Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Jul 2001

Vol. 167 No. 15

Nice Treaty Referendum: Statements.

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

In the absence, on Northern Ireland related business, of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on the situation following the Nice referendum and to outline to the House the Government's views on the way forward. It is appropriate that Seanad Éireann is again addressing the vital issue of Ireland's participation in the European Union. It indicates a welcome recognition of the significance at this important juncture of sustained and active engagement by Ireland in the life and work of the Union. It also highlights the important role of our parliamentary institutions in promoting public discussion on these critical issues. The timing of this debate, coming some weeks after the referendum, is also helpful in allowing us to take stock, on a more considered basis, of where matters now stand, and of where we should go from here.

Despite the widespread disappointment felt both by other member states and by the applicant states, there is among our partners, both current and potential, absolute respect for the decision taken by the Irish people. There is no questioning on any side of our right to take the decision we did or of our right to maintain that decision if we so choose.

There has been a dishonest and disreputable campaign to suggest that the decision is being treated with contempt and, equally false, that the Government has adopted a craven, apologetic posture in its dealings with other member states on this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In meetings at Luxembourg and at the European Council in Gothenburg, which were scheduled long before the date set for the referendum, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs explained the factors which contributed to the result and indicated very clearly that time would be needed to reflect on the implications of what had occurred. They were quite clear that there would be no quick fixes; and this was fully acknowledged by all our partners. Of course, aware of the potential damage to the political and economic interests of the State, the Government was at pains to emphasise, in particular to the candidate countries, that the result of the referendum should not be seen as a verdict on enlargement. In the aftermath of the referendum this point has been emphasised strongly by all sides of the debate.

The Government makes no apology for doing everything possible to protect Ireland's bilateral relationship with this important group of countries. Ireland already has major economic and trade links with the candidate states, with significant growth potential as these countries absorb the benefits of membership. As a small, open economy we depend on trade and investment for our prosperity, and need to ensure that our bilateral relations are handled in a manner conducive to strengthening our ability to compete successfully in markets both now and in the future. This was a major preoccupation of our diplomacy in the period following the referendum. I suggest that no Government concerned with protecting the national interest could have acted otherwise.

This period of discussion and explanation, involving close contact with partners and applicant states as well as with representatives of the European Union institutions, has facilitated a deeper analysis of the current situation from which certain conclusions can be drawn. First, it is clear that enlargement must proceed and that delay is not an option. Second, it is the unanimous view of the member states and the applicant countries that the changes provided for in the Treaty of Nice are essential to the functioning of an enlarged Union. The candidate states are grateful for our assurances that we wish them well. They now want us to give them the means to realise their objective. Third, the governments of the other member states are not prepared to reopen a treaty agreed with such difficulty and, indeed, for example, given the protracted negotiations prior to the eventually satisfactory outcome on taxation, it is by no means clear that any such development would be in our interest. Fourth, the treaty will not come into effect unless it is ratified by all 15 member states. Fifth, the outcome of the referendum revealed quite clearly that there is a range of concerns with regard to our engagement with the European Union, many of them unrelated to the content of the Treaty of Nice which must be addressed.

It is in this context that the Government has determined that what is now required is a period of reflection and analysis on all matters pertaining to our participation in the European Union. The primary vehicle for this process will be the National Forum on Europe. The Government had intended such a body would be established to facilitate preparation for the debate on the future of Europe which will form the centrepiece for the next Intergovernmental Conference in 2004. The concerns highlighted by the referendum campaign give an added urgency to the project and it is therefore intended to move quickly to establish the forum. The Government is obviously keen to go forward in this area on the basis of the widest possible measure of agreement.

Drawing on the support which has been expressed for the broad approach followed by the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, the Government has begun a round of consultations with Opposition parties on matters including on the terms of reference and composition of the forum. Without anticipating the outcome of these contacts, which are ongoing, the Government is convinced that the forum represents an exciting opportunity to undertake a comprehensive analysis of what the European Union has meant to Ireland, to examine the issues raised by the historic enlargement now in prospect and, against that background, to develop ideas and strategies for the future development of the Union in a manner which will meet the needs of all its members.

Of course, the real measure of the success of the forum will be the extent to which it succeeds in engaging with the wider public. It is time to demystify the debate on Europe. Europe belongs to its people. It is time the Irish people felt themselves to be at the centre of that debate, and that is the challenge for the forum. It will, of course, be for the forum itself to decide its working methods. However, I very much hope, following the example of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, it will emphasise the importance of hearing the views of a wide cross section of Irish opinion, from all sections of the community and all parts of the country. It will be important also to hear the views of other member states and candidate countries, including those who are involved in the front line of preparing the accession countries for membership. I hope the forum will not confine its activities to Dublin but will also take steps to bring the forum to centres outside the capital. For its part the Government will, of course, ensure the resources necessary for the smooth functioning of the forum are available as required.

The task of bringing the Union closer to the citizens has, of course, other dimensions. That is why the Government has indicated it is prepared to examine very carefully how best the arrangements for Oireachtas monitoring of European Union business can be improved. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has had very useful discussions on this topic with representatives of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs. Moreover, in response to a recently tabled Private Members' Bill in the Dáil, the Government has indicated a very positive disposition on the principle of greater parliamentary scrutiny and participation.

It is, of course, essential that we move forward in this area on a basis which strengthens oversight without impairing the capacity of our representatives to negotiate effectively in the Council. It is recognised on all sides that we have to get this balance right. Accordingly, detailed consultations involving the Ministers most affected and the Office of the Attorney General are now under way. When these have been concluded, there will be further consultations with the Opposition. The Government will in due course bring forward considered proposals in this area with the aim of strengthening the capacity of the Oireachtas to exercise its responsibilities while maintaining the flexibility necessary in the realm of international negotiations.

