Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 1986

Vol. 370 No. 9

Private Members' Business. - Single European Act — Neutrality and Protocol No. 30: Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann reaffirms Ireland's position of neutrality outside military alliances, and notes with satisfaction that the provisions in Title III of the Single European Act relating to the co-operation of the High Contracting Parties (that is, the Twelve member states of the European Community) on the political and economic aspects of security and the closer coordination of their positions in this area do not affect Ireland's position of neutrality outside military alliances.

That Dáil Éireann further notes and welcomes the provisions of Article 23 of the Single European Act on Economic and Social Cohesion, which enhances and strengthens the commitment of the Community to the achievement of the objectives set out in Protocol No. 30 on Ireland appended to the Treaty of Accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of the European Communities."

—(Minister for Foreign Affairs.)

Mr. Lenihan

When I moved the Adjournment I was concerned very much with the whole aspect of the balance of the institutions in the Community that has now been changed by the Single European Act. Now, the European Parliament and the Commission, by reason of the new initiatives available to them, have acquired greater and more effective powers of initiative and greater powers of amendment, and weakened the authority of the Council of Ministers as a consequence. It is quite clear from a reading of the Single European Act itself and from a reading of the Government guide, that this is the case. It is undoubtedly detrimental to the national interests of small countries such as Ireland where, in the Council of Ministers having the voice of a member Government on that Council has meant a stronger voice than the voice we have as a very small Irish representation in the European Parliament, and in the Commission as well where we are similarly very much in a minority. Taken in conjunction with the introduction of the qualified majority in a wide range of areas such as the CAP, FEOGA, the social and regional funds and other areas of research and technology, it means a substantial diminution in the power, authority and effectiveness of the institution on which we always could rely most for effective action. In addition any proposal arrived at by the Council of Ministers on a consensus basis can under the Act be referred to the Parliament. It can be re-examined again by the Commission and put to the Council of Ministers. If the Commission and the Parliament act in concert and agree on a re-examined proposal, that can only be rejected by a unanimous vote of the Council of Ministers so the Council of Ministers in effect, can be eased out of their decision. If they arrive at a consensus decision in which we have participated they can be eased out of that decision and their decision can be beaten by the new co-operation procedure which is envisaged in the Act involving the Commission and the Parliament, two institutions in which we, as a small State, will not have the same clout or the same authority.

That is a serious matter. I am not saying anything more than that. It is a serious matter to which we should give our attention. I appreciate that we are in the Community at this stage and we must stay with the Community. I realise fully the advantages and the benefits the Community has brought to us but we must recognise that this Act is not favourable, to put it mildly, to our interests as a small State. In fact, it is decidely detrimental to our position and one of the main reasons for that is the dilution of the power and authority of the Council of Ministers, particularly in regard to the ultimate allocation of the various funds involving a practical transfer of resources and investments to this country.

To bring it down to practicalities, the following sequence of events is likely to become the regular scenario in regard to administration by the three institutions working in conjunction. Parliament can amend the common decision of the Council of Ministers on some aspect which may be favourable to Ireland. The Commission takes into account the amendment proposed by the Parliament and submits the re-examined proposal to the Council of Ministers. The Council can adopt the re-examined proposal by a qualified majority and if they have to reject the re-examined proposal they can only do so on the basis of an unanimous decision. It is obviously that type of scenario which will be the common method of procedure. In fact, it is the method of procedure envisaged by what is called the co-operation procedure. It is obvious that essential Irish interests could be easily disregarded in that type of decision-making process.

I move now to one of the main purposes of the Act which is the completion of the internal market. This is one of the positive aspects in that taken on its own it will provide an opportunity to increase trade. There are consequent opportunities to increase investment and employment and diversify markets so that in the overall economic development of the Community and in providing an organised market in which there will be no barriers in regard to trade and investment, opportunities will be created not just for us but for everybody else in the Community. However, because of our location we are at a real disadvantage in such an internal market. It provides the opportunities but there is a problem in regard to our location on the periphery of the market. There is an obvious need for an adequate quid pro quo for peripheral States like ourselves, so that on the completion of the internal market by 1992 there will be recognition of the particular peripheral problems created for countries such as Ireland by reason of our location on the fringe of that market, with consequent increased transport costs.

This of course brings me to the real nub of my criticism. I have no objection to the completion of the internal market — there is a commitment that that market be completed by 1992 — but there is no similar commitment in regard to the economic and social cohesion necessary to bring all areas of the Community together in a rising level of prosperity rather than have one area, the central area in particular, becoming more advantaged and the outer areas becoming more disadvantaged. If the concept of economic and social cohesion, which is the phrase used in Article 23 of the Single European Act, means anything it means the very substantial transfer of resources to countries on the periphery of Europe, to bring up their standard of living, to enable them to overcome their regional disadvantages, and to ensure generally a transfer of resources to those peripheral areas and other disadvantaged areas. Apart from throwing out the rhetorical or cosmetic concept of economic and social cohesion, there is nowhere in the Act that I can see any adequate undertaking in regard to a proper and fully-geared regional development policy.

We have a commitment to the completion of the internal market by 1992. There is no equivalent commitment to stepping up towards a meaningful regional development policy to take care of the more disadvantaged areas of the Community.

An analysis of Article 23 of the Single European Act reveals no improvements in the structure and purposes of the present regional policy that was written into the original Treaties on which we agreed back in 1972, apart from the invention of this new phrase, which is meaningless, unless there is a positive follow-up in regard to timetable and the mechanics of implementation in regard to such a regional policy. I would contend that the Preamble to the existing Treaties establishing the European Economic Communities — that is the Preamble to the 1972 Treaty — has a more specific commitment in that it referred to the need to ensure the harmonious development of the member states by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured. In so far as words mean anything, they mean a lot more than just the cosmetic rhetoric of economic and social cohesion which is introduced here as a new concept, particularly when it is seen that that concept was quite clearly written into the 1972 Act.

As this Act stands, there is undoubtedly no practical commitment to increasing in a real way the economic and social cohesion of the Communities to which lip service is paid. As it stands, it is just a vague concept with no real meaning. We can contrast that attitude with the very definite commitment to complete the internal market by 1992, a definite time limit established in the Act in that regard. There is no concomitant obligation to step up the Regional Fund, the levels of expenditure and the appropriate allocation criteria needed to benefit the less-favoured regions. In the case of the internal market there is a specific commitment. There is only a generalised obeisance to a concept in regard to social and economic cohesion.

As far as Ireland is concerned this whole area of transfers and investments for regional and social purposes is essential. We cannot continue to rely on mere rhetoric as satisfying our essential requirements in this respect. There has been very real failure on the part of the Government in their negotiations on the Single European Act in this area. Important concessions have been made to complete the internal market but no practical concessions have been obtained by us in regard to our vital interests in the social and economic areas. That is the reason we want incorporated in the declaration we want annexed to the Treaty, to the implementing instrument of the Act, the specific commitment in regard to the special social and economic problems basic to our requirements and which were written into the 1972 Treaty of Accession we signed. It was written into the Treaty, as a protocol, that there would be ongoing recognition of our special position because of the need for a transfer of resources under the various headings I have mentioned such as the CAP, FEOGA, and the Social and Regional Funds. This declaration should really incorporate the 1972 protocol as an annex to this Act. We want nothing more and nothing less than that. It appears to be a very reasonable proposition.

