared to confuse the abortion and the Maastricht issues. I agree with him that direct abortion is murder, as is the taking of any human life in Northern Ireland. Even though the Government have fixed a Protocol designed at the time to meet the country's desire to keep direct abortion out of Ireland, irrespective of the result of the referendum on 18 June, the situation re the abortion issue and Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution will remain the same and will be untouched until another day. Unlike Fr. Faul, I believe we must vote "Yes" in the interests of our economic survival, in the interests of the future of our youth, in the interests of employment for our people and of access to developed markets for our prime products without tariffs. We in the Fine Gael Party believe in the greater unification of Europe and we are advocating a "Yes" vote. The Government parties are calling for a "Yes" vote. The Labour Party are calling for a "Yes" vote, as are the trade union movement, the CII, and the farming organisations. It is in the interests of this country to vote for progress, remembering that the unification of Europe, the greater democratisation of Europe is designed to guarantee peace and prosperity on the Continent.
I welcome a strong, united Europe. We must begin again, if we have not done so up to now, to trust each other. There are reasons why my colleagues and I should not trust people but perhaps we should begin again to trust each other.
I sincerely thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his extraordinary confidence, honesty and his human approach to the Department of Foreign Affairs since he took up office. I was amazed but not surprised at Senator John A. Murphy here this morning when he said there was no information. Let us on the Minister's request in his opening address to us, continue to have a cool, calm debate. We cannot stay on the edge of Europe or go it alone. Anyone who uses that kind of language is just daft. The common sense of the Irish people will again come to the fore on 18 June. I am not greatly worried because we will show courage and leadership. It is nothing new that we should show such qualities on the world scene and European scene. Irish people have done so, not just in the political field, but in sports, theatre, learning and business. Fianna Fáil have an historic commitment to full participation in Europe and European Union will let us build on a more open, progressive and modern society. We will continue to do that in Government or out of Government but we intend to stay in Government.
Most opponents of the Treaty demand a renegotiation. After the decision of the Danes and the debate by the Foreign Ministers, I do not think there is any question of renegotiation. I hope nobody will be stupid enough to miss the final call on 1 January 1993. I hope we have a united Europe, all of us working together for peace and as friends.
A major milestone was reached last week with the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. We had that debated in the presence of the Minister, Deputy Walsh who led that negotiation. I want to compliment the Minister again because I was not here when he spoke and also to compliment Commissioner MacSharry and all the farming bodies. Farming is very important to this nation and we should never forget it. It is good that issue has been dealt with satisfactorily.
The Danish vote makes a difference and we are sad they decided to vote that way but, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, it is their right to vote "No". That is democracy at its best. On 18 June Ireland has to do the right thing by Ireland. There is nobody being bullied about what way they will vote. I was surprised at one Senator using the word "bullied". It is not his form to talk about being bullied. We are not bullied as a people.
I do not understand legalities, which is the Minister's world, and finance is somebody else's world. There is a saying "live unbeknownst to the law". That advice was given a long time ago. If the legal boys in Europe look after the legal side and the politicians in Europe look after the political side I hope together that we will all make a total success of it and be solid Europeans. We are the politically elected Members, the voice of the people; we discharge our responsibilities as the Minister has done and let the legal people look after their areas.
I do not think it will be any surprise to people here that I have strong views on sovereignty and independence. I also have got enough common sense in latter years to know that we must not hesitate to put our sovereignty to its most constructive use by taking our place among the great nations of Europe in the new union. That is where I see Ireland. I have my views of a united Ireland and it is only in the European Union that I can see the Ireland I have always talked about and felt we should have. It is in the Europe context that I see we will be united and come together for the betterment of all our people.
I do not understand the confusion of some women about the referendum on 18 June. All the improvements we have put in place are a direct result of our membership of Europe, equal opportunities, programmes for promotion for women, full participation in the economic social life of this nation. The Minister for Foreign Affairs in his speech singled out certain improvements. They are, education, public health, consumer protection, industrial development cooperation and culture. All the things that are important to women are here. I did a programme yesterday morning live on Radio Limerick in which I did not take on the role of the feminist. I believe there were many complimentary phone calls about my common sense approach. I have canvassed for the past fortnight and the top priority with mothers and families is jobs for their daughters and sons.
I ask that we do all we can in the 12 days left to carry this vote on 18 June not just for us and our generation but for generations after us.
I would like to join with my colleagues in welcoming the Minister. We all know the busy schedule he has and it is heartening that he can spend this time in the Seanad.
I would like to state categorically from the outset that I am very solidly pro-Europe. I am not an uncritical supporter of the Maastricht Treaty. I have always regarded Europe as very good for us in Ireland provided it is counterbalanced by local autonomy and local democracy. I am sure my colleagues who are here today are tired hearing me speaking about this.
I totally agree with the points put forward by Senator Manning. If the Taoiseach and senior politicians keep on with the same chant, "everything will be all right on the day, do not worry, we have everything in hand", that will not be sufficient for the Irish people. I was heartened to hear the Taoiseach speaking on the radio this morning where he seemed to be moving away from that and broadening the issues. As other Sentors have said, we cannot afford to be complacent. I am in favour, ultimately, of going into a closer European Union but I will deal in a moment with whether I am in favour of saying "yes" on 18 June.
Centralisation is a disaster in this country and it has been shown to be a disaster in every country in Europe. It needs to be counterbalanced by subsidiarity. We need to have a redistribution of power as will happen as a result of our European involvement, but we also need to empower the Irish people, the talented, forceful, dynamic Irish people to get involved in every way they should to improve conditions here, particularly economic conditions. We want, on the one hand to be enthusiastic Europeans and on the other to be deeply committed to the contributions we can make locally.