The purpose of this and other changes is to facilitate a deeper understanding by the public of the full significance of our membership of the Union. I believe the debate which is now getting under way will bring home to people the vital role which the European Union has played and continues to play in the economic and social development of the country. It has not only expanded trade but has been a key factor in making Ireland an attractive location for foreign investment. Jobs and prosperity at home require exports and markets overseas. That is why enlargement, with the prospect of a market of over 500 million people, is of such vital importance to an economy like ours and why any perception among the candidate countries that Ireland is blocking enlargement directly threatens Irish jobs and Irish livelihoods.

A key factor for international mobile investment in deciding to locate in Ireland is our full participation in the European Union. It is essential that we continue to send a strong message of our commitment to the further development of the Union and of our determination to remain at the heart of the business of the Union. Any uncertainty in this regard undermines our national efforts to create an environment conducive to growth and employment. It is essential to our continuing economic well being that this is not allowed happen. I am confident the forum will make a valuable contribution in helping to highlight these realities and will ensure the Irish people decide our future relationship with the Union on an accurate and informed basis.

The Government is very open to suggestions on ways we can improve understanding in the Oireachtas and in the public at large of what the EU's role is and should be in the world. What contribution can and should Ireland make in that regard? Enhancing Ireland's national role in the development and conduct of EU foreign and security policy has certainly been a priority for the Government. This has also been reflected in the read across to our membership of the UN Security Council. Our participation in the European Union common foreign and security policy provides us with a tool and vehicle to pursue Irish foreign policy objectives. We participate fully and positively, exercising influence on global issues such as human rights, disarmament, peace and stability. We have been very active in the elaboration of the EU's policies in areas such as the Middle East, Africa and East Timor.

Among the concerns voiced during the debate on the Treaty of Nice were that the EU was becoming a super state with ambitions to throw its weight around on the international stage. Some, on the other hand, have criticised the EU for failing to live up to its obligations in the wider world and for failing to contribute more effectively to conflict prevention and crisis management. We need to explore these concerns and criticisms in depth. It is important that we foster a much better public understanding of the EU's role in the world and how EU foreign and security policy is negotiated and implemented.

It was the Amsterdam Treaty, as approved by the Irish people in a referendum in 1998, which defined the operational focus of the EU on tasks of peacekeeping and crisis management in Europe. This role for the Union takes account of the changing and complex nature of peacekeeping, as has been recognised by the UN among others. The changes include additional tasks such as humanitarian assistance, the protection of human rights and civilian police work.

Let me take this opportunity to clarify some aspects of Ireland's involvement in this area. The EU's approach does not in any way undermine or diminish the Government's commitment to contribute actively to UN peacekeeping. Developments within the Union and the UN in this area have proceeded in concert and will continue to do so. This point has been made clear by both sides on numerous occasions, including by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and EU Foreign Ministers when they met last May. The close co-operation between the two organisations was reflected in formal conclusions adopted by the General Affairs Council.

The deployment of Irish personnel and resources in any overseas mission will only be considered by the Government where a UN mandate is already in place. The Government is open to having this position clarified further. As part of ongoing efforts to dispel fears and anxieties which arose in the lead-up to the referendum, we are examining what steps can be taken to allay people's concerns.

As with all aspects of our involvement in the activities of the European Union, but particularly where we have such an extensive history of involvement in UN peacekeeping activity, it is essential that the issues are debated thoroughly on the basis of the facts. We should not proceed on the basis of scare-mongering or on unfounded perceptions of what the EU is doing in this field.

The debate about security and defence should not be seen as a theoretical discussion – recent history in the Balkans and Africa has shown that the international community did not always have the necessary capability and resources to tackle real problems with enormous humanitarian implications. It is in the context of the appalling tragedies in the former Yugoslavia that our personnel are making a positive contribution on the ground. Many of our citizens have served in that region as monitors with the EU, the OSCE or as UN police. We have a duty not only to help pick up the pieces but to do our best to ensure that it will not happen again.

The current rehabilitation efforts in the western Balkans clearly illustrate the way in which European Governments are working together to prevent conflict and maintain peace. It is heartening to see that new patterns of security co-operation involving former adversaries have emerged. This is the core of what European security and defence policy is all about. We should not turn our backs as though the horrific events which we witnessed in the Balkans region over the past decade had not taken place.

The positive contribution we are making in the EU context is fully consistent with Ireland's tremendous record of involvement in UN peacekeeping operations over the past 40 years. I want to see Ireland continue to play its part in preventing conflict and to have a constructive role in international peacekeeping.

Ireland will do itself a great disservice if we do not make an appropriate contribution in keeping with our traditions and values. Let us be clear in what we are talking about and avoid confusion on Ireland's role in this area.

There has been confusion regarding the description of the capabilities for the EU Headline Goal as a rapid reaction force. It is emphatically not a standing army, nor does it impinge on Ireland's policy of military neutrality to which the Government remains firmly committed. The rapid reaction force is a catalogue of capabilities available to provide the means to carry out humanitarian or crisis management operations.

It is also important to highlight that European security and defence policy is not an exclusively military project. In parallel with developing its military capabilities for humanitarian and crisis management tasks, the EU is also developing its capabilities for civilian crisis management. Extensive work has been done by the outgoing Swedish EU Presidency to facilitate progress in this area, particularly in policing. A key objective is to carry forward work on enabling the EU to provide police in support of peacekeeping operations and to provide added value to existing UN arrangements for international police missions. The Garda has served with distinction from Bosnia to Western Sahara. It should be able to continue to provide its much sought after expertise in the EU context as well.

The incoming Belgian Presidency has signalled its intention to carry forward the civilian dimension to security and defence policy. As well as facilitating work in the policing area, it hopes to make progress on a number of other priority areas in the civilian sphere, notably the rule of law, civilian administration and civil protection.

We should not overlook the important developments in the field of conflict prevention. A key test will be to enhance the union's ability to prevent conflict. This was a prominent theme at the recent Gothenberg European Council. As the EU programme agreed in Gothenberg points out, the development of ESDP has, since the outset, been intended to strengthen the EU's capacity for action in the crucial field of conflict prevention. We will continue to prioritise conflict prevention in keeping with our well-known views and experience in this area.