As Deputy Haughey said earlier, there is no reason, in international law, that that cannot be annexed to the Treaty as a declaration, as the Government have already done in regard to a technical aspect of insurance law. There is no reason a similar declaration restating the position in regard to Ireland's special requirements to secure the transfers I have mentioned — thereby removing the inbalances caused by our regional position — should not be agreed to by the Government and be annexed to the Act. It may be said here that such a declaration is not meaningful but, as two Deputies present who have European experience know, the fact of the matter is that it is very important for a country to put down its marker. The value of inserting a declaration of that kind is that at some future date — hopefully sooner rather than later — in discussion, in negotiations, in the sort of bargaining that goes on in Europe, we can always return to that marker and say: "there is our declaration, we went along with this improvement in European union incorporated in the Act on the basis of a declaration of this kind to do something meaningful in the way of transfers of resources under all of these headings so as to ensure that the less developed areas, such as ours and those on the peripheral fringe could benefit; that is our position, we made that quite clear and it is written in as a declaration annexed to the Single European Act."

Protocol 30 was negotiated in 1972 on our accession to the Community. We should reiterate its terms. That whole principle is incorporated in the first half of the declaration amendment we propose. The other half of the declaration, reservation or amendment — call it what you will — deals with the question of foreign policy co-operation. Again we want to see our position emphasised here in regard to our approach to military neutrality. There is a real distinction there between military neutrality and neutrality generally. We always had a stance in regard to military neutrality, initiated by us as a Government and observed by subsequent Governments and we feel that, again as a declaration, it is necessary to put down a statement of that kind as a marker. There is nothing awkward in European terms about doing that. Denmark's attitude in this area is very similar to our own. There is nothing that makes us bad Europeans in this respect; in fact, we are being very good Europeans by ensuring that declarations are incorporated in the Single European Act which quite clearly make our position plain to the other member states. Regarding the transfer of resources we are implementing stated European policy in regard to our attitude on military neutrality and as regards an independent foreign policy, which is the larger aspect of it, we are reiterating what has been there as far as we and Denmark are concerned over a long number of years.

The notion of formalising foreign policy co-operation raises the question of an independent foreign policy on the part of Ireland and the implementation of our policy on neutrality which is part of that independent foreign policy. We have had that foreign policy and as part of it we have implemented a policy of neutrality which has served us well in these terms. I have always found that it suited the larger European powers to have a country like Ireland within the EC which they knew had the appropriate contacts outside the Community and had a certain entree into other countries outside the Community within the UN framework, and thereby we were often spoken to and our advice was often taken as regards what the approach should be to countries outside the Community with which Ireland had friendly UN contact by reason of our essentially neutral position within the UN and the essential record of having an independent foreign policy. That role is particularly appropriate to a small country which is not likely to have the muscle to engage in military adventures. There was a recognition of that within the Community. It was a certain foreign policy strength that we had and it should not in any way be jeopardised. It is a foreign policy bonus that has served us well in practical terms, for instance in dealing commercially and in trade with north Africa and the Middle East. It has helped us to deal commercially and in trade with many African countries. It has helped us in practical terms and it has been the proper moral and sensible attitude for a small country that has no armaments clout but has a chance to use its independent foreign policy position and its policy of neutrality in a practical way to help out and co-operate with its friends, to do the right thing and act as an honest broker both between fellow member states within the EC and the outside world and within the whole world at the UN. Deputy John Kelly sought to denigrate our UNIFIL contribution. I feel very strongly that our UNIFIL contribution has been part of that approach. The fact that we have in the Lebanon, Cyprus, the Congo and all over the world over a number of years now made a very positive contribution to world peace under the aegis of the UN has resulted largely from the fact that we have had this approach to our foreign policy and in regard to military neutrality.

Here we are seeking as the second part of the declaration to have written in as a positive marker our commitment to an independent foreign policy and to military neutrality. Here again there is nothing whatever to be defensive about in regard to our European friends. In my experience as Minister for Foreign Affairs they have always understood our position fully in this respect, and I see no reason why that marker should not be put down in the declaration along with another marker concerning the transfer of resources. It takes not one whit from the Single European Act; it adds to by stating quite clearly what our position is and makes that position quite clear for future negotiators who will be discussing and bargaining and maintaining our position. We can always refer back here and say that we went along with the Single European Act subject to these two reservations being incorporated in this declaration. In the light of the history of this matter I cannot see why the Government are not accepting this declaration which does not in any way take from the Single European Act but enhances and amplifies that Act, makes quite plain where we stand and is there to stand as a marker so that in any subsequent discussions or negotiations our position is understood clearly.

We have very serious reservations about various aspects, particularly the one I referred to first, in regard to institutional changes and the diminution of the Council of Ministers which are not helpful to us. We feel strongly that, along with the creation of the single internal market, there should be a positive improvement in regard to the various funds which are involved in the transfer of resources to this country, particularly in regard to the Regional Fund. A reservation should go in on that aspect and our traditional attitude with regard to independent foreign policy and military neutrality should be incorporated in that declaration. I hope that these remarks will be regarded in the spirit in which they are meant, as a constructive attempt to improve the Single European Act in the knowledge that our future lies within the Community but that it is important that we make our position quite plain and apparent to our friends in the Community so that they know where we stand. That is without any respect to our capacity to get along with them in creating a better Europe in the future.

Mr. McCartin

I have listened to Deputy Lenihan very carefully. He made a sane and sensible contribution on the whole subject. Three points about which he is concerned are relevant and what he said about them requires to be thought about. I regret, however, that only this evening are we getting the benefit of the wisdom of the Fianna Fáil organisation on this subject, a subject which did not start today or yesterday. It has been going on quite a long time. We had the Genscher-Colombo proposals which were discussed in the capitals of Europe and every place where people who were interested in the development of the Community met. After that we had the Spinelli document which was a child of the Christian Democratic Group, which was the only group which voted unanimously for it. Obviously, Mr. Spinelli, representing the Italian Communist Party, would not have been in a position to deliver to Europe a draft treaty agreed by the Parliament if it were not for the fact that he got the complete unstinted support of the Christian Democrats in the European Parliament, while others absented themselves, others were divided and some got lost.

On every occasion when this subject was discussed in the European Parliament my colleagues from the Fianna Fáil Party who normally are conscious of the things that are important to Ireland and who normally play their part, chose in this instance not to utter one single word to give any indication as to what they thought about any of the proposals made, the Genscher-Colombo proposals, the Spinelli proposals or of the opinion of the Parliament on the preliminary discussions within the Council, or about the final agreement which was made in Luxembourg. On one occasion one member opted to register an abstention. That was a pity. The Government and the country deserved to know the thinking of the major Opposition Party on this whole subject. Recently I heard somebody relate how when the subject was raised by a minority party at a county council meeting the Fianna Fáil county councillors contributed from scripts which were very carefully written so as not to give any indication of the thinking of their party. From all of this I got the impression that here was something which was being held up the sleeve, here was a possibility to create a difficulty for the Government and not a possibility to make progress in Europe and to make a contribution towards an Act which could have been better had we had the benefit of opposition thinking and advice. It is regrettable that only here this evening has the thinking of Fianna Fáil come to light.

Deputy Haughey made a very long and eloquent speech upon the subject. It sounded more like counsel's opinion than the opinion of a politician who had seriously thought about the subject. It sounded like something that a legal practitioner would have prepared from a negative viewpoint and without much feeling for the subject. It was a very careful and thorough analysis. Deputy Haughey quoted Dr. Pescatore who is an ex-judge of the European Court. Having said that he regarded this subject as being of sufficient importance to have a referendum, and having referred on at least one occasion to the new situation in Europe after the ratification of the Act, Deputy Haughey proceeded to quote selectively from Dr. Pescatore on the subject. I expect that the legal minds who may have advised the Opposition on the subject were not more familiar with the original treaty than was this ex-judge of the European Court. I will give the House the benefit of what he thought about this whole exercise. It is rather disturbing for enthusiastic Europeans to hear what this man had to say. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition thought that this was an important opinion.