Two of the major planks of the whole basis of the Treaty of Rome, and subsequently, are subsidiarity and the federation of the regions. I know Ireland is not serious about either of these because on the precious occasion, my first and only time in three years in this Chamber, when I was given Private Members' time I tabled a motion asking the Government to sign the Council of Europe charter on local self government and, in a nutshell, the Minister replied, no, we will not sign it. I am not just blaming this Government. I made it clear that all political parties are at fault because they have all had their turn in Government. Centralisation has a firmer grip on this country and that is my great concern. This morning, and yesterday morning, I asked the Leader when we will have the promised regional organisations. When will we have the sub-county structures? The reply was, as usual, as soon as possible. I know "as soon as possible" means never, forget about them. It is another way of saying they are not a priority.
I am not sure that is relevant to what we are discussing.
What is not relevant?
Acting Chairman
We are discussing European Union.
The Acting Chairman is making my point; he does not think this question is relevant to Europe. I am absolutely certain that it is relevant to Europe. Unless we have local democracy, subsidiarity——
Acting Chairman
It is more national than European.
I hope I will be given extra time to compensate for these interruptions. I am so pleased that the Acting Chairman has interrupted because he is making my point.
Acting Chairman
Will the Senator continue on the motion on the Maastricht Treaty, please?
The Acting Chairman does not consider reference to subsidiarity relevant. Nothing could better make my point for me. The motion is all about the Maastricht Treaty, Europe, the Cohesion Fund but what is not relevant apparently, according to the Chair and, indeed, the Leader this morning, is whether we will have local democracy. Deputy Haughey, the former Taoiseach was able to speak eloquently in Europe about subsidiarity, one of the fundamental planks of the European Treaty.
Acting Chairman
The Senator has made her point.
Thank you for helping me make it. I want to see increased regional autonomy within Europe. I am not just a European in the sense that I accept everything; I will accept it provided it is counter-balanced. We have heard nothing and I believe we will hear nothing more about subsidiarity. Once the Treaty is ratified that will be the end of it. We have seen the disasters, of centralism in the economic spheres and how successful decentralisation has been in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. I am happy to see the Netherlands Ambassador here this morning. In his country they have decentralisation, genuine local democracy and their economic situation is so different.
I agree with Senator Lanigan that the Maastricht Treaty will offer us a series of possibilities. That is what I said in the last debate on this issue and it does not matter whether we get £3 billion or £6 billion — I do not believe it will be either of those exaggerated figures. What we do with the money we get is important. If, as before, it is used by the political parties in their triumphalist approach that will be disastrous.
Every political party stated they believe in decentralisation and in local democracy but none of them have done one thing about it. The Minister for the Environment told us local authorities were to get some powers to run the dog warden service. That is what is being talked about, handing out such pathetic little powers to try to make local authorities feel they are big boys and girls and are really important. I insist that local democracy is vital.
I have no doubt that we will get some money from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. However, the clientelism will continue, and those who have the power in the political parties will not relinquish it because they want to hold on to the party political system and be able to hand out the goodies. That is what it is all about. Until that system changes we will make no progress and it will make no difference whether we get £3 million, £1 billion or £6 billion.
On 18 June there will be an opinion poll and we have been told that there will be a second opinion poll but I do not believe that. From what I have read I cannot understand why we need a poll. I wonder are we being misled on this. That issue may come up on another occasion.
I suspect that the people of this country may say "no". I do not want them to say "no" but I fear they may do so because they want the full facts. They do not want to be told that they must vote "yes" because there is £6 billion in it for us. They want all the information available; they want a balance and not an allocation of £600,000 to one side.
The Taoiseach is making a tragic mistake in not catering for the other side. The problem is that all the major political parties, major institutions, Chambers of Commerce and farmers organisations are all saying "yes" and the people are rightly suspicious and say, "if all the big boys are saying "yes" we wonder whether we should just tail along with that." People want information on the common defence policy.
People obviously want to know more about a whole range of issues. The Government should stop telling the people to say "yes" in the blind. People must know what they are saying "yes" to. They are sophisticated voters. I suspect people may say on 18 June, "This is not the real thing; this is only a flaw; this 18 June vote means nothing." They might well say to the politicians that while they want to send a message to Europe to the effect that they are good Europeans they will not vote "yes" until they have all the information from both sides. Perhaps the SPUCs and the pro-choice people may join and say: "you now have an opportunity to tell us about the right to information and travel and when we know what the Government intend we will vote "yes". I hope that will not happen. I am a good European. I want us to be in Europe fully and committed but I do not want the people of Ireland to be asked to vote in the blind.
Whatever else I would say about my colleague, Senator Hederman, she certainly is consistent. I presume that is a good thing. I am delighted to get an opportunity to speak in this House on the European Union Treaty. It is vitally important for Ireland and I wish to put on the record my absolute and total support for the process of European integration for many different reasons. I did not get an opportunity to comment on this issue when it was first discussed in the House. Therefore, I wanted to put on record my full support for the Treaty on European Union. I believe passionately in Europe and in the process of European integration. The rejection of the Treaty by Denmark was disappointing. Nevertheless, like many other Senators I accept the decision of the Danish people to opt out of the European process. The Danish people are perfectly entitled to do this and in many ways the Danish decision has strengthened the democratic process. In the context of European and world history anything which strengthens the democratic process is welcomed.
The legal position needs clarification following the Danish decision. Is the Treaty legally null and void now, given that it required ratification by the 12 member states? That is a fundamental question to which we need an answer. Can the remaining 11 member states now forge ahead with union without Denmark? Will a second referendum on the issue be needed later if Denmark adheres to its original decision? The situation in that regard is unclear. The fullest possible legal information is needed on these issues before we go to the polls on 18 June. Senator Honan made the valid point that we cannot always leave it to the legal people and that politicians must press ahead. Nevertheless, some clarity is needed on whether the Treaty is null and void following the Danish decision.