Critical to the success of the European Union has been its ability over more than four decades to adapt to changing circumstances. The carefully designed institutional balances, which give the union its unique character, have ensured that it operates effectively, while at the same time protecting the interests of all its members, including the smaller member states. I believe strongly that these balances must continue to serve as the foundation stones for an enlarging and developing union. It is precisely for this reason that I am convinced the Treaty of Nice merits our full support. I acknowledge that the people remain to be persuaded in this regard. I hope, as the process of reflection continues, that the electorate will come to recognise that Nice – the actual content of the treaty, not the wild claims made on its behalf – is part of a wider picture of Irish engagement with an evolving Europe in a fast-changing global environment. The case for being a full participant in that process, rather than serving as an ineffectual bystander, is overwhelming. I am confident that the people, having reflected carefully on the issues, will come to the same conclusion.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, to the House. It is unfortunate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, is unavailable but I appreciate that he is engaged in important business abroad. The Minister, Deputy Cowen, was the only Cabinet Minister who made any serious input or campaigned in any effective way to try to secure a positive outcome to the Nice treaty. The Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, has put on record that the Government will consult the world and its mother. The reality is that the Government failed dismally to secure success on the Nice treaty. Its campaign was a non-campaign and nothing was done to ensure that the referendum was passed.

Since the referendum at least six Ministers have put forward various views in regard to what should and should not have happened. The Government is completely divided on the issue of Europe. The Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, is a possible exception because of his responsibility in the area of defence, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. As far as the rest of them are concerned, they have disgraced us at European level among our fellow member states.

The Minister came in here today to tell us what we have already heard from the Taoiseach, that the Government is going to set up a forum. This is an abdication of political responsibility by the Government, which is incapable of getting out and communicating with the grassroots what the Nice treaty is about. The forum that is to be established will be put together in consultation with the Opposition. How much consultation has actually taken place between the Government and Opposition since the defeat of the Nice treaty?

Mr. M. Smith

After leading them astray last week.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Last week we had the embarrassing spectacle of the Taoiseach going to Gothenberg and Luxembourg and apologising to the member states, having castigated the voters here for rejecting the treaty. The electorate was democratically entitled to vote as it saw fit, and it deemed fit to vote down this treaty. Only one third of the electorate chose to vote at all, whereas two thirds of the electorate vote in most elections, implying that another third of the electorate who usually vote chose not to do so on this occasion.

The Government put forward all sort of arguments and explanations as to why the treaty was rejected. It was rejected because the Government failed to conduct a campaign to ensure that referendum was successful. It is a simple as that. The reality is that the Cabinet is divided on this.

Over the years various directives have emanated from Europe. They have come directly into Departments and are laid in the Library, but we do not know about them until they are implemented on the ground in our relative constituencies. Many people across the country are most unhappy with the offhand directives that have emanated from Europe to which they are subjected. People across the country repeatedly get communications from various Departments informing them that they cannot do this or that because Brussels says so. The people have spoken on this. They have said that they want to take control back into their country and they do not want to be controlled from Brussels to the extent that they are being.

There is another issue of fundamental importance which we have previously discussed here. I welcome the major EU funding we have received, but let us be specific about where it was invested. Research shows that a disproportionate amount of EU funding, Cohesion Funding and social funding, was invested in the eastern part of the country. Commissioners have been repeatedly brought to the most deprived and disadvantaged areas of the west and on the strength of what they saw decisions were made on funding for this country. When it came to spending that money, it was confined in Merrion Square and dished out from there into selective areas. Many people have not benefited from any direct spin-off from the EU funding.

Mr. Lanigan

That is not true.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

That is not untrue. Despite our Celtic tiger economy a high percentage of people feel they have not yet been touched by it. It may suit some people to ignore that issue but that is the reality. Coming from Kilkenny, that may not be a reality for the Senator, but coming from west Clare I know it is a reality.

Mr. Lanigan

All my relatives in west Clare are doing quite well too.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Some of the people in those areas deliberately stayed at home on this occasion and some of them who would normally vote "Yes" in such a referendum voted "No".

I was amazed at the number of people who were dissatisfied with the arrangement to have a rotating Commissioner once full enlargement takes place. They felt that, irrespective of enlargement, it would give rise to serious problems if we were not to have a Commissioner permanently at the table. We will have a Commissioner until enlargement takes place and then a rotation system will apply. People are highly fearful of that and are not prepared to accept it. The Government is living in cloud cuckoo land if it believes that the establishment of this forum and consultation with the parties, various social partners and all the groups normally consulted will be adequate or sufficient to secure a "Yes" vote for the Nice treaty. If it thinks the type of campaign that needs to be conducted at a political level can be done by way of the forum, it is going nowhere and not alone will it not secure a "Yes" vote in the next referendum, but the treaty will be defeated even more roundly that on the last occasion.

The last time we discussed this issue I criticised the Government for the undue haste with which it was proceeding because at that stage most of us in this House, not to mention the public at large, did not understand the details of the Nice treaty. Given the short space of time left to engage in a campaign and the fact that a serious campaign was not undertaken, there could not but have been a negative result.

A spin has been put on the result from those for and against the treaty that it was not a vote against enlargement. That is true to a point, but it is not 100% true. A number of people, particularly people in the farming community, are fearful of the effects enlargement would have on their production and market capacities. They are fearful of competition particularly from Poland and other applicant countries, yet nothing has been done to allay their fears. That must be addressed in the course of the next referendum.