Speaking to the group of the European Democratic Christian Party last year in Greece, this is what the doctor had to say in a general way. He said that:

Critical scrutiny of the Act of 17 February 1986 demonstrates that the European public, including the legal world, has been the victim of a huge political disinformation operation, as the concessions demanded in return for the extension of the Community system to a number of new areas had never been mentioned in the political declarations accompanying those negotiations.

The ex-judge is saying that we made many concessions on European union and more concessions in the interests of moving into some new areas. That is a fair comment. He said:

A "Final Act" is appended to the Single Act and consists of 20 declarations, some joint, some unilateral, of a widely varying nature; a hotch-potch of interpretations, statements of intent, amplifications and reservations.

That is generally what this man thought about it.

Deputy Lenihan spoke about the completion of the internal market. Many who have been interested in the Community for a long time thought that the question of the internal market had already been resolved. I am not very familiar with the entire Treaty of Rome. I made a contribution when we originally joined and I had a general belief and a fairly detailed knowledge of how the system worked but I am not familiar with every word of the Treaty of Rome. Again, from the same source:

Article 8A promises an internal market "without internal frontiers" by 31 December 1992.

Deputy Lenihan is slightly worried about the consequences of this but the doctor says:

This is curious, as the EEC Treaty already provides for a common market to be completed by 1 January 1970, and all the more so as to a large extent this common market has already been completed.

That is true to an extent. The common market has already been completed apart from the 300 or so decisions of Council, of Commission and of Parliament which are outstanding. As to the question of the new alias into which the Community proposes to move, he has this to say:

Trying to sum up these new provisions we find that only those on research and technology are genuinely innovatory. All the other new chapters are in fact variations on themes familiar in Community practice.

This is so. We have the regional policy, the environmental policy, social affairs and all these things. Already there are many social directives, some already agreed and some before the Council of Ministers. The same goes for environmental directives. As has been pointed out, there is not very much new there except in relation to research and technology. From a strictly legal point of view there is not an awful lot to worry about in the Single Act. The ex-judge of the court is certainly justified in making the case that in a strictly legal sense this Act means nothing at all and it may in fact be going backwards rather than forward.

In relation to the whole question of European political co-operation I will give the House a long quotation because it is important to hear a legal definition by a person who has been fully familiar with the treaty and with the Act and who had the responsibility of interpreting the treaty over the years. He says:

The third part of the European Act, comprising one article divided up into 12 paragraphs, is designed to formalise co-operation in the sphere of foreign policy, which has taken place in practice over a certain number of years. However, the object in incorporating this system in an international treaty is not to establish any commitments binding on what are referred to here as the "High Contracting Parties". Nowhere does the wording of Article 30 go beyond declarations of intent culminating in formulate to the effect that for example, the determination of common positions shall constitute a point of reference for the policies of the "HCP", that the HCP shall, as far as possible, refrain from impeding the formation of a consensus and the joint action which this could produce.

The desire is expressed in paragraph 5 that the policies pursued by the Community and the high contracting parties must be consistent. Deputy Haughey mentioned European security but he mentioned it out of context. Dr. Pescatore said that this is the first time European security has been mentioned in such a context but not the slightest commitment is established. Unfortunately, the only effect of these ramblings is to highlight the lack of political consistency in Western Europe. Did we need to conclude a solemn treaty to do just that?

So much for the demands for a referendum. So much for the concerns of those who believe that this is a sell out of our neutrality. If indeed anybody believes it. So much for those who believe that what we have done is a diminution of our sovereign position as a State. In practical terms the entry to the Community of Spain and Portugal was far more ominous for Ireland than was the signing of the Single European Act. When the Community brought in another 45 million people who on average were a little bit worse off than ourselves it created a situation that we either had to take less from structural funds or we had to demand that we receive a much extended budget. The accession of Spain and Portugal posed far bigger questions to be answered and a greater threat to our welfare within the Community. I was in favour of their accession but at the same time we should recognise that that was a far more important decision than the decision we are being asked to make this evening.

I would not be as pessimistic as Dr. Pescatore. He is probably right in so far as a legal definition of what actually happened concerned. I think he is quite accurate in what he said. One of the problems was that we did not complete the internal market by 1970. When we joined the Community the market had not been completed. Decisions had to be taken but as there was now a larger number of member states the decision-making process would naturally be slowed down. The community had to ask themselves whether they would show the new member states and all concerned another copy of the Rome Treaty or whether they would sit down together to try to renew their basis for agreement. That is what they did. Deputy Haughey was not correct when he said the Danes have not ratified the Single European Act. They have. They held a referendum. The Single European Act was discussed in every Parliament in the Community. Because of the discussion the Single European Act generated and the problems it underlined I believe that there will be a new commitment to the completion of the internal market.

The environment was discussed in Europe and some decisions were taken. The placing of these decisions in the treaty along with the commitment to a strong regional policy and a co-ordination of the structural funds will stimulate the countries of Europe into dedicating themselves to the job that was undertaken by the original member states many years ago. There is nothing new about political co-operation. I do not think we need to have an addition to the treaty. The objectives of political co-operation were laid down in 1971 and agreed to by the Council. We joined the Community on the understanding that that was the way the Community worked. At that time the Community had committed themselves to completing monetary and economic union.

I cannot see anything that we are being asked to agree to in the Single European Act that we had not agreed to 12 years ago. I hope the new secretariat will create consistency and give a direction to European political co-operation. That is extremely important. When the new American ambassador was appointed to Ireland some time ago she was asked in a radio interview if she thought being appointed as ambassador to Ireland was, perhaps, beneath the experience she already had and was not the sort of promotion one who has had a successful political career would expect to receive. She replied that she did not think that being appointed ambassador to Ireland was a demotion after having held the post of Secretary of State in Washington. She regarded the position as important since Ireland was an important member of the EC. That underlines for us where we are seen in the world. Sitting down in political co-operation with the other 11 member states we have a voice in the world which is far more important than anything we could ever have achieved on our own.

I do not take very seriously Deputy Lenihan's claim that the European Community like to have a neutral member whom they can send out to talk to people who are not on speaking terms with the other 11. After all, Ireland is a member of a family of European states. Whatever secrets we will be taken in on as a member of the Community represent about as far as we will go in international affairs. Occasionally, a nation may throw up a leader of international status whose ability and personality shine forth but this happens only very rarely. Generally speaking, our international status would be related to our economic and military might. Our political power in the world today is a great deal less than most of us would like it to be. Our capacity to influence world affairs sitting in political co-operation where decisions are arrived at and where we are an equal partner can be considerable. As the cohesion of the Community and their ability to make decisions grow so too will the status of their member states. It is quite obvious that the countries in the EC do not have the power they used to have.

I read today in a newspaper that Taiwan has the equivalent of $40 billion of foreign exchange stored up in its bank vaults. That is the kind of successful trading which gives countries power. There is only one outstanding successful economy in Europe, which is, the Federal Republic of Germany. Our place in the world becomes ever more diminished as America looks more towards the Pacific Basin, as the countries of the Far East grow and develop and as we become an ever-reducing percentage of the world's population. It is true that Europe is still a very important region economically but our ability to influence our own affairs as individual states is very limited by comparison with what we can achieve if we work together in complete economic and political harmony. There is nothing to worry about there. I will come later to the question of neutrality and the arguments on that point.

I do not believe the question of sovereignty arises on this occasion. It certainly arose when we made our original decision to join the European Economic Community. Sovereignty assumes the capacity of a country to make all the decisions which affect its own people, without the fear of outside interference or the exercise of a superior power. Even if we were extremely competitive economically, even if some of our young people would like temporarily or permanently to move into other economies to gain other opportunities, even if we did not have as many people living in Britain who are entitled to be Irish citizens as we have living at home, even if our country was not divided, I still do not believe a small economy like ours could ever claim to be anything like sovereign, in the modern world. I often hold up as an example our fishing grounds where we claim we have 25 per cent of the fish of Europe but, on the other hand, we did not have the capacity to conserve them, to catch them and process them or to protect them from foreign poaching and exploitation. This is one area where we can talk about sovereignty but in reality it does not exist.

