I hope so and that I have not all my future behind me at this point. I served on at least eight Councils — Transport, Foreign Affairs, Finance, Agriculture, Labour, Social Affairs and ECOFIN. At no point did the small member states vote en bloc as a single group to try to in any way insist that their role would be separately enhanced at the expense of respect for the larger member states. The furthest we went on occasions — and it was a useful practice — was that we would meet informally for breakfast meetings, mostly to analyse how we could help to resolve conflicts between the larger member states. One of the most stimulating experiences I had was in those early morning discussions with the Belgians, Dutch and Danes where we tried to find, and did find, common ground which enabled an impasse between either Germany and France or France and Britain to be resolved on the basis of proposals which we were able to put forward. That is the significant role which smaller member states can and have achieved.
Equally, it would be foolish to overlook the impact on the world outside of the small member states during our Presidencies of the EU. I was privileged to witness this in connection with relations with developing countries in the Lomé Convention. The first Lomé Convention was negotiated and signed by my predecessor as Minister for Foreign Affairs, Garret FitzGerald. He did a remarkable job in achieving that breakthrough. At that time the 52 member states of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries — they are now very much in our minds for a variety of good and, unfortunately, tragic reasons because of the developments in Rwanda, Somalia and so many other unfortunate experiences of recent times — all warmly and enthusiastically involved themselves in the Lomé negotiations and the Lomé Convention, particularly because of the fellow feeling which they had with this small country which, like them, had had a sad colonial experience. The only difference between us was that ours lasted for hundreds of years longer than theirs did.
I was the President of the Council for the renegotiation in 1979 of the Lomé Convention, which was, if anything, more sensitive and difficult than the original negotiation, as the 62 ACP countries, understandably, wanted to build on what they had and get more. They were, properly, more demanding, but equally sometimes demanding much more than our partners in the European Community were prepared to concede. It was because of our shared experience that we could bring about a resolution in the final crunch negotiations between partners who had drifted apart. There is still a residual feeling of tension and distrust between many of the former colonies and the colonial powers who are now our partners in the European Union. We bridged that gap. That is going to become a much bigger issue in the future than it has in the past. That is another very strong reason — not because Ireland needs it but because Europe and the world needs it — for not diluting the role and function of the smaller member states.
For that reason we support the development of transparency in the Union. I hope that we will be able to demonstrate above all else that in developing that transparency, the role and function of a small country such as Ireland and other small countries will not only be respected but retained and enhanced as being crucial to the development of the European Union.
The issues which will dominate Ireland's Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 1996 can only be identified broadly at this stage, as they may change because of evolution which will occur in the meantime. First, there is the Intergovernmental Conference, to which I have already referred, which is likely to be in place for the duration of our Presidency. Fortunately, we have a most competent and professional corps of public servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs and all other Departments. I am sure that their contributions to past Presidencies will be reflected in the contribution which they will make to the 1996 Presidency.
The issues with which we in Ireland are very much preoccupied are those of growth, competitiveness, employment and common action for economic recovery. They will, and must, feature prominently in the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. With Ireland involved at the core centre, we can ensure, not just in our interest but also in that of cohesion in the European Union, that those issues, without which there is no justification for these economic policies, will be dealt with. They mean nothing unless they mean employment, dignity and security for our citizens, from Apulia in Italy to John O' Groats in Scotland. There will also have to be an intensified multilateral surveillance of a kind that has not been evident in the present Union, which is currently much smaller than it will be post-1996.
The decision to move to the third stage of Economic and Monetary Union must be taken not later than 31 December 1996. The elements involved in that decision are huge. So far we have not set about laying the base for harmonisation in terms of taxation and fiscal policy. We have the guidelines, but have not been laying the base to achieve it. If we are to have a truly open trading economy throughout the European Union, from Vienna to Donegal and from Oslo to the south of Greece, we must ensure that all the barriers to trade are dismantled. These operate particularly against the smaller countries like Ireland, who are — at least geographically — at the periphery of the Union. They are not currently being dismantled, either consistently or efficiently, at the rate and pattern required.
If we look at the issues that affect everyone in our community, from remote mountain villages in Ireland and Greece to huge cities in Germany, there are, unfortunately, a few constant themes. One of these themes, different though it may seem because of its disparate experience and background, is the growth of crime and the reasons for that growth. Old people, whether from Tuscany, Tipperary or any other part of the European Union, who have the right to demand the most fundamental right of all, the right to security in their homes, find themselves most vulnerable there. Policies and politics are not always about the great meetings, ceremonies and pomp that are given full focus by heads of Government. They mean nothing — I have been privileged to have been involved in a number of them — unless the decisions taken there have as their first priority the wellbeing, security and welfare of every person, especially the most dependent and vulnerable.