I am surprised by points the Minister made about member states not being prepared to renegotiate, yet the instruments that need to be reformed, as proposed in the Nice treaty, have to proceed in order to accommodate expansion. How does the European Union intend to expand if the Nice treaty is not passed here? It will be difficult for the Government to get the treaty passed here. The Minister believes this debate will charge ahead and that the people will come on board. It will not be quite that simple. It is no harm there has been a slight hiccup on the European road because there is a sense of remove, remoteness and almost a sense that it is only the preserve of a certain few Eurocrats who understand this and that the rest of the population are not in a position to analyse, understand or relate to the Union in general because it is complicated and far removed from the ordinary person's preserve. That situation and perception among the public need to be addressed.

I welcome the Minister's comment that this will not in any way undermine or diminish the Government's commitment to contribute actively to UN peacekeeping. I wish the Government every success with that, particularly in providing assistance for humanitarian causes in Europe and elsewhere. That is extremely vital.

It is important that the Government does not abdicate its political responsibility to this forum. The Nice treaty will be won only if a proper political campaign is undertaken and there is a serious campaign on the ground. All the politicians of the parties who are in favour of it need to actively canvass for it and explain at all levels what this is all about. There is a major task to be undertaken and it is important that the Government recognises that.

Mr. Lanigan

I welcome the Minister to the House. One of the major issues addressed by the people of Ireland in recent months was whether to accept the Nice treaty and they decided not to accept it as it was presented to them. Nothing can be done about that. That is a fact.

Senator Taylor-Quinn gave an analysis of what has happened over the past number of months. She gave an analysis of the fear and greed of the public, fear of change, fear of expansion and fear that certain elements of our society might be hampered by having to bring in people who are at a lower economic status than we are while for getting our economic position 20 years ago. Certain people decided to vote "No" because they do not want to give up any part of what they have. The greed element was large. I will not give out about the people who were greedy enough to say they had got what they wanted from Europe and were not prepared to give a little to people who are at a lower economic level than Ireland was when it joined the EEC. There were huge elements of fear and greed in the vote. About 90% of the organisations in the country called for a "Yes" vote.

A majority of the minority who cast their votes voted against the Treaty of Nice. So be it. No one can disagree with or change that decision. There is no changing a decision made by the people in a referendum. How do we get by the impasse which has been created? To take an extreme view, it could be said that the Nice treaty is finished and we must return to the Treaty of Amsterdam. That treaty says that the Union can be expanded by five member states. It does not allow for 12 new members. That expansion can be done quite logically.

Where does this leave the countries of eastern Europe who are begging to join the EU? There were many people in the applicant countries who suggested that there were flaws in the way they were to join. It was said that there would be a seven year moratorium on the movement of labour from applicant countries to the rest of the EU. This country is crying out for labour in certain areas. I do not speak of labour in a derogatory sense; it is an element of work. Whether that work is at a high or low level, we are crying out for people. We have an opportunity in this expansion to bring in workers who would be welcomed here and could contribute to Irish society.

There is a need for us to realise that we live in a privileged society. There is no point pretending that there are people in the country who have not benefited from the Celtic tiger. Every member of society has benefited from the fact that Ireland is a member of the EU and has enjoyed the benefits of that. Some people have said we were better at begging than others. It was not that we were better at begging; we were better at presenting our case and maximising everything that was available from Europe. That is not using a begging bowl. That is using our innate ability to get what is available and then to use it to the benefit not only of Ireland but of Europe. The Irish experience is being used as a model for the use of EU funds across Europe where countries are trying to emulate our prosperity, and trying to raise the incomes of the low paid or those on social welfare.

The people of eastern Europe have suffered for many years under different regimes. Many people suggest that the people of eastern Europe were repressed only since the formation of the Soviet Union. The people were repressed before there was a Soviet Union. In Russia they were repressed by the megalomania of the Tsars. Else where they were repressed by the Austro-Hungarian empire. It is like people who talk about China and its evolution out of communism. In 1948 China was not a communist state. Before that the people lived in a series of feudal kingdoms where they were repressed, enslaved and killed. We should not blame communism for all that was wrong in eastern Europe. The problems existed before communism, but communism expanded and the expansionist policies of the USSR became a problem.

We must acknowledge that some of the reasons that eastern European countries want to join the EU is as a protection from the potential of Russia seeking expansion in the future. They are equally afraid of a united Germany becoming an expansionist power. They seek protection and that is one of the reasons many of them want to join NATO as well the EU.

The people who voted "No" now say that they did not vote against expansion but for other reasons. It is an absolute fact the fear and greed were what contributed to various elements in Irish society voting "No". Quite a number in rural communities, the farming community in particular, did not vote. If they had they would have voted "No", but they stayed at home. By staying at home they did not vote "No", but they did not give satisfaction to anybody.

Irish people are no longer asked when they travel abroad which part of Ireland they are from. They are not asked if the war is going on in their county, if they are from the North or the South, or if they are British or Irish. The question now is how Ireland got out of its economic depression. We give facile answers to that, such as that education brought us out and therefore education can bring other countries out. It is a reasonable argument but it does not hold in Africa. We started from a reasonable base. The economic base was low, but it was not as low as it is in sub-Saharan Africa.

Where do we go from here? I am not sure how the forum will work. Will it produce a formula which will allow the privilege of bringing in applicant states without dealing with the problems of abortion, the loss of neutrality and not joining a rapid reaction force? If we are to be genuine about this we must say that we voted against expansion and there were a huge number of reasons for that. As regards the rapid reaction force, no Irish mother will have to put her son or daughter in the front line in any conflict unless it is sponsored by the United Nations, passed by the Oireachtas, or it is on humanitarian or conflict relief basis. If someone tells a mother that her son will be taken into the Army and killed, it is difficult to overcome that argument. It is not a real argument.

We have had a positive input to the European Union in recent years and it has had a positive influence on Irish society. We entered the then European Economic Community, warts and all, and that is how we will have to continue. We must first cater for deprived areas in our country and the EU can assist in this regard. We must then ensure people in the aspirant countries who want a better life are accommodated by us, however that may be done. Instead of criticising what happened and who did or did not do something in the referendum, we must get away from the fear and greed syndrome and move towards ensuring everyone in Europe has the right to live in peace, harmony and a relative amount of prosperity.