We have already conceded our sovereignty. When the Fianna Fáil Government decided to take us into the European Monetary System there was a considerably bigger concession made on sovereignty than anything we are proposing in the Single European Act. When we joined the EMS it could be argued that we were conceding a lot of economic power to the Bundesbank, the institution which controls the strongest currency in the Community. Agreeing to align ourselves to that currency within a limited margin of manoeuvre was certainly imposing economic disciplines on us which would be decided upon and agreed in other places, away from the Oireachtas and the Government. It is notable that while the British Prime Minister is very anxious to complete the internal market she is not prepared to concede on the question of the EMS. She sees this as a very important power which they must reserve to themselves. They do not want to come to any extent under the control of the German monetary system. We had no hesitation about joining that system and we were right, but I would contend that it was a bigger concession on sovereignty than anything we are proposing to decide upon today.

My political view is that what we are doing is right. The Community is recognising the failure in past years to realise all its objectives and is seeking to make a new start. The start is not very different but it contains new elements because of the needs of the enlarged Community.

On the question of the internal market the view is held by too many people that the completion of the internal market is good for the larger, economically more powerful States and bad for the peripheral regions with weaker economies. That could be so but I do not agree. I would remind people who are cynical about our efforts that Seán Lemass concluded a free trade agreement with Britain at a time when the Irish economy was considerably weaker than at present and Britain was probably the most powerful industrial country in western Europe. Its place in the world was considerably higher on the scale than it is today and ours was considerably lower. We were linked to their currency, which demanded from us a lot of concessions on sovereignty. We decided to join with them in a free trade agreement but we did not get the benefit of any common agricultural policy, regional or social fund or any willingness to transfer resources from one economy to the other. The agreement was supported by the then Opposition, unlike what was been happening during the past four years. We had a more constructive approach at that time rather than the kind of "wait and see" attitude in case there might be any way to bring down the Government, regardless of the common good. Mr. Lemass and his Government took a chance. They made concessions because they recognised that there is no possibility that a weak economy can become strong through a policy of withdrawal and protectionism.

There are many people who believe that all we have to do is put up a placard stating "Buy Irish", the implication being that we should discriminate against imports and resolve our problems. Of course it will not resolve our problems. We belong to a large trading block. The secret in any trading arrangement is not to persuade three million people to buy Irish. That will not resolve the problems of a small economy. Even if we were to achieve that objective, it would result in lowering standards of living rather than resolving social and economic problems. It would be a licence to people to sell inferior goods because there would be no need to complete. There is an assumption that two countries cannot play that game and that we would be allowed to discriminate against somebody else's goods while at the same time demanding free access of Irish goods to their markets. Of course it is good if Irish goods are sold on the Irish market, but the trick is to sell Irish goods to 300 million people in one of the richest areas of the world which, although professing to believe in free trade, does discriminate against goods and products from other areas.

I do not want to play down the role of the Irish State or the Irish people. We are as important as any other three million people in the world. At the GATT negotiations in Central America some months ago, picture Ireland trying to roll back the tide of demands for free trade in agricultural products, trying to answer the case from countries like the Argentine, Australia and New Zealand, trying to tell 600 million people of India about the importance of dairy produce to the Irish economy. Imagine how important our voice would be outside the European Economic Community, having to find world markets for our surpluses of dairy products and meat, particularly beef and sheepmeat, where nobody wants to buy those products. I can imagine the sort of boast our people would make of Irish sovereignty and the extent to which our voice would be heard around the table where the nations of the world were discussing difficult questions about freeing international trade.

I would much prefer to be one of the Twelve, with all the experience and power that go with the combination of people who between them control 40 per cent of world trade. That is the place where we have most power. If we want to achieve the closest we will ever get to control over our own destinies, it is in sitting down, making either economic or political decisions, seeking social assurances or, indeed, looking for protection in cases of aggression or violence in the world. In fairness to Fianna Fáil speakers, the whole question of sovereignty has not arisen so far. It has not been highlighted this evening, but outside this House I have heard the question raised very often.

We made a concession on sovereignty when we signed the original Treaty of Rome, but not too many realised that at that time within the institutions of the Community, in the Commission, the Council or the Parliament — while I would argue that we are as important as any other three million people in the European Economic Community — we were not entitled to veto the will of the other 300 million. In the European Parliament we have the same voting strength as 50 million Germans and the same applies in the Council of Ministers, we have the same voting strength as 50 million Italians, 50 million British or 50 million West Germans. Rather than giving way in the sharing arrangements we have made, our share in important decision making in Europe has given us a voice far superior to what one would regard as our entitlement, based on our economic situation and our population. That is something we do not realise.

Returning to the question of majority voting, Deputy Lenihan devoted a large part of his contribution to his concern that the balance of power within the Community is changing. In the European Parliament there is much concern that progress in Europe will not be made until the people of Europe's directly elected representatives achieve a real say. Mostly they have been pessimistic about the outcome of the conference in Luxembourg and they are mostly disappointed about the new Single European Act. I was a little happier than most. The final compromise as proposed by the Commission which eventually was agreed to improved the decision making capacity of the Community and made it more democratic. I do not know why Deputy Lenihan is so concerned about this.

Deputy Haughey referred to the European Parliament as the representative of consumers in Europe, as did Deputy Lenihan. That is being very lightly said; I have said it myself about local authorities who have been divested of their powers and about health boards who also have no power, but simply have a voice on behalf of consumers, with no responsibility. However, the European Parliament has this responsibility. It deals with the resources of the Community and when it votes to spend a particular amount of money this money has to be raised by the European taxpayer. It is far too simplistic to say that this is some sort of rag-bag of people who represent various interest groups and pressure groups; it is far from that.

If anybody chooses to study the decisions and opinions of the European Parliament over the years, he or she will find that there are two sorts of decisions that are taken. One is similar to the passing of motions on the Adjournment here and does not have any legal effect. The European Parliament spend much time passing such motions, many well intentioned but many impractical. When it comes to the business of legislating, the individual elected representatives of the people of Europe are not all perfect but if you watch the decisions they have made they have been concerned about Third World development. Generally speaking, the Parliament of the European Communities has voted more money on each occasion in its budgetary arrangement for the relief of hunger and distress in Third World countries than the Council, in which Deputy Lenihan has so much confidence, were prepared to concede.

The European Parliament has held the view that regional funds should be expanded and extended and has been very consistent in its concern over peripheral regions and the people who live in the weaker economic states of the Community. As a person coming, not only from a peripheral State but from a peripheral region in that State, I certainly can say that I have recognised considerably more commitment to cies in the European Parliament and considerably more commitment to resolving regional disparities than ever I recognised in this Parliament. I find considerably more willingness on the part of people from the richer parts of the European Economic Community to share — and I am talking about the directly elected representatives. They have demonstrated this by their voting on numerous occasions. There is considerably more willingness to share than I find in a little country like ours and in a Parliament like ours, of which I have been a member for a number of years. I am not in the least concerned that the European Parliament in its improved position of contributing to decision making will in any way lead to a neglect of the problems of the peripheral areas. Similarly, with regard to social problems, if anything the European Parliament is almost too socially concerned, perhaps without having full regard to the economic consequences of all the social legislation that it proposes.