The Government are right to press ahead with the referendum. We in Ireland have a right to express our own view. No matter what happens in Denmark, we must demonstrate our sovereignty and our commitment to the European process. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we proceed with our own referendum and exercise the same right as the Danish people had to decide on the Maastricht Treaty. It is important to show that we are fully committed to Europe. If the referendum result proves our commitment and if that enhances our position at the negotiating table for Structural Funds, so be it, although our re-negotiating position on structural funds is not crucial or central to all our deliberations.
I now understand that a re-negotiation of the Treaty is not on; all the information to date indicates that. This is to our advantage. The Irish Government got a good deal in the negotiations leading up to the Maastricht Treaty. The ideal of economic and social cohesion is enshrined in the Treaty and will be part of the European process for the first time. That is of fundamental importance to Ireland. This principle would be put at risk in any renegotiation of the Treaty. The indication that some other member states are unhappy with the cohesion aspects of the Treaty demonstrates that.
I wish to refer now to what I call the "big stick syndrome". The Irish people will not be bullied into making any decision or impressed by scaremongering or threats of disaster or doom and gloom if we reject the Treaty. The Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to this this morning. We are an intelligent people politically. Politics is our major pasttime and we have a sophisticated electorate. Our electorate is composed predominantly of young people and the Irish people will make up their own minds on the basis of logical argument and on what they believe to be best for Ireland. In this regard we should stress the positive aspects of the Treaty. Let us stress why we should vote "Yes" rather than why we should not vote "No". That is an important matter with regard to campaigning for the referendum.
We should have confidence in ourselves. We have a lot to offer Europe. Let us throw away the begging bowl once and for all. We are a proud nation with a great tradition. At long last we have got rid of our national inferiority complex which was deeply embedded in our culture. The European process can claim some credit for the confidence in ourselves we have gained as a nation. We want to be part of European integration on the basis of what we have to offer. Young people are insulted at the suggestion that we should sell everything we stand for for £6 billion of Structural Funds. That is not the intention.
I now wish to address the issue of Irish neutrality in which I have always been a firm believer but we need to define what exactly it means in the current world situation. Whatever it means — and it certainly means the avoidance of military alliances — I believe that it is founded on the promotion of peace, justice and basic human rights throughout the world. Frank Aiken laid down that aspect of Irish neutrality in the United Nations during his time. We have brought these unique traditions to the European table and will continue to do so. Now we can do something about influencing world affairs according to our tradition of peace, justice and human rights.
The EC has served Europe well. It has preserved peace in Europe and now with other neutral states joining the Community I believe that our position will be enhanced. The United Nations involves military commitment; we had to provide aircraft facilities at Shannon during the Gulf War and we should be conscious of that.
I believe passionately in Europe and in European integration. Ireland will gain in many ways from European participation. The EC has enhanced every aspect of Irish life. It has enhanced our culture and our self-respect in areas such as women's affairs, consumer protection, health, environment, education, industry, worker protection and so on. Many new ideas have come to this country from the EC process and have enhanced every aspect of Irish life. Like many other Senators, I would urge the people to vote "yes" on 18 June.
I would like to share my time with Senator MacMahon.
The forthcoming referendum offers us a wonderful opportunity to assert our nationhood and our sovereignty. We can now show that we are a distinct people with a distinct commitment to European integration and we do not need to mimic a decision made in Denmark, which ultimately was only made by about 50,000 Danes in all. It is an opportunity to assert ourselves and we should go ahead with the process of European integration and give the appropriate lead on European integration on 18 June.
It is unfortunate that as Europeans with a commitment to European integration, the Irish people are being sidetracked by irrelevant issues in this referendum. It is regrettable that the Taoiseach did not take the advice of Deputy John Bruton, our party leader, and of our parliamentary party when we recommended to him to have the necessary referendum to deal with the abortion issue before the Maastricht referendum. Had that been done we would not have the muddy waters we now have and we would be in a clear position entering the referendum. By that decision, the Government did an injustice to those who favour integration and put the referendum in jeopardy. That is regrettable but it is the current position and we are obliged to go ahead with the Maastricht referendum.
It is clear from all the soundings and news reports coming through from European media that renegotiation of the Treaty would jeopardise the degree of cohesion funding we might receive in a renegotiated Treaty. For that reason, it is in our stragegic interest not to allow that. That has to be our position. We should ratify this Treaty, be at the vanguard of ratification and facilitate the process of ratification in other countries so that all States will have ratified the Treaty, except Denmark and they may then have to come on side but, at least, the Treaty will go ahead and Ireland's advantage clearly lies there.
With regard to the Cohesion Funds, I foresee a massive influx of tourists to Ireland as a result of this Treaty. For that reason, it is important that we accept it.
I want to turn briefly, in the few minutes remaining to me, to a signficant consequence of a "yes" vote. It is a dearly held desire and aspiration of all of us since the division of this island that we achieve a unity of Irish hearts and minds. The fundamental issue about the Maastricht Treaty and its ratification is that it will, in essence, get rid of the border. It will introduce a single currency, a Single Market, there will be no customs and we will have de facto unity. The only division remaining on this island will be the divisions in the bigoted minds of people on either side of the divide; bigots who are unwilling to accept a pluralist, Christian, united society. As a Senator from Cavan-Monaghan, a Border constituency, that is its fundamental significance to me.