Mr. Quinn

I wish to highlight the extreme difficulty in which this country finds itself following the result of the referendum on the Nice treaty. I will set out from where I am coming. I voted "Yes" for a number of reasons. The first was that I considered the terms of the treaty, although far from ideal, were a reasonable and fair compromise between the conflicting interests which came together at Nice, and I still hold that view. The deal negotiated by the Government, while not achieving its aims in full, was nevertheless broadly in line with the position it had set out clearly in the other House and elsewhere during the months in the lead-up to the Nice meeting. I still hold that view. On this basis, I decided to back the Government's judgment by voting "Yes".

I took this decision on the basis of a further critical assumption which, in the event, proved to be unfounded. I believed the Government would campaign vigorously to convince the electorate of the wisdom of what it had negotiated and to educate the people exactly on the motives and issues. Instead of this, either through laziness or complacency, the Government lost control of the referendum process. The decision to have a quick campaign rebounded on it as did its decision to engage in a campaign so low key that it was practically invisible. It emerged that people who did not understand the issues were more likely to vote against or abstain than go along with the Government on the basis of trust as has happened before. By the time the Government realised what was happening, it was too late to do anything about it. It was hoist with its own petard by a campaign that was too rushed, insufficiently thought out and too dependent on assumptions about the electorate which have long since stopped being true.

It was the Government through its ineptitude that caused the loss of the referendum. The scale of that ineptitude gives rise to concerns about whether the Government has the vision and ability to take us out of the mess we are in. We are in a mess because the people voted "No", not because they opposed the Nice treaty but because of concerns they had about the way Europe is developing. They were concerned about the democratic deficit in the EU which has tended to widen as time goes by, about higher tax and the Minister being ticked off because he had not increased tax when Europe thought he should, and about the way decision making is mainly left to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Some of them were also concerned about the slippery manner in which our neutrality appears to have been compromised, a point to which we have already referred. Others merely expressed their anger at not having had the opportunity to vote on Ireland's entry into Partnership for Peace, something we sought in this House on a number of occasions.

A great deal of ink has been spilled on analysing the "No" vote since 7 June. What is common to all the reasons advanced is that they have little to do with the Treaty of Nice. This is the nub of the problem we face. Asking the people to vote again on the Treaty of Nice risks receiving a very dusty answer, especially since our partners have made it explicit that the treaty will not be changed or renegotiated. Given that the nature of the treaty does not allow for any national opt-outs from any of the provisions, the people who voted "No" on the previous occasion will argue once again on a broader platform than that of the treaty. What will be different the next time is that they will tend to gather a great deal of support for the contention that the future of Europe, not the Treaty of Nice, is the issue. Senator Lanigan referred to this.

The problem is that, if the Government tries to focus the debate narrowly on the Treaty of Nice, it will fail to address a real and growing concern among the electorate which is beginning to ask where exactly Europe is going. The "No" vote has had the effect of bringing that question to the fore and we ignore it at our peril. The debate in the European context has moved on to a wider issue. From the viewpoint of the Nice referendum, it is perhaps unfortunate that leaders in France and Germany staked out their positions in this wider debate before the preliminary issues had been dealt with. We cannot turn the clock back now that we are in this position. The wider debate has already begun and we are merely sticking our heads in the sand if we try to postpone consideration of it.

If policies were completely logical and rational, it would make some sense to set up the wider debate and, in due course, vote on it while, in the meantime, clearing the technicalities out of the way by ratifying the Nice treaty. That is what we could do but politics is not like that. The truth is that we cannot compel people to vote on our terms. Voting in a referendum is almost like a jury coming to a decision in a courtroom. When it retires to consider its verdict, no one can control the reasons it comes to a certain decision. I see no prospect at this stage of separating the issues of the Nice treaty from the wider issues of the future of Europe. It could have been done if the Government had done its job properly. Having failed the first time, there is no prospect of getting it right the next time.

What is the way out? The forum proposed is a good idea. However, the Government is making a mistake if it believes it can limit discussions on that to the Nice treaty. That is not what people want and, if they do not get what they want from the forum, it will have no impact on a future vote. Another good idea are the reforms which have been proposed to improve the oversight carried out by the Oireachtas on EU matters generally and especially on forthcoming legislation. It is not Europe's fault but ours that we have been so remiss in this matter for the 30 years since we joined Europe. The mistakes of 30 years are not undone in just 18 months. Even if the Oireachtas put the best oversight system in the Union in place, I cannot see it having much immediate impact on public opinion. We should certainly do it, but we should not be so foolish as to think it will produce instant results.

This problem must be tackled at a European rather than at a national level. We created the problem and got ourselves into this mess, but I am not sure it can be solved within the framework of the Irish political process. The only way out may be to do the unthinkable by abandoning the Nice treaty and moving on to the next stage of European integration. Such a doomsday scenario may appear unthinkable at this stage but it may not be so when we fully consider the alternatives.

We must ensure we do not lose this opportunity to get ourselves out of the problem with which we are faced. I welcome the debate on the issue and, if we listen carefully to what is being said, we might be able to find some way out of this problem. I congratulate previous speakers on drawing attention to the problems and I thank the Minister for his concern. However, if we are to solve this problem we must do something about it immediately.

Mr. Norris

I wish to express my commiserations to the Minister as he is dealing with a second boomerang in this House today. First, section 59 of the Electoral Bill was withdrawn.

Mr. Lanigan

His head is still on.

Mr. Norris

Indeed it is. He is a very gracious and decent man. It is a rather curious coincidence that he is dealing with two Government failures. This is not an issue on which I am inclined to gloat but the impact of this period for statements has been diluted by what is the real news of the day, that is, the withdrawal by consent of the House of section 59 of the Electoral Bill. Let us be under no illusion that we will have a major impact on informing public opinion but we can at least exchange our views among ourselves.