In future, the Council will have the last word, but it is a unanimous council, as Deputy Lenihan has pointed out. That is an improvement. We did not realise that we gave to the institutions of the European Community legislative powers, we altered our Constitution to concede those powers to the Community and in practically all situations, except to a small extent in the making of budgetary decisions, these decisions were taken by the Council of Ministers for many years, without much reference to the opinion of Parliament. Eventually, Parliament found an instrument by which it could at least put a brake on the progress and force the Council to negotiate and enter into conciliation proceedings. That was after the ISO-Glucose decision when it was found that the European Council could not legally make a decision without first having got the opinion of Parliament. Parliament, at that stage, found itself in possession of a weapon which it used sparingly but effectively in recent times. It could withhold or withdraw its opinion and if it could not alter the Council's decisions or force them to make a decision, it could stop the process until conciliation and agreement had been reached. The new situation provides Parliament with greater power. The Italian Government which included Socialists and Christian Democrats, felt this power was not sufficient and were prepared to refuse to ratify the treaty on that ground.

The European Parliament is wise in that it accepts that as much progress as possible has been made and that the decision making process has been improved. Imagine Ministers from 12 member states arriving in Brussels, meeting their aides and advisers to find out what was on the agenda for the next meeting. The majority of these representatives will have instructions from the national Parliaments and each will be looking to his own interests. Since 12 members are involved, the chances are that elections will be pending in at least one State at any one time. These members meet behind closed doors, horse trading, under the influence of public servants and arrive at conclusions under a system which is far from being democratic.

I welcome the fact that the Parliament will have a fixed period of office. This means that no one country will be facing an election during that period and this will enable the members to set out a programme for their five years in office. Deputy Wilson appears to like the idea of five years in office, and so do I.

Mr. Wilson

Will the Deputy stay here as well?

Mr. McCartin

I wish we had that here as well.

Mr. Wilson

It was a burst of the Deputy's subconscious perhaps——

Mr. McCartin

I believe five years is a suitable period during which a strategy can be laid down. This will be the business of the members of the Parliament. I believe that eventually we will see a Parliament of full time professional European politicians taking the broader European view. I have been a member of a county council in County Leitrim and like most other local authority representatives in this House, we come into this assembly, work in the national interest, and forget what the whip in the local authority might think of a decision we take here. The same will apply in the European Parliament. It may be difficult to get an unanimous decision in a Council of 12 but a unanimous decision of the Council will still have a final say. A Parliament amending legislation cannot be overthrown by a minority on the Council who say they cannot vote for an item because it is against their national interests.

The veto never existed. It was a compromise introduced out of a fear that the Community was about to disintegrate. I cannot recall an instance when it succeeded. The British tried to impose their veto on this Act but they were told by the Community that that would not work. The Danes tried the same thing, with the same results. I do not believe there was any instance when a state imposed the veto and so prevented a decision being taken. To say the veto protects our interests is saying that 11 other states also have the veto, that the British will forever have the right to say that the Community budget may not be extended, or that another rich member state may say the Regional Fund cannot be increased. It became more obvious as we brought more members into the Community that if there was such a thing as a veto there would be no democracy. It is impossible to do anything which will not be against the interest of some region in the Community. I recognise that a unanimous decision will be required in some instances, such as enlarging the Community, but nevertheless, the commitment to proceed by majority voting gives us the same voting rights as 50 million Germans. This is the best we can hope for.

I do not believe any member state needs the internal market more than the small member states. That was recognised by Mr. Lemass many years ago. He said if we were to grow up in the world we must learn to compete. The structural fund can help us do this. People who like easy options think we can introduce trade barriers and protect our manufacturers and that this will lead to economic progress, but nothing could be further from the truth. Human nature being what it is, if we had trade barriers people would get lazy and inefficient. We all recall the thirties where world trade shrank and countries began to protect their interests and boundaries. We then had the war and 50 million were killed. I am not saying that was the reason war broke out, but international tensions and protective barriers go together. We need free trade because we are a small economy. The Japanese sell approximately 14 per cent of what they produce.

Mr. Wilson

But they are cagey enough about buying.

Mr. McCartin

That is right, but they bought 20 air buses at a cost of a few billion pounds in the last couple of days. This is the result of pressure from the 12 European states who up to now had not exerted enough pressure. We have to recognise that the Japanese have their problems too, and that they are not as guilty as some other Eastern countries. In the last 12 months their currency revalued to the extent of 60 per cent against the American dollar and trade is suffering as a result. Nevertheless, I take the Deputy's point that they have been guilty of unfair practices but they paid the price for their economic success.

We cannot resolve our problems by resisting free trade. If Europe were to tell us in the morning that there would no longer be a Regional Fund, Social Fund or Common Agricultural Policy, we would still have to ask them to allow us to trade freely with them because there is no other basis on which we could survive and if they maintained their Community preference in the area of agriculture, then we would face a real debacle.

I do not agree with the co-operatives who claim that because we are in the periphery of Europe we cannot get as high a price for our milk as the other member states. If we translate the cost of transporting a tonne of milk which has been reduced to skim milk powder from my constituency to London or to Brussels the transport costs are marginal. Thanks to the pressure being exerted by Commissioner Sutherland on the airlines to reduce the cost of travel, I believe there will be an even further reduction in transport costs. This is something the people with the soft options should think about again. They think we can have an environment policy in Europe where we can make everybody clean up the environment. They think we can have social legislation which imposes minimum standards of living and that the people will still stay here. That is where the danger lies. We do not need a strong regional policy because we are developing the internal market; we need a strong regional policy because people will not make the sacrifices necessary to build up our economy when they can migrate to the cities of Europe and enjoy double the standard of living they would have in County Leitrim. Why will anyone establish an industry in County Leitrim if the wages are the same as they are in Frankfurt and if environmental controls and so on are the same? If we agree to have imposed on ourselves those standards which the people in Europe now accept but did not and would not have when they were at our stage of development, there is a risk that we will be prevented from working the long hours that people work in Taiwan and Japan. We will be prevented from driving the long distances in trucks because of the tachograph. Our fishermen will not be allowed to stay at sea for so many hours because of social legislation. Our industries will be forced to invest in environmental protection. We can be prevented from living the hard life and making the sacrifices to catch up with the people who are obviously well ahead of us.

It is not true to say that the rich in Europe have been getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The poor have been getting richer and the rich have been getting richer. It is quite obvious that the gap has been widening but we have not been getting poorer as a result. We have immense benefits. We must demand strong regional policies. It is quite obvious that we have to retain some advantages. We must be allowed, within the meaning of fair competition, to give aid and assistance. Aid and assistance given to industries, particularly in the manufacturing and export areas, must be carefuly monitored. The full rigours of the European system of justice must be brought to bear. It would pay us more to develop our own strategy than it would to be seeking excuses to walk out of meetings about issues such as neutrality or sovereignty.

Parliament got itself a bad name in Ireland because it tended to object to the Common Agricultural Policy as it is today. When the milk quota system was introduced Parliament was the first institution in the Community to have special concern for the position of countries like Ireland. Parliament does not like isolating individual states. It referred to regions and economies that were highly dependent and that needed special consideration. Parliament held the same opinion in so far as the co-responsibility levy was concerned. They recognised, while many observers in Europe did not, that the money being devoted to the Common Agricultural Policy was not going mainly to poor farmers in peripheral regions but to rich farmers with greater resources in more central and better developed regions.