I agree with the view that the Union, as it develops and enhances, has a major opportunity to find, identify, recognise and promote the role of women in our communities and public actions throughout Europe. Anyone looking at the current European Union institutions — the Commission, the Council or the Parliament, much less in its lower administration — will notice by comparison with our own experience that women who have a major role to play are not given that opportunity under the European development we have seen in recent years. Women would especially want to advance the priorities of family, children, dependants and the needy, and this has always been a characteristic of their involvement in public life. It is absolutely essential therefore that, in the interests of harmony and stability, we should pioneer that priority. It is a great opportunity for the Irish Presidency to focus especially on Europe des Femmes. We used to refer to the Europe des Patries of the member states, but it is time that we also recognised that the vital contribution women can make has not been recognised, much less developed, under the existing European Union. The Irish Presidency has a great opportunity of advancing that concept.
Look at organised crime and the spread of the contagion of drugs which did not exist when we joined the European Community. I was a junior Minister at that point, subsequently came into full Government within a matter of three months and attended a full Council of Ministers meeting. It is now time to have a co-ordinated approach, not only to analyse the cause of these policies but to set in place a range of programmes that will eradicate the base of that contagion and, where necessary, introduce common action to, first, protect our communities, countries and society and, subsequently, to take a progressive rather than a reactive view to the kind of policies that will ensure that this contagion, which is undermining the society of every country, will not contaminate our homes, communities and particularly our young people in the manner in which it has done in recent times. I do not intend to turn this debate into one on drugs beyond pointing out some of the issues that will feature prominently during our Presidency.
We will also have to look at the changing role of the European Parliament which will be enlarged considerably to embrace the new member states. However, any Parliament is, of course, limited in many ways in its capacity to be effective, and in some instances by the sheer weight of numbers in that Parliament. We have a tight and cohesive arrangement in these Houses, especially in this House. Our relationship has a common purpose and a sense of feeling for the institution in which we are privileged to serve. This helps us to discharge our responsibility. However, the European Parliament is now expanding and enlarging to a point that its capacity will have to be reviewed, either through strengthening its committees or in developing a new and effective working relationship with the Council and the Commission. If this is not done, I am afraid it will only be seen as a place where our directly elected members go for a while to Strasbourg, Brussels or Luxembourg. We hear little about what is happening there until it comes to an election — I do not blame members for this — when they do their best to promote what they have achieved.
If the European Parliament is to mean anything, it must be seen to be immediately answerable to immediate and constant need, whether in education, employment, social stability or the range of issues about which all of us in this country and elsewhere are concerned. The Parliament will have to be much more relevant in the future than it has been in the past.
We must look at the further development of relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe with a view to the accession that they also have in mind. In my own time as Minister for Foreign Affairs, and subsequently as a member of the Commission, one tended to use the word "Europe" as being synonymous with the European Community. That, of course, was a presumption which was quite offensive to all those other countries who are very much part of Europe. We used that term to mean member states of the European Communities. Now we have to recognise that Europe extends to Austria and will extend perhaps into Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania and so many other countries that are at the centre of the European Continent but which are still looked upon by us as being outside our Europe. Although the enlargement of the Community may cause certain problems for us and the resources available for Ireland may be limited, we could not and will not take the negative defensive view that now that we are members no other countries may join. I know that Ireland will not allow any such notion to gain currency during our Presidency.
I wish to touch on some of the less commendable aspects of the European Union and of some of the member states. It is one of the great scandals of our time that some of our partners — I hesitate to use the word partner in this context — have been at the root of so much of the suffering of people in places such as Rwanda, Burundi and Somalia in the cause of developing and expanding the European armaments industry. The arms supplied by our partners are used to mutilate, kill and impose intolerable suffering which shocks us when we see it on television.
Senator Lanigan has rightly said that seeing this suffering on television shocks the viewer. To see it first hand is horrible, but the smell of death which one experiences in these war torn areas is unspeakable. I have seen only one small trace of it and in a sense my experience has been totally inadequate. To truly understand, it would be necessary to be at the scene, as we have seen recently with the exposure of the awful suffering endured in the concentration camps at Belsen and Auschwitz during World War II. To understand we would each need to be present like so many of our wonderful volunteers from Trócaire, Concern and Goal. We as public representatives would do well to visit these areas. Perhaps members of our policy committees, and in particular the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, would go out, not as observers but with the purpose of involving ourselves, for as long as we are allowed by our Governments, so as to get the stench of that suffering.