This Treaty is historic in that it offers an opportunity to assert our sovereignty as a nation, and also to achieve practical de facto unity with the other part of the island. As the Cohesion Fund and structural funding is put to use in Border areas, an influx of tourism and the single currency will serve to unite the entire country and bring us together as a people under the umbrella of Europe. That is fundamental progress and it would be a travesty were we, as public representatives, not to give the lead in attempting to achieve that.
We must support this referendum. We have to vote "yes" knowing that it is unfortunate that we did not clear the pitch more for the referendum by getting the abortion issue dealt with, but that can be dealt with subsequently. The issue before us is the Maastricht Treaty which must be passed in the interests of Irish unity and socio-economic progress.
Many will wonder why this debate has now come back to this House. A few weeks ago, when we looked for an extended debate on this issue it was not forthcoming but now it is back and the Taoiseach, Ministers and other politicians say that nothing has changed because of the Danish decision.
We are debating this issue because there has been a major change which many are not prepared to recognise. We are debating it because a number of people — 51.7 per cent of those who voted in Denmark — have rejected the Maastricht Treaty. Many are afraid to mention that figure today. Fifty thousand people are mentioned. One commentator who may have been the Fine Gael organiser for the "yes" campaign said on radio yesterday evening: "Why should we let 50,000 people in Denmark stop progress in Europe?" It is not 50,000 people; it is 51 per cent of those who voted. The number of people who will be given the opportunity to vote on the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union Treaty, is about eight million, including ourselves out of 360 million Europeans. That indicates a failure of democracy.
The Danish people have made a democratic decision. I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the House and I was delighted to hear him recognise the Danish decision because his colleagues in Dublin, including the Taoiseach, refused to do so and many other EC member states have refused to recognise it.
We are being bombarded in this country by people like the Danish Foreign Minister and Jacques Delors telling us, on television yesterday and the day before, how and why we would vote "Yes". I resent foreign interference in our affairs. The Irish electorate are being bombarded from without and within. Ten other nations have not yet ratified the Treaty, but there is not a word about those nations. Are the other ten nations that make up the European Community going to ratify the Maastricht Treaty? We have not heard from them.
The French Government have now decided to have a referendum. The British Government decided yesterday to halt their discussions in Parliament and we have not heard from the other eight states, although interesting figures are being reported. A radio phone-in — it may not have been a reliable one — in Germany showed 81 per cent there were opposed to ratifying the Treaty. In a programme last night on British television, Peter Sissons' "Question Time" at 10 p.m., the question was put to 400 to 500 people in that room: "Would you prefer a referendum?" The vast majority opted for a referendum. There are rumblings within the other countries, and it is my belief that the other EC member states have not yet ratified the Treaty because they are waiting for Denmark and Ireland to make their decisions. They know that once they move in their Parliaments, their people will press for a referendum.
The numbers of those opposed to the Maastricht Treaty are greater than was anticipated, but they are not being given the opportunity to say so. The Taoiseach in Athlone last night said: "I never shied away from putting both sides." I believe the Taoiseach has a big question to answer after making that statement. The one person within his own party a few weeks ago who tried to put that view, was told to move from that side of the House to this side as an independent.
The Taoiseach has gall to say that he has never shied away from putting the other side; Fianna Fáil have refused to put the other side. An announcement was made on television last Tuesday that all parliamentary members of Fine Gael were campaigning for a "Yes" vote. I am one who will not because the Europe we voted for 20 years ago is not the Europe we are now moving into. When we voted for Europe 20 years ago nobody anticipated that we would be moving towards abortion. The Taoiseach has stated that he has put the abortion issue to rest. If the people on the other side of the House have been campaigning they have not been telling the Taoiseach what the people are telling them. The abortion issue is far from being at rest and he will know it on 18 June. I and the country await a more considered response from the Government having considered the full aspects of the legal position with regard to Article 236 of the Rome Treaty which, if interpreted legally, would indicate that the Maastricht Treaty is now dead.
In his absence I would like to endorse the comments made on all sides of the House welcoming the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the House following his trip to Oslo yesterday and I thank him for staying with us for such a long time. I also welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Flood, who has now joined us for the debate.
I was surprised at what I thought was an extraordinary attack on the Taoiseach by several Members on the other side of the House. I noted Senator Manning's comments about "the wretched Protocol". It would have been more accurate to have referred to "the wretched Supreme Court decision". There was nothing wrong with the Protocol and those who put it in were motivated by the highest of intentions.
Rubbish.
I might draw the attention of the House to comments made by the bishops recently that while they would not come out strongly one way or the other but would let the people decide, they made a relevant point in relation to the Protocol saying that by voting "no" whatever protections existed, flawed as they were, would be swept away.
The question of whether we vote "yes" or "no" is going to be debated in this House and it is interesting and informative to hear the comments of Senator McMahon and others who are advocating a "no" vote. The Minister made the point this morning which I endorse that those who wish to vote "no" are perfectly entitled to do so as are those who wish to vote "yes".
We have heard talk of intimidation and the word "bullying" was used in this House in the context of discussing the pro-Maastricht lobby. There is a certain amount of intimidation and browbeating going on among those advocating a "no" vote; I would not say there is any browbeating or intimidation by those advocating a "yes" vote.
The prospect before us has been put in sharp relief by the Danish rejection. It is ironic that those people who have been criticising the Government for refusing to convey information on Maastricht — a colleague commented to me in the aftermath of the Danish rejection that 24 hours ago many Irish people may not have known what Maastricht was about but we can rest assured after the Danish rejection and the reaction to it in Europe and in Ireland that few people in this country do not now know what Maastricht is about.
Since 1973 we have reassessed our original role in European affairs. For 800 years — a point touched on by Senator Haughey and other Senators — we crawled around on our bellies, a subject people, our dignity and self-confidence diminished to the point of extinction.