I am on record as saying quite a number of times in this House that the idea that our vocation in Europe is to protect the Common Agricultural Policy as it is is badly mistaken. I represent, in my constituency of Connacht-Ulster, half the farmers of Ireland. They are the poor farmers, the people whose figures made Ireland's case look good when we asked for concessions in Europe. We did not present the farmers of the Golden Vale as being typical Irish or average Irish because if we did they would be shown to be better off than average among the dairy farmers in Europe. We made our case for the Common Agricultural Policy because of the social problem of the large numbers of small farmers on the land of Europe but the money goes to the people in the Golden Vale and the more wealthy areas. Half the farmers of Ireland, in the Connacht-Ulster area, receive between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of the total aid whereas the other half receive the other 75 per cent. That is the justice of the Common Agricultural Policy that many of us have been supporting. The Parliament have seen through that. Even the most rabid socialists in the European Parliament pointed out people who are hated because they are thought to be against agriculture, which they are not. They said that they would concede more money for the small farmer in the peripheral regions. I heard that many times. In Parliament there is a will to share out money with the peripheral regions.

The Common Agricultural Policy has to be re-examined because we have already run out of money. Those who believe in the veto must recognise that other countries are in the same position. Some countries believe that the Common Agricultural Policy cannot and should not be further financed. We must face up to that reality. There is no use in our pointing out what countries are spending on nuclear weapons or armaments. If they do not give the money we will not get it. While the Common Agricultural Policy as it is at present remains unchanged there will be a case to be made to the taxpayer of Europe against it. It is not a regional or a social policy. It is a policy that protects the interests of those who are well established and who produce a lot of goods. It has been the victim of its own success. It worked well in the days when the Community was scarce in food and when there was a market for that food. Today the position is entirely different. From an agricultural point of view we get £900 million from the part of FEOGA that guarantees prices, buys milk into intervention and pays the export refunds. We get a further £80 million from the guidance section which aids farmers in the development of their farm yards, buying of equipment, machinery and so on. We devote £240 million in our own budget to agriculture. That all adds up to more than £1 billion. Total agricultural incomes are only £1,100 million. If you take all this money together you could pay all the farmers of Ireland as much as they are earning without them having to produce anything. The farmers do not get the money.

If we succeed in reducing the over-production in a limited number of areas in Europe by 7 per cent or 8 per cent — in Ireland it only applies to beef and milk — the farmer will get 80p for a gallon of milk but it costs more than that to dispose of it. The farmer only makes 20p profit. Therefore, the Community is spending 80p to give the farmer 20p. Obviously that does not make much sense. If we had a reduction in output we could also reduce our costs and therefore we would not have to take the full reduction in income. If the food processing industry was significantly competitive and if we sold our dairy and beef products on the European market then we would not need any subsidies and we would not have to go into intervention. If our food processing industry buys the cheapest products in Europe, which it does, why can it not sell those products on the European market? It is a very lucrative market and the only market in the world where we can sell these products. We could then come in here and say, "we are not getting any money from Europe for agriculture, we are simply selling in the European markets competitively and it is the Germans who are more inefficient in their agriculture than we are, or it is the British, the people of Luxembourg or the French who are selling to the Middle East, who are dumping their surpluses into intervention or on Third World markets and not us." In those circumstances, we could say that we are not getting any money from Europe. In fact, we would be talking about a European surplus, not an Irish surplus. I do not see this entirely as a net transfer from Europe to Ireland and that this is exactly the size of the benefit we get. The size of the benefit we get is the size of the market that is there to be exploited. I do not think it serves Ireland's long-term interests to refuse to re-organise the CAP or to refuse to co-operate in the reduction of surpluses.

Let us assume that that £900 million that comes to us is aid to Irish agriculture and that by eliminating the surpluses we can get that money delivered to Ireland in the form of aid under the Regional Fund or the Social Fund. We must bear in mind that any transfer from the guarantee side of agriculture to the Regional or Social Funds will give Ireland more money because a higher percentage of funds come to Ireland from those funds than from the guarantee fund. That change would benefit the Irish economy, if not the individual farmers. The interests of farmers have to be catered for in another way, by a better marketing system for our food and by bringing agriculture in the Community into balance. If we had the £900 million, we could have the equivalent of 30 western packages running concurrently and fully financed instead of financed to the extent of 50 per cent by the EC. I ask Members to try to imagine what that would do for the agricultural structure and the general infrastructure of our country over a short period.

We should be prepared to look at this and at trade changes in agriculture for increased Regional Fund and Social Fund spending. At the same time, we should take the interests of our farmers into consideration by ensuring a better marketing system and seeking to reduce costs in our economy. I do not think it must necessarily result in any reduced income for Irish farmers. Since the introduction of the levy on the Continent, the experience has been that costs have been reduced and efficiency in agriculture has improved to the extent that incomes have gone up. Increased money is being made on a reduced amount and we could achieve the same success here. However, while their incomes are going up with reduced output, our incomes are declining with increased output which they conceded to us. I have to say that that is a reflection on the performance of our own economy and the way we handled our own affairs.

I have referred to the main areas involved and pointed out that there is nothing startling or serious in what we are doing. The important significance of the Single European Act is a political one, the recognition of failure over the years and the will to resume again with slightly changed roles and a slightly extended agenda. I do not think a referendum is required.

Deputy Haughey quoted Mr. Pescatore selectively. He should have read the full text of what that former judge of the European Court of Justice said. I should like to quote what he said about what happened in Denmark.

However, the fact is that the Danish electorate voted on an Act whose terms it did not know since it did not exist at the time when the referendum was held. If the Danish public had been correctly informed, the opponents of the Common Market——

I offer this by way of consolation to the extreme elements of some parties who do not want progress in the EC — the Irish Sovereignty Movement, CND, the Friends of Marxism and those who have combined to create the impression that there is a strong body of opinion in Ireland against European Union and development in the Community.

—— would have had to approve the European Act because it is the surest means of undermining the basis of the Community. The outcome of the referendum will gratify them despite themselves.

That is a strictly legal interpretation. The judge was not so specific on the power between Parliament and the Council. He regretted the three months' delay in Parliament and the one month's delay in Council stating that it slowed up the procedures. However, I agree with his interpretation, like Deputy Lenihan, that Parliament will have an enhanced role. Deputy Lenihan is afraid of that but I welcome it. My experience in Europe has led me to believe that that institution is much more democratic and more concerned about weaker regions than the Council of Ministers. The Parliament puts forward its own views rather than being the voice of public servants who do their job well but are not representatives of the public like politicians.

Many speakers devoted a good deal of time to the question of neutrality and I have no doubt that others will comment on it. My view on that subject is well known. I believe that Irish neutrality does not exist in the first place, that we are not really neutral and that we ought not to be neutral, that it is not a practical strategy for us as a member of a Community whose objective is full political and economic union and is not morally right, as Deputy Kelly said. Deputy Kelly asked if it was a credit to us to be neutral when six million innocent people were herded into the gas chambers and concentration camps. He asked if we were proud of ourselves that we stood by and said it was none of our business. However, today we are prepared to enter into an association with the survivors of that war. We are prepared to tell those people that we will sit at their table, share their food and everything else available, that we will demand more from the Regional and Social Funds but if their house is attacked, it will not be any concern of ours and we will run away. People would have Ireland lie like a lazy dog under the European table and refuse to bark if robbers attacked the house. I do not think that is what the majority of Irish people want. In my view, the majority do not see themselves as having no care or concern for their neighbour in the European Community.

It must be remembered that we are not talking about a bunch of quarrelsome belligerant nations who have developed aggressive systems, have policies to impede the progress of others or prevent others from making their own decisions. We have a group of European nations who came together more out of fear of war than anything else. It is worth noting that Britain, France and Italy came together to form the Western European Union because they recognised the re-growth of German influence in the world. They thought that the Federal Republic of Germany could within a short period constitute a threat to peace in the world. Therefore, they said, "They are growing again, they are getting strong, their economy is coming forward, so we had better get together". Today, West Germany is a member of the Western European Union. That organisation was founded to prevent its expansion and aggression.