I was interested in what my colleague and friend, Senator Lanigan, had to say. While he began by saying that he would not blackguard voters for what they had done, he proceeded to list the reasons they voted "No". He characterised them as fear, greed and selfishness. I am not sure that was an accurate analysis of why the people voted the way they did.

Mr. Lanigan

On a point of information, I was responding to Senator Taylor-Quinn. My analysis was that she was talking about fear and greed.

Mr. Norris

It appeared to me that the Senator was endorsing some of what she said. I am quite sure the record will show that. However, it does not matter.

I do not believe that is the case because there were a number of reasons people voted "No". One was that we were promised a referendum on the Partnership for Peace – I do not wish to go over that point because I did so during the earlier debate – and the Government then spat in the face of the electorate and said it would not have a referendum on the issue, despite the very strong language used by the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern. If one snatches a bone from the electorate, the next time one puts a hand near them they will bite, and they are perfectly right to do so.

I am very happy with the result of the Nice referendum because the Irish people in their wisdom did exactly what I did. They voted "Yes" to abolish capital punishment completely, "Yes" to the International Criminal Court and "No" to the Nice treaty. I did so with some reluctance but I also advised people when asked and in my newspaper column that this is how I would vote, and I gave my reasons.

I would like to scotch one or two matters. First, I did not vote "No" because of greed or a lack of generosity. Second, I was not opposed to the enlargement process. The record of the House will show that I made that abundantly clear every time I spoke on the issue. I said I felt enlargement was not just a good thing politically and morally but it was also in the interests of this country in creating a wider market and was a glorious opportunity. It is very important that this message goes out to our fellow Europeans who are applicant members that there was no intention on behalf of the majority of people who voted "No" to exclude them, to be selfish or to wish to prevent their entry. We must get that point across. If people on the other side of the argument continue to characterise those who voted "No" as greedy, selfish and wishing to keep out these people, they are actually damaging our image externally. I want to make it abundantly clear that I am fully in favour of the enlargement process.

I made it clear during the debate on the Amsterdam and Maastrict treaties that I felt our neutrality was in danger, that there was an incremental process going on and that we were being imperceptibly drawn into military entanglements. This was denied on the other side of the House. I wish they had been more honest and said they were getting involved in a series of military entanglements and were prepared to justify it. I wish they had said they were prepared to put an end to neutrality because it was a convenient fiction of the past, that it had worked for them on practical grounds and they were now getting rid of it. I wish they had been as forthright as that. I put it on the record during earlier debates that as well as many of our potential allies in the Europe Union, the very brains in Washington who frame the various proposals such as the rapid reaction force, the Partnership for Peace and so on were in no doubt whatsoever, and unambiguously stated, that this was a progressive move in the direction of military entanglement. That is inevitable once one becomes involved in the process because the whole European process is organic.

I would like to quote from a booklet which emerged from the Institute for European Affairs which states:

The process of integration is incremental, proceeding in discrete steps. Foundations with limited objectives are laid and then built on successively in the light of experience. What begins as a modest experiment in cooperation grows into established procedures for jointly managing issues of common concern. This may lack elegance as a way of doing things, but it arguably has the merit of working in practice.

When one transfers that from the general into the particular and looks at the whole military apparatus, it is clear there is an impact of this principle on the military aspect. The Amsterdam Treaty states that the common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, in accordance with the second subparagraph, which might lead to a common defence should the European Council so decide. That in itself was a shift from the eventual framing in the earlier treaty to the progressive framing. Even on a previous occasion I was able to clearly demonstrate that what we warned about was about to happen.

In order to resolve this problem, I suggested that we should adopt something similar to the Danish protocol. I see the Minister shaking his head but before he asks if I know they are members of NATO, of course I do. I was simply showing that whatever the motives, the separate countries had the right, and one had actually succeeded, to include this protocol in the treaty. Therefore, it is not technically impossible. Leave out the question of motives and whether they were in NATO, the Danes at least showed it could be done, whatever their reasons. The protocol stated:

With regard to measures adopted by the Council in the field of Articles J.3(1) and J.7 of the Treaty of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, but will not prevent the development of closer cooperation between member States in this area. Therefore Denmark shall not participate in their adoption. Denmark shall not be obliged to contribute to the financing of the operational expenditure arising from such measures.

In the recent debate on the Treaty of Nice, I proposed such an amendment so that before the referendum this protocol would be included. That would have won the referendum for the Government. However, the Government ignored the advice of this House at its peril. Here was another instance where our advice was ignored. I have no doubt that if such a protocol had been included, I would have campaigned very vigorously for the referendum.

One of the principal reasons for my concern in this area is that it is perfectly obvious to anyone who does a detailed analysis that the further we get involved in military matters with the European Union, the Western European Union, the Partnership for Peace, the rapid reaction force and so on, it is parallelled in every instance with a draining away of resources and commitments to the United Nations. Some people on the other side accept that and say that the United Nations is about as limp and as ineffective as the League of Nations. It will continue to be so as long as Ireland with the other States withdraws its support. We should use this opportunity to put our muscle back again behind the United Nations.

If we do stand apart in this way from the majority of our European colleagues, that will give us a very important and secure practical position on the world stage in relation to the other non-aligned countries which constitute the majority of the world community. We would have a moral presence and be seen as a bridgehead. That is something that in the tradition of the late Frank Aiken, Ireland as a country should endorse and exploit.

We must go forward with the Nice treaty if we possibly can. That will necessitate another referendum. I urge the Government not to put another referendum to the people which will be voted down again. The Government might take what I hesitate to describe as an opinion poll on this matter and find out with a bit of market research whether, if the referendum proposals were amended in the method I have suggested, the Irish people would pass the Nice treaty. I hope this is what will happen and I look forward to campaigning with the Government and the Opposition so that a revised referendum proposal would be put before the people and successfully passed.