Not all of us. You may have crawled around on your belly, an appropriate posture.
Do not speak for the rest of us.
Senator Mooney, please do not invite interruptions.
Senator Mooney likes interruptions. He has nothing to say.
In 1973 we reasserted our original role in European affairs and I see this referendum on 18 June as yet another opportunity to bring this country further into the European mainstream. The debate has been notable for the number of political ostriches who seem to abound on the Irish landscape. I suggest that the local variety of this species is breathtaking in its ignorance, and listening to Senator Murphy earlier, intimidating in its intellectual arrogance.
Could the Senator not understand what he said?
I share the philosophy of Senator Dardis and of a number of previous speakers. I grew up in a pre-EC society where my earliest recollections are of travelling regularly across the Border — Senator O'Reilly touched on this as a Border representative — between Leitrim and Fermanagh to visit relations. Even then I was struck by the disparities between a poor Irish Republic, or as it was disparagingly referred to by my northern cousins "the Free State" or "down there", and a relatively prosperous and affluent Six Counties. The difference between our two economies now is minimal. The imminent Single European Act next January will reduce that difference further and to someone looking at it from a Border perspective, that is among the more significant consequences of not only the Single European Act but of the forthcoming European Treaty ratification.
I have argued a pro-European philosophy since I came into this House becaue I see the benefits Europe has brought to Ireland and not only materially. There is a new spring in the step of our nation especially among our young people, as has been referred to by a number of other speakers. I endorse that view and fail to understand why anyone would criticise me for pointing out that, in Europe, we have widened our markets and reduced our historical dependence on our larger and more powerful neighbour who has not always looked on us benignly. It is alleged that despite involving ourselves in the mainstream of European affairs politically and economically, our position has been flawed and I am interested to hear why those criticisms are being made.
Vox pops carried out over the last few days by the print and electronic media indicate that an overwhelmingly pro-Treaty position is evident among young people particularly. The legal questions raised by the rejection of the Treaty by Denmark have been seized upon by jurors, lawyers and pseudo-experts on European law. Acres of newsprint and air time have been devoted to the legal status of the Treaty during the last 48 hours ignoring the commitment of our European partners to overcome even the Danish situation in order to proceed with deeper European integration.
Ireland does not appreciate the horror of war as many on the European mainland do. The Nazi legacy is deep in the psyche of most Europeans and it is ironic that one of the many issues on which the Danish people rejected the Treaty was fear of a takeover of part of their coastline by Germans. Why should they be concerned about Germans? When one dug deeper it transpired, at least from what one read by Danish commentators, that deep in the Danish psyche were recollections of Nazi occupation during the Second World War. Denmark has been suspicious of Germany since its reunification and of German hegemony in a future unified stronger Europe. These fears motivate certain Europeans. We did not experience occupation. Our Emergency had its own horrors but they were as nothing compared to what the occupied people of Europe suffered.
Reference has been made several times to the presence of the Dutch Ambassador here. He may have — and certainly his parents will have — a deep seated horror of Nazi occupation of The Netherlands. It is these attitudes that have shaped the current philosophies of our European leaders which is why I feel that those who raised the spectre of a European Army, common defence and conscription, fail to recognise the deep rooted anti-military philosophy prevailing among the European political élite.
A total misreading of their reasons for rejection.
I can only reiterate the views expressed by the Minister in relation to the Danish decision. Ireland is not Denmark. One statistic that stands out is that their standard of living is four times that of Ireland. If we vote "no", what am I say to my young family when, in years to come, we have returned to the images of Ireland of my youth which I referred to earlier — a closed society refusing to accept new ideas, an outmoded concept of patriotism and an economy in tatters. I know where my patriotic duty lies. It lies in urging a "yes" vote on 18 June.
I would like to share some of my time with Senator Costello.
I would like to thank the Danish people for doing a very good job for democracy in exposing the utterly undemocratic nature of the European Community machine and I say this as a good European. I have always considered myself as a good European. Even when I was in school, I was awarded a travelling scholarship from the Council of Europe because I wrote what amounted, effectively, to a paean in praise of European virtues and the necessity for us all to stay together as Europeans.
Certainly my heart is with Europe but my mind tells me that we are on very dangerous ground indeed when democracy is so continuously, so seriously and so unremittingly eroded. It is eroded in Europe. It is eroded in the European institutions. It is eroded in this country. It is eroded by Irish politicians and it is eroded in this House.
We got one and a half hours to discuss the Maastricht Treaty. We have had longer to discuss cycle lanes round St. Stephen's Green. The most fundamental change to occur in the constitutional context of this country was given a contemptuous amount of time. In this House it has been treated with contempt. It was treated with contempt by our politicians who went scuttling off to Maastricht to insert an irrelevant Protocol, which is a disgrace to us, about a subject which is not a matter for this kind of Treaty, the question of abortion. They managed to get it in. Then they further humiliated us by trying to extract it out of the Treaty. It was done without reference to Cabinet. It was done without reference to either House of the Oireachtas and now they have got us into this mess.
What is the status of the Treaty? What is the status of democracy in Europe? The Danes voted against it and I am glad they did. The Danes voted against it as was their democratic right and then we are told it is a catastrophe, it is a cataclysm, it is an earthquake. In other words, we only have the right to vote "yes". We do not have the right to vote "no" or are our European ballot papers marked "yes" on both sides?
I have heard contemptuous references to the mere 50,000 who voted against the signing of the treaty in Copenhagen. That figure of 50,000 was the size of the majority. The majority of the Danish people are now having their right to democracy called into question. To my mind, that casts a very curious light on the nature of democracy in Europe. May I point out that what we are doing here is ratifying amendments to existing treaties although there is no question whatsoever of doubt, in legal terms, that Maastricht is gone — caput, finished, dead. It will not apparently lie down because, despite the legalities, there is something that our politicians are calling the political will. It may be dead legally but it is still alive, apparently, politically because we want it to be alive politically.