Things have changed rapidly in the world. NATO has been there for a number of years and has survived many difficulties. I do not know how long it will survive. I associate with the Christian Democrats in Europe who are very security conscious. The socialist side in the European Parliament was not so concerned about security and did not seem to be concerned about the possibility of international conflict, and did not put the same emphasis on rearmament.

I do not notice any concern in Europe to force Ireland into any sort of alliance. They are proud to have us there as a neutral member state, as some sort of an in-between with a negotiating capacity, though Deputy Lenihan seems to disagree. I do not think the other member states are very concerned to get us into NATO or the Western European Union. They rightly judge it would not make the slightest difference whether we were a member of that organisation or not. Deep down in their minds I can detect a reaction, a disappointment from time to time. For instance, they support a motion, for increased money for Ireland from the Regional or Social Funds or aid for farmers in the west of Ireland who were affected by bad weather and then something comes up about the security of Europe and I can sense disappointment, a failure to understand what gives us the right to expect benefits as a member of the family without any responsibility.

I appeal to the House to be reasonable about this. What interest does neutrality serve? I tend to think that the danger of world conflict is receding. I am happier about it than I was when America was deploying armaments a couple of years ago. In China, the giant of the East, we have seen slow liberalisation, what appears to be a realisation that the western system is not all bad. We have seen economic progress in Asia when people have become more comfortable. There are better prospects that they will trade and travel and communicate and understand peoples better.

However, if there is a threat there, what sort of people are we who will say that we will enjoy all the good things that EC membership has to offer but if there is danger we will have no part of it? What service do we think we are doing to the Irish people? We have learned from recent events that it does not make much difference whether we are neutral or not. If a conventional war is fought and if anybody wants part of our territory they can have it; our little Army, good and all as they may be, are badly equipped and badly financed. Obviously, this democracy is not prepared to devote the resources that we need to give to our Army. Nevertheless, if we were to say to our European colleagues that we have not much to offer as a participant in the Western European Union by way of defence but that we recognise the way of life in western Europe is good, that nobody in that area wants to perpetrate aggression against anybody else, and that in the event of attack we in Ireland would participate as best we could to defend the interests of everybody, we would be serving Ireland better.

That is what we were saying when we became a member of the EC in the first place. To say anything else now is to sell the Irish people short. What is happening is that a small minority of people who are good at writing to the newspapers, at making noise, at getting scare headlines in the media, have imposed this sort of policy on the Irish people. Deputy Kelly earlier said he did not believe that former Taoiseach and President, Mr. de Valera, was the sort of man who would say that Ireland is a neutral country and will be. Recently I read what Mr. de Valera said about this in 1918. He said that in the event of our interests being threatened this nation may take part in a conflict on one side or on the other side, or it may be neutral. He was being pragmatic, he was saying that a situation might develop in which it would be in our interests to be on one side or the other or that we might decide we ought not to be involved. I can imagine that Mr. de Valera, Mr. Lemass, Mr. Costello or our other leaders would say to the Irish people that if this club is worth joining it is worth defending.

I am not saying this to rub people's noses in it. People have a right to change their policies if they want to. Policies have changed. When we first applied for EC membership the message that Mr. Lemass gave to the Irish people and those in Europe was that this is not just a free trade agreement. He said we were entering into a relationship with countries who had decided that the final objective was economic and political union and that that imposed obligations on us. Mr. Lemass had begun to say to the Irish people that they would have to face up to their responsibilities. I will quote from a document, Journal of Common Market Studies, under the heading “Ireland: A Neutral in the Community”. It refers to our former Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass:

Not surprisingly, then, in this atmosphere, Mr. Lemass began to desanctify neutrality, emphasising the circumstantial nature. In 1960 he announced, "There is no neutrality and we are not neutral."

There are references which are a bit difficult — I would need a magnifying glass. It goes on:

In 1962 he seemed impelled to try to defuse the Irish opposition to NATO, emphasising that Ireland must not give the impression that it regarded membership of NATO as something discreditable. "We must rethink the existence of NATO is necessary for the preservation of peace and for the defence of the countries of western Europe, including this country. Although we are not members of NATO we are in full agreement with its aims."

In an interview with the New York Times he went even further: “We recognise that limited commitment will be an inevitable consequence of our joining the Common Market and ultimately we would be prepared to yield even the technical nature of neutrality. We are prepared to go into an integrated Europe without any reservation as to how far this would take us in the field of foreign policy.”

In his opening statement to the Council of Ministers in January 1962, Mr. Lemass made clear Irish agreement with the general aims of NATO, the acceptance of the idea of European unity and of the "deconception" embodied in the Treaty of Rome and the Bonn Declaration on the duties, obligations and responsibilities which European unity would impose.

That makes it clear that Mr. Lemass then recognised that EC membership would impose obligations on us. He was saying that as this Community developed, those obligations would have to be honoured. It is more surprising to find also in this same document the former Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey (at that time Minister for Finance) saying, on the occasion of a motion he put before this Parliament, that he recognised that it was important for countries to come together to make common arrangements for their own defence, and he taunted the Labour opposition by asking what was wrong with that. Mr. Lynch, who was Taoiseach at that time, declared that we had no traditional policy of neutrality in this country. Unlike countries such as Sweden, Switzerland and Austria who have declared themselves as having permanent policies of neutrality, Ireland's Constitution ensures that we can make up our minds on our neutrality in the light of circumstances prevailing; moreover, if there was a war between atheistic communism and freedom and Christianity then Parliament or people would not be neutral. The Foreign Minister, Mr. Hillery, declared that we had never adopted a permanent policy of neutrality.

I quote this to indicate that the views I hold were the views that were held by leaders of Fianna Fáil in the years when they thought it was important for us to join the Community. I would say that there is something dishonourable in the approach being adopted today. At that stage we were prepared to say we recognised the importance of the defence of western Europe; that we recognised that the development of the political and economic union would require us to meet our obligations and that we would be quite prepared to do this as the Community developed. Today, having secured a seat at the table, having had the benefit of the Common Agricultural Policy, having had what I regard as a lift in our own national status in the world as a result of being a member of this Community, having enjoyed higher standards of living as a result, we act as if we have no obligations. If we have emigration — and we have — the three million people in Britain who left here and became aliens in another land now have a stamped deed from the European Community for their right to a job, property and business any place they want to go in any part of the 12 member states of the European Community — and of course others have the same rights here. All these benefits we have taken, and now we say we are neutral, we always have been and, regardless of the situation or the circumstances, we have no obligation to defend our neighbours' or our own interests, that we will take a free ride, live in the shelter of this Community.

I have said from the beginning I do not see any pressure. In Europe we have the Green Movement demanding the removal of missiles, demanding that missiles must not be replaced, and we had extreme socialists and strong opinion in Europe. But when President Reagan went to Reykjavik and almost made his agreement, I could detect a paling of faces throughout Europe at the thought that an American President could suddenly, without consultation and without agreement, decide to lift this umbrella under which the people of Europe had lived in security for many years, so that suddenly the countries of western Europe would be faced with the use of their own conventional forces and the reappraisal of the opposition as far as security was concerned. Suddenly they began to realise that this is not a permanent union involving the United States. I certainly hope that east and west will not be any sort of permanent enemies, but we have no guarantee that the Atlantic Alliance will hold up. Consider the American budget deficit and consider the demands being made in the United States itself for a reduction of spending. We in western Europe above all places in the world know, having developed a pattern of social spending, how hard it is to reduce it. From a political point of view in the United States it might be easier for an American President to cut something of the £100 billion that they spend annually on protecting the people of Europe because, honestly, they are doing that to a certain extent. If they decide, in certain economic circumstances, to withdraw that sort of spending, and, if the countries of Europe feel the need — and I hope that will not happen — at least to close some part of the gap left either by the withdrawal of American support or a reduction in it by increased spending on defence, there would not at that stage be a lot of sympathy for the social and regional problems of a country like Ireland if the European taxpayers had to dip deep into their own pockets to finance their own defence which has been financed for them by the United States for many years.