Mr. Ryan

I had the pleasure of the company of a member of the Government for a long period of time very shortly after the result of the Nice treaty. This person was quite astonished at the outcome. I have considerable regard for the political nose of Fianna Fáil and its ability to read public opinion. Given that, I had a clear view from a week before the referendum that the result was going to be extremely tight. I would not have bet on it being defeated but I knew that it was going to be tight. The opinion polls gave that impression and they were well outside any proposed time limits for opinion polls, incidentally. They showed that there was a shift in public opinion. The opinion poll was wrong because it had forecast a proportionately higher turnout of "Yes" voters than of "No" voters. That collapsed in the period up to the election. As I said the member of the Government was quite surprised at the outcome. I am not sure what that indicates, either a lack of awareness of public opinion or a lack of interest in the issue because that person was not directly involved in the campaign.

We cannot be uninterested in the European project. There is no point in reiterating statements that the rapid reaction force is not an army when the President of the Commission or other people tell us that it is. It is not a standing army but it is an armed force capable of using armed force for which the former leader of Fine Gael honestly stated could in some cases amount to war; making war to impose order in an unstable country is what he said. That may or may not be a desirable thing. When our troops participated in the Congo nearly 50 years ago, it was essentially as much peace making as peacekeeping. It was not a pacified country they visited which is why we had the tragedy of Niemba. It was a country which was still in a state of disorder and we were there to make peace. Many people have reservations about the agenda behind that.

We must address a number of things about the Nice treaty issue. There were genuine fears on the "No" side. People can have genuine fears which are groundless; I know people who are terrified of the dark and are genuinely frightened. That does not mean that they are correct in their fear. People can have genuine fears of flying but that does not mean they are right. People's fears need to be addressed whether we believe they are real or not. Just telling somebody that air travel is safe will not make a person who is terrified feel one bit safer.

Some of the issues from the conservative right, the Catholic right, are beginning to look more and more peculiar as the Pope tells them that they were wrong. This is an issue they should resolve for themselves. They seem to believe that they have a political insight into the nature of the European project which is superior to that of perhaps the most sophisticated diplomatic service in the entire world, the Vatican diplomatic service. They should examine it.

The exponents of the so called pro life movement are kicking up a stink about the possibility of a second referendum on Nice even as in between those press releases they issue the tenth press release of the week looking for a third referendum on abortion. I find their position more than a little inconsistent. I am not madly keen on a second referendum on Nice. It took the best part of 12 or 15 years to have a second referendum on divorce. We took that long to work our way through it. That said, those fears deserve and need to be addressed.

They were not the only reason the treaty was defeated. There is a complacency in the people who are part of the project. There is a section of Irish society – the top two or three people in every institution in Ireland who spend perhaps two or three days every month in Brussels or in some institution connected with Brussels; one part of their conscious selves is entirely Europeanised and there is nothing wrong with that – but these people are forgetting that for the rest of the population that is not the way the world looks. We must get those people to realise that it is still a democratic project based on the will of the people. All across Europe, however difficult it might be, not just in Ireland but all of the countries in Europe, are going to have to refashion their own people's acceptance of and enthusiasm for the European project.

You can only go so far ahead of your people. Political leadership is important but you cannot leave your people behind. That is not democracy. The declining enthusiasm in this country is of a particularly threatening form. I refer in particular to some of the speeches from the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste. The Tánaiste has made a considerable case for our need to be not contaminated by what she sees as the job destroying climate of high taxes and regulation that she seems to think characterises many of the other countries in Europe. So has the Minister for Finance, but perhaps not so colourfully.

I want all the people who say that to answer this: we have got £20 billion, depending on who you believe, from the European Union because of our underdevelopment, either in agricultural or in structural and regional funding. I do not know how much money has been spent on regional development and on regional aid; it could be £300 billion or maybe £500 billion. That money did not come out of some benevolent fund. That came because of the fact that these high tax countries in Europe paid taxes which their governments then transferred to us. What some people in Ireland, including two senior members of the Government, are saying is that now we got the benefits of high tax Europe, we are going to stay away from the same high tax Europe that had the political outlook, the political culture and the fiscal infrastructure to be able to give resources on that scale to enable some sort of gesture of social solidarity to work across the entirety of the European Union.

It is not just a disagreement about levels of tax. There is a fundamental ideological difference between the perspective of the dominant forces in the present Government and the perspective that has driven most of the countries of Europe – apart from Britain – for the last 45 years. Are we now saying that we want to create a cordon sanitaire, after we have creamed off the generosity, and keep ourselves separate from the culture which was generous to us? That is a different issue to that of showing a lack of generosity to the applicant countries. It is a statement about us. We have taken the munificence and we are not prepared to share our affluence in a similar fashion. That is what every assertion of the alleged wrongness of the European model is about.

I will not waste the minute left to me on the outbursts of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, and of the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Ó Cuív. They are not worth taking seriously. The idea of a defender of our cultural uniqueness not being able to speak a sentence of our first language intrigues me. Given the family history, to become a defender of our culture without being able to speak our language is absolutely impossible to take seriously.

If the rapid reaction force is only what it was set out to be, I have no problem with it. So far that is all it is. If the force were required to do no more than is set out, Mr. Solana's coup in the European Parliament in July last year would not have been necessary. He gathered a cloak of secrecy around all his actions. He said he would only attend a joint meeting of the Oireactas Committees on European Affairs and Foreign Affairs provided the meeting met in private session. The Joint Committee on European Affairs would not meet him in private so there was no meeting. If he thinks that is the way to win popular understanding and acceptance of something as fundamental as this he does not understand democracy.

There are other issues. I am glad the Government accepts the Labour Party position on the forum and the Labour Party Bill on European Affairs. Maybe in the not too distant future the Government will accept our position on health care. If the Government adopts the sensible policies of this party we will have made real progress externally and internally. The issue of defence in Europe will not be resolved through a protocol for Ireland. The issue is the militarisation of Europe not neutrality.