Senator Mooney spoke about the peasant inheritance of Ireland, the way we were downtrodden, how servile we had been and how, now, we had the right to stand up. Now we have the right to stand up and suck up to the Europeans, which is what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to give the kiss of life to a corpse. Having protected the unborn, we are now giving a kind of post mortem protection to what is essentially a legal fiction, the Maastricht Treaty. I worry a great deal about the implications.
I also worry about the way in which this Treaty was negotiated. What credit are we going to get? We have the intrusion into the Irish democratic system of M. Jacques Delors who is not elected to anything. He is a functionary of the EC and yet he broadcasts to Ireland telling us we should vote "Yes". Why? What is in it for him? What is in it for the bureaucrats of Brussels who are not necessarily responsive to the kind of democratic institutions that I, at least, would like to see in this country?
We are not given a single moral reason for going into Europe. We are given things with price tags on them and they are fiction as well. The £6 billion, the Structural Funds, the contingency funds, the Cohesion Fund are all very much pie-in-the-sky in as far as they do not already exist as functions of the existing sections of the Treaty of Rome. The honest analysts are saying that much of this stuff is just hypothetical. I did a radio programme a couple of weeks ago and I made this kind of point in a rather amateurish way because I am not an economist and I was greatly relieved to hear the head of the Deutsche Bank saying in much more technical language exactly what I had already being saying.
We find that the one country which has been given the opportunity of a referendum, Denmark, is going to be ignored. Other countries would also like to have a referendum. I think it is important that we recognise, as part of our democratic right, the right to say "no".
I would like to thank Senator Norris for allocating some of his time to me.
I consider the Government's handling of the referendum on the ratification of the Treaty of Maastricht a monumental blunder and shambles. Its negotiation was undemocratic. It was done without reference to the national Parliament. A Protocol was inserted without reference to anybody. No contingency was made for the situation that exists now. The handling of this matter by the bureaucrats in Europe, and in particular by our own Government, has now resulted in ratification, even in this country, being in danger. They are responsible for the problem that has occurred and for the fact that, now, we simply do not know precisely where we stand.
Article R of the Treaty of Maastricht states: "The Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". Article 236 of the Treaty of Rome states categorically that any amendment to the Treaty of Rome can only enter into force after being ratified by all the member states in accordance with the respective requirements. Quite clearly, this Treaty has now been rejected by Denmark and, therefore, Maastricht must be a dead letter. It is a legal nonentity, a legal nonsense and a legal fiction and it is foolish for us to proceed as though it were not.
I am very disappointed with the Minister's remarks in the House this morning because he does not recognise the legal complexities or implications of the situation. He talks, purely, about the political aspect. It is foolish to think we can go ahead now with a referendum in June when we know quite well that we must have a referendum in the autumn. If we are to continue with the Treaty that is before us, there must be a second referendum. We are introducing into our Constitution something which is meaningless.
The proposal we are being asked to vote for on 18 June is that the State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of February 1992 and may become a member of that Union. That simply is not possible now because Denmark has rejected it. We cannot have another referendum on exactly the same terms. It would be an insult to the people of Denmark to say that they should vote again on exactly the same terms, as though there could be two bites of the constitutional cherry. If we look at our own situation we will see that the people of Ireland would not tolerate it.
This is a referendum on something that does not exist in legal terms. We are going to spend £1 million for something which does not exist, that is null and void. The most it can become is a very inadequate plebiscite. In the interests of the taxpayers, the most reasonable thing to do would be to postpone the referendum until the autumn.
Mr. Farrell
I am sharing my time with Senator Hanafin.
I am in favour of Maastricht and I will vote "Yes"; I appeal to everybody to vote "Yes". I want to say categorically, that I am anti-abortion and I see no connection between the two issues.
So is everyone else.
Senator Norris, please——
Mr. Farrell
Senator Norris is a professional heckler and I would like it if I had more time.
Do not encourage him.
Mr. Farrell
I was delighted to see Senator Norris joining the morality bandwagon. He says he wants a moral reason for joining Europe. I am delighted he has gone into the morality business.
Always was.
Mr. Farrell
I am amazed at many of the people who speak negatively about Europe and say they are Europeans. Everybody born on the Continent of Europe is a European. We do not need a professor to tell us that. We learned that in infants class. Are we prepared to share economic advantages with other European countries? That is what the Treaty is about. I hope the people of this country say "Yes".
I recall a time when I could not cross the Border to Northern Ireland before 9 a.m. and I had to leave before 5 p.m. A person had to have his car bonded by a man of substance in Northern Ireland; the tyres had to be washed and clean and the numbers on the five tyres were checked, the number of the radio was checked; the engine and chassis numbers had to be polished and were checked; all the numbers had to be clean so that the officers on both sides of the Border could read them. If they were not, you were not let in. Since we entered the EC you can drive from Fair Head in Antrim to Mizen Head in Cork at any time. European unity gave us freedom to travel around Europe. The people living in a cul-de-sac in the west know that those disadvantages no longer exist. However if we opt out of Europe, we will be putting ourselves back into that cul-de-sac.
Where would our services for the mentally handicapped be were it not for the money we are getting from the Social Fund? Nobody is saying we should not be in Europe, but the objectors say this is not the right time. When is the right time? When will everybody be satisfied? We do not want to go back to the misery I saw when I was growing up, with people taking a couple of gallons of milk to the creamery on an ass and cart. I do not want to see my children or their children going back to those desolate times.