Our neutrality is not threatened in the immediate future. I doubt our opting out through a protocol similar to that the Danes have will do anything to reduce the militarisation of Europe. The case can be made that our opting out would make that more likely. There would be one less neutral, non-aligned state to ask questions. I put this question to AFRI when they came before the Joint Committee on European Affairs. They did not have a plausible answer as to why Europe would be better off in terms of the principle of opposition to militarisation if we were out of the loop. That is the argument for staying involved and arguing, which is not the same as saying we are prepared for Europe to become another super power. I have never been persuaded that large armies make the world more secure nor am I persuaded that one more will. There is an issue to be worked out and it needs to be confronted honestly.

Mr. O'Toole

I am glad of the opportunity – however late – to say a few words on the Nice treaty. I speak as someone who supported the treaty, who actively sought support for it and who regrets its rejection. Much as I do, I accept that fact and think we should move forward. The treaty has to be revisited and it is the way in which that should be done that I want to discuss here.

As with many decisions that are taken, there is no one reason the treaty was rejected. There was a combination of reasons and a coincidence of interests among the most unlikely groups which coalesced to provide an articulate "No" voice. There was no "Yes" lobby as such. Different groups supported a "Yes" vote but there was not a co-ordinated campaign as there was on the "No" side.

Having said that, one of the issues which arose in the course of the debate was the issue of the democratic deficit. I could deal with many others such as militarisation and neutrality but I want to deal in the time I have with that deficit. It is a serious issue because our cultural and historical baggage includes a commitment to the activity of voting and to democracy. The fact that Irish people went to the United States and took over the Democratic Party was not a coincidence. It happened because there was an opportunity to express themselves and to vote. Even though fewer than two-thirds of the population might vote in an election, were we to take the vote from them there would be 100% opposition. Those who do not vote are making a statement of their own.

If the Minister can recall the time when the then Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, went to the Intergovernmental Conference in Scotland seeking £8 billion he will know that Deputy Reynolds had the support of the whole country. We did not know what we were going to spend it on, we did not know how much money that really was but we were all behind him. It was a clear national objective. The biggest problem with the European project is that we do not have an Irish vision for Europe. I ask the Minister to bring that to the attention of the Government.

There is a broad acceptance of integration towards which we are very positive. Successive Governments have been praiseworthy on that issue. There will be an Intergovernmental Conference in 2004 which will make significant changes and we should be saying now what we expect to see coming from that. That is the sort of discussion I would like to see taking place in the forum. It may seem a contradiction in terms of the democratic deficit, but there should be deeper integration. The democratic deficit is created by the fact that we are too removed. We also need more political engagement.

The problem lies with the Commission, though not with its individual members. It is not so much the power they have but the fact that they are unelected. That has been said by a number of other speakers and I am sure it is a view the Minister shares. They are answerable only in name to the President and the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers goes over once or twice a month and tries to pick up the threads of what is going on while the minds of its members are on their jobs in their own countries. With the best will in the world Ministers do not have the time to do that work.

We, the Irish people, do not know the Commissioners. We know the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith and though we might love him, hate him or be indifferent to him we know he is there. He is the man responsible for the numbers in the Defence Forces, an issue on which we can engage with him. We can agree with him or argue with him but the point is that there is engagement. That is not happening with the Commission. Romano Prodi is over there and we see him on television. Pedro Solbes Mira comes to Ireland and meets the people in the Central Bank. Nothing is happening for us. We need to see an engagement. We need to see them in Ireland not in Brussels. We need to see them talking to Deputies, not central bankers and not to Ministers who will have a de facto arrangement in the hierarchical structures of Europe where, quite correctly, they will have an input and be engaged.

We need these people to engage with Senators and councillors to talk about issues which are real. The issues are easy to discern. Let us look at the ones Europe and Ireland have strong views on, issues we all have to deal with. Waste management policy would be a good starter. Car tax, excise duties and taxation policy for Europe are other issues it would be very easy to get movement on.

The outcome of the Nice negotiations was good. As a negotiator myself, I have to say that no one could have done better. It has nothing to do with Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. What was delivered to Ireland during the negotiations on the Nice treaty could not have been improved upon. Anyone who tells me it could knows nothing about negotiations.

The goal of having one Commissioner per state will not be achieved, and therefore, I ask the Minister to consider the following. The European Parliament is too large and too unwieldy to be all-powerful but it needs additional powers in specific areas. I cannot go into that now but we need to pick these specific areas. In addition, we need to take power from the all-powerful Commission and put it into the hands of politicians. There should be a second European house of parliament comprising two members elected from each EU member state by popular vote. It would be like the American Senate, where Maine, which has a population of a couple of million people, has two representatives, just as California and the other states. The power would be invested in two people elected in Ireland by popular poll with a universal franchise.

This second house would address a number of issues. It would be where we would achieve equal status and parity of esteem. It would create political engagement. It would re-locate and re-root power in elected politicians. It would bring the bureaucrats closer to the people and take some of the power away from the Commission.

This is not the absolute answer to the democratic deficit. However, these are the kinds of issues which we should be talking about rather than have people treat the phrase democratic deficit as nothing more than words. Otherwise these words will become like the elephant test; they will not know what it is but they will know it when they see it. It is the old story of trying to make people engage with the minutiae of the issue and have real objectives. If we could move things forward in this way, then we would be making progress and Ireland would have a louder, clearer and more influential voice in Europe.

I have dealt only with the democratic deficit. That is just one idea. In the course of the forum we can find many other discussion points on various other issues. I thank the Minister for his attention. I ask him to bring back to Cabinet the idea of having our vision for Europe and giving solutions to the people on possible ways of dealing with it, rather than letting the debate go all over the place with people who are anti-Europe for all sorts of reasons.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That concludes the statements.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

I propose that the House suspend from now until 5.20 p.m. to facilitate certain people and the Minister.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 5.05 p.m. and resumed at 5.20 p.m.