The first breath of fresh air this country got was when we entered Europe. I hope we play a leading and important role in Europe and that we give the Maastricht Treaty a massive "yes" on 18 June.
With the permission of the House, I also want to give five minutes of my time to Senator Hanafin. I am surprised, and I regret, that the procedures of this House have to be changed so dramatically to allow Senator Hanafin to speak in this debate. Although I deplore his views on this issue, a man who represents such a significant body of opinion should not be squeezed out of a debate of this sort. The Seanad must be seen to be relevant. While Senator Hanafin may be almost a lone voice in this House, that voice must be heard, and must be heard loudly, because, whether we like it or not, it is representative of a large body of opinion. I also regret that Senator Hanafin had to leave his party for views he held on a matter of conscience. His conscience is, I think, misguided and it is something with which many of us disagree but it is time that, as a nation and as political parties, we allowed for the existence of this sort of broad conscience.
The Senator would also be put out of his party if he disobeyed the Whip.
Senator Hederman, please.
Senator McMahon declared that he will be campaigning against the referendum for Maastricht and he is a member of the Fine Gael Party.
He came in as an Independent.
Mr. Farrell
He voted against——
I disagree with Senator McMahon's views but he is entitled to vote according to his conscience.
On a point of order, I want to correct the Senator opposite. I did not vote as he will see if he checks the record.
Will Senators allow Senator Ross to continue?
Mr. Farrell
He did not vote for it.
That is why it is so important that Senator Hanafin should be allowed to speak and be given time to speak even by those who disagree with his point of view.
The Government's attitude to what has happened in the last two or three days is devastatingly disappointing. There is apparently complete incomprehension of what has happened. The Minister for Foreign Affairs' speech today was a follow through of the appalling remarks made by the Taoiseach yesterday. The Taoiseach adopted a dangerous attitude when he said that Maastricht and Europe were created by politicians, not by lawyers. It showed a cavalier disrespect for the law, and not only of Europe. If that cavalier disrespect is extended to this country, I do not know where we are going. He is saying we do not care about the legal niceties; all we want is Europe. That is a very dangerous attitude and I hope it does not extend to other treaties. What would happen if he took that attitude to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, if he wanted to break it unilaterally because he did not like the legalities? The Taoiseach must retreat from that position before we can go forward. What the Minister for Foreign Affairs said here this morning showed a total lack of recognition of the realities of the situation. He continuously talked about the difficulties being faced by Denmark. He said the view of his colleagues was that the first priority was to complete the ratification process and not to bring them to a halt because one member state has a problem. One member state does not have a problem; 11 member states have a problem. That is the reality. It is wrong and patronising to come forward with the sort of flimsy garbage we had from the Minister for Foreign Affairs here this morning which does not, as Senator Murphy rightly said, clarify a single legal point in what is happening. We still do not know.
Deputy John Bruton was correct when he said we have a problem and the only way we can resolve it is with the permission of Denmark. If Denmark were to release us from the commitment we have to the Maastricht Treaty — and that commitment is that all 12 member states go ahead or no one does — we could perhaps resolve this problem. Perhaps the Minister would respond to that. The unrealistic nonsense we had to listen to from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and from the Fianna Fáil Senators this morning is a complete refusal to recognise the catastrophic nature of what we are facing.
The Minister has been appealed to on this point time and time again and he has failed to respond. I ask him to tell us where we stand and what we are voting on on 18 June. The Minister said the ratification process must go ahead. What is the ratification process now? Does it mean anything when we vote on it on 18 June? Can Maastricht go ahead in its present form?
No.
The answer to that is, as Senator Costello said, "No". What we should be expecting from the Government and from the other parties is a formula, or a suggestion — as came from the leader of the Fine Gael Party — as to how we can get out of this mess, not bland assertions that we have the political will and that we are just going to drive a coach and four through the legalities. The Government have a case to answer and I look forward to hearing it.
What way is the Senator voting?
I am voting in favour.
Senator Honan, please.
There will be a "No" vote on 18 June. Wait and see.
(Interruptions.)
I ask Senators to refrain from interrupting. A point was raised. Procedures of the House have not changed. The overall allocation of time for this debate was three hours. I am endeavouring to facilitate as many Senators as possible, in particular Senator Hanafin, and I am pleased that both sides of the House have given him five minutes.
I would like to thank Senator Farrell and Senator Ross who offered me five minutes. I would also like to thank Senator Hederman who earlier indicated that she would also facilitate me with some of her time so that I could speak here today. I also thank the Cathaoirleach.
I am sorry to have to agree with the view that as Denmark has opted out of the Maastricht process, it would be an absurdity to go ahead with the referendum on 18 June. Not only would it be an absurdity it would also show little respect for the Constitution. The Government would be asking us to write into the fundamental law of the land approval for a Treaty which no longer existed. It would be using the formal process of constitutional amendment for what has already been called an expensive opinion poll. If the Danish rejection is final, the Maastricht Treaty is a dead letter. Maastricht is an amendment of the Treaty of Rome and, therefore, requires the unanimous approval of the member states.
Although the Treaty seems legally dead, we are now witnessing a somewhat frantic attempt by the Commission and Governments of the 11 countries to revive it and force it through. However, if some kind of understanding can be reached that the Danes will have a second go at ratification, then it may be argued that there is still life in the Treaty and that there is some point to the referendum on 18 June.
In arguing for a "No" vote, I have already pointed out that we could have a second referendum if we reject Maastricht the first time because of the abortion issues which the Government should have dealt with first. Contrary to the impression widely given, there is no time limit for ratification. The date of 1 January 1993 is not a deadline, merely the earliest date at which the Treaty can come into effect. There never was any urgency about holding a June referendum. The ratification process in most other countries was scheduled for later in the year. For example, parliamentary ratification is planned for late autumn in both The Netherlands and Germany. In Italy and Greece, the timing for ratification is as yet unclear.
It was always open to this country to deal properly with the issues arising from the X case, including the holding of a referendum to give the people the opportunity to restore full constitutional protection to the unborn, before voting on the Maastricht Treaty. As is reasonably well known, I have argued strongly that this would have been the just and proper approach, one which would have effectively disentangled the issues of Maastricht and abortion. I profoundly regret the Government did not follow this wiser course.
Events in Denmark and the heart-searching about Maastricht going on all over Europe, gives us the opportunity now to separate the issues. Nobody now could object to legislation permitting the postponement of the 18 June referendum. This would allow for a fuller consideration of the implications of Maastricht and for a full resolution of the abortion questions which have so far confused the Maastricht debate. In that regard may I refer to a most misleading headline in The Irish Times this morning which stated: “Taoiseach says referendum on abortion issues will go ahead.” Many people may take from this that the Taoiseach intends to hold a referendum on the central abortion question itself as well as on the related but peripheral issues of travel and abortion assistance. No such commitment has been given. Indeed, nothing the Taoiseach has said or done gives the slightest support to the view that he is going to allow the people to vote on whether or not this country should have legalised abortion. It is for this reason that I will continue to urge a “no” vote if the 18 June referendum goes ahead.
By dealing with Maastricht before settling the abortion question we would be offering Europe, through the European Court, a right of veto over future constitutional change to restore full protection to the unborn child in Ireland. Mr. Delors is quite wrong when he lectures us on what he believes is the irrelevance of the abortion issues to Maastricht. By not allowing a proper Protocol, the EC has created a situation in which the European Court might have no choice but to overrule a future referendum in Ireland and declare a right to abortion here. By not resolving the abortion issue first the Government are agreeing to such an intolerable position.
We are likely to hear more assurances from Europe in the coming two weeks that they have no interest in our abortion law, but such assurances have no value whatsoever, once we ourselves have put the cart before the horse. In urging a postponement of the 18 June poll, and a "no" vote if it goes ahead, I would like to finish by making a few points about how the whole matter is being approached.
The Danes may have done us all a great service. As an English Labour politician said yesterday, the notion that decisions reached by political leaders can simply be handed down and accepted by the electorate as a whole may now be blown out of the water. In Denmark, politicians, businessmen, the media, all the pillars of the Danish establishment, lectured that the rejection of the Treaty was inconceivable and that terrible consequences would follow. Commissioners and foreign leaders, including our own, were imported to issue stern warnings but the Danish people refused to be browbeaten. They kept their own counsel, calmly weighed up the arguments and then said "no". Once more, the pollsters were confounded.
As another small country we should look carefully at this example. What does the aftermath of the Danish decision tell us about the likely position of the smaller nations in the proposed European Union? Suppose it had been Germany that had said "no" to Maastricht. Do we imagine we wuld now be talking about the other 11 states going it alone? It is time we all had a second look at all of this.
I have described the possibility of it being an absurdity to hold a referendum. The other absurdity is that I am making these comments from this side of the House.
I call the Minister. We were to conclude at 1.30 p.m. but may I ask the House to agree to allow the Minister to give his address even though it may go beyond 1.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs who is engaged in the other House, and on my own behalf, I want to thank all Senators who have contributed to this very important and informative debate. During my time here I have listened with very great interest to the contributions from all sides of the House and I accept that all the points made were very sincerely put forward.
At Oslo yesterday the 12 Foreign Ministers including significantly, the Danish Minister, agreed that the ratification procedure for the new Treaty should continue. One member state has decided at this stage not to go ahead with its ratification procedure. That is its democratic right and it has exercised that right. Equally, it is the right of the Irish people and the Legislature to consider the Treaty and to give their own verdict, as they will have an opportunity to do later on this month.
At the end of the ratification procedure the 12 member states will together review the situation. Who knows what it will be in December, perhaps Denmark will think again, perhaps the other 11 states will have to take decisions to deal with the situation of non ratification. The Government want to face that situation strengthened by the authority of the Irish people's positive verdict on the Treaty.
I would like to mention two specific facts: First, it has been argued that the drafters of the Treaty should have provided for a situation in which fewer than 12 member states would ratify. The fact is that article 236 of the EC Treaty requires the member states to agree to amendments of that Treaty by unanimity. The option of less than 12 months was not open to the drafters of the Treaty. Would we like a Treaty to be imposed on us by a qualified majority? I do not think we would.
Secondly, the people will be asked on 18 June to enable the Treaty to be ratified. That is not the end of the story as far as Ireland is concerned. First, the Dáil must ratify the Treaty and, the Oireachtas must amend the European Communities Act to allow the Treaty to be implemented.
I understand that some Senators, in their contributions to the debate, complained of the uncertainty of the situation. The fact is that we and ten other member states are embarked on the ratification procedure as originally set out. It is not a case of Denmark coming to its senses. It is a question of Ireland being in a position to react to any decision the Danes may make and to deal with the new situation that will inevitably arise.
Quite simply, the question we must ask is: why should Ireland stand aside from its own ratification process which it had already set out long before now? Why should Ireland put itself in the second tier of a two-tier Europe without even consulting the people? The referendum on 18 June is about consulting the Irish people and giving them an opportunity to make their voices heard and to indicate at the polling booth their position on the European Union Treaty. The verdict will enable the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government to go forward to whatever situation may emerge later this year as part of the ratification procedure which is underway in the 11 other countries, the Danish position in relation to which we now know.
I would support all those who have contributed to this debate in so far as they have called for a very positive vote, "Yes" vote on 18 June.
Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 2.00 p.m.