I can also see another situation developing. As the strong opposition in Britain says, if they achieve a position of power they will require the Americans to remove their nuclear weapons. In that event the Americans, on hearing that from one of their oldest allies, might wonder what point is there in the United States continuing with the defence of Europe indefinitely and might decide on a phased, slow or sudden withdrawal. Anything can happen and in those circumstances Ireland had better be prepared to look at its position.

We had better tell the people of Ireland the truth, that we cannot really divorce, in any serious way, the security of any people from their economic and social wellbeing. It simply is not possible to say we can enjoy a standard of living, we can build factories and have all these good things and that there will never come a day when these will be threatened by outside influences or effects of what happens outside. It is absolute nonsense to believe that a country can indefinitely participate in the development of what was agreed to when we joined the EC, the full economic and political development of this union, while at the same time saying this does not carry any obligations. At least we can look back to wiser statesmen like Mr. Lemass, Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Haughey before he became obsessed with winning votes at any price so that he no longer feels an obligation to live up to the commitments that he made in the past.

It is shame for us to try to mislead our people into believing that in the end we are not going in a direction which will involve us in a union with our neighbours for better or worse. But this Act has nothing to do with that. In spite of all that has been said it brings us closer only to the extent that it brings European union closer, and to the extent that European union comes closer — and most politicians in this House want that — then the day will come when some sort of involvement by the Irish people in the defence of our own heritage, our own standards of living and our own homes will oblige us to participate.

When we first proposed that Ireland should become a member of the EC we sold this idea to the Irish people on the basis of a common agricultural policy, on the basis of a regional fund, on the basis of transfers of wealth and butter going into intervention. In spite of what I quoted Mr. Lemass as saying, we oversold that idea. We told the people that membership of the EC brought us nothing but benefits and no obligations. After 12 years I can see that we have got a lot of benefits and discharged very few obligations. I cannot see what contribution we have made. We have been speaking mostly in broad terms about progress in the Community, but we were quite prepared, in the interests of a small section and a small group and of short term benefit to the Irish economy to hold up the decision-making process. I hope that no country will be able to hold up the decision-making process in the future. We could have said to the people that this imposes obligations on us as well as conferring benefits. I do not believe that the people would reject a leadership that told them the truth about their obligations. I recently heard somebody who represented interests in Israel quoting an old Jewish philosopher who said, "If I am not working for myself, who will do so; but if I am only working for myself, what am I at all?" I might refer that question to Ireland's position in Europe. Of course we have to mind our own interests, of course we must design policies to accommodate the needs of our people, but if that is all we are concerned about, then we must pose the question: what are we at all and where are our leaders taking us?

Mr. Wilson

I thought I heard Deputy McCartin say — pointing his hand out in front of him: "your Community needs you" and he indulged in a very strong militaristic plea for the involvement of this country in the military affairs of Europe. The logic of saying that because we get something from the Common Agricultural Policy, because we get something from the social policy, because we get something from the regional policy, we should join a military alliance in Europe escapes me completely seeing that the Europeans themselves, at any level, have never claimed any direct link between them.

I should like to comment on the inadequate provision for discussion of the Single European Act and to castigate the Government for not making such provision. It was only after a long period of aggression from the Opposition benches that we succeeded finally in having a document produced outlining what the Single European Act was about. Very many important groupings in the State were anxious to have that debate, to have the issues outlined, clarified and discussed; that was only what those various groupings were entitled to. We did have documentation emanating from various groupings. There were letters, pamphlets, roneoed sheets from various people who had a special interest in the matter. For example, there was the Irish Council for the European Movement who were in defence of the Single European Act. There were the Irish Sovereignty Movement who keep an eye on the sovereignty part of the issue. Then there were ACOT and An Foras Talún-tais highly concerned about the Common Agricultural Policy, about which Deputy McCartin spoke a great deal, and about the change in decision-making and how that might affect the Common Agricultural Policy. There was Conradh na Gaeilge with their philosophy, beliefs and outlook. Then there was the CND. Indeed more people listened to the CND on this issue than had been the case before. I believe that change was brought about mainly by the horrific result of the accident at Chernobyl in the USSR recently. Many people are beginning to say that those people who were regarded as crackpots had an awful lot more going for them and made a lot more sense than we ever gave them credit for. This was a result — and Deputy McCartin alluded to this as well — of seeing the meat of lambs in North Wales affected when the accident occurred in the southern part of the USSR. Then there was Pax Christi — I and all other Deputies received communications from them — applying their Christian beliefs to problems raised by the Single European Act. All of these groupings had this legitimate concern. For that reason I cannot understand how there was such a hugger-mugger approach by the Government in this House to an open discussion of what was at issue. We on this side of the House, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, kept harping on the necessity to get more information and have more discussion. The House will remember that the Taoiseach promised a leabhrán — lá na Gaeilge a bhí ann — to indicate what were the issues and what was Government policy on them.

We are told that the Single European Act is not an Act in the strict Oireachtas sense of the word, that it is really a Treaty. I shall go over some of the issues in the Treaty as well as reading Deputy V. Brady's suggestion for a declaration by the Government of Ireland under Article 13 and on Title III.

The Milan European Council meeting of 1985 expressed a desire for concrete progress towards European union. An atmosphere developed over a number of years to the effect that — leaving out the word "economic"— the whole European Community mystique was faltering, that all of the efforts to develop the Community in the way in which its founding fathers had envisaged was weakening. I believe it was. I believe also that the Community itself and its institutions are responsible for that happening. I remember when the whole idea was mooted. We had the original Six and then we had the effort to spread the area of the Community over a greater part of Europe. We had a basic idealism at that time, a Monnet idealism. When it was mooted in this country there were a number of organisations, particularly in the cultural field, established with a view to progressing the idea of European union. They based their philosophy on a shared European culture with a Judeo/ Greco/Roman/Christian basis or substratum in the thinking and philosophy of Western Europe. That was forgotten very quickly. I remember the European Association of Teachers was established here. That association represented the teaching profession over all the countries of the EC and of the prospective countries of the EC at that time. I am convinced that that was the right place to begin and to sustain interest in the Community. But we developed the idea that man did live on bread alone or on bread and butter, or butter and milk or milk and beef. We have been totally preoccupied with economics. I do not want to be ultra-idealistic or lacking in realism in this context but it is no wonder the whole idea faltered when the philosophic base was forgotten and when concentration was heavy on pure economics. The Europeans themselves were conscious of this at one time and advocated the dropping of the word "economic" and of giving more substance to the idea of a Community.

We walked away from what was the whole motivation of the original founders. As a result the faltering took place and the leaders in the various countries that constitute the EC were conscious of that. The Milan meeting was conscious of it and said they would have to do something about it. Realpolitik had not achieved what the founding fathers of the Community envisaged and ambitioned. There was nothing to fructify, nurture or fertilise the Euro ideal that we talked about at the foundation. There was nothing but stagnation and it was inevitable that that should happen.

I remember as Minister for Education how difficult it was to get any movement in that field. Countries were looking at the Treaty and saying that there was nothing in the Treaty specifically which helped them to make an initiative in the area of education. That is not true because by implication the Treaty which gave the freedom of establishment in the various countries must have meant also that there would be a movement in education, for example, which would enable people to establish in the various countries of the EC. I remember taking an initiative and trying to advance the idea because I had the view that in our schools at second level and third level and in the research field we were negligent in so far as European studies were concerned. In consultation with European Ministers for Education at that time I was convinced that that was true of other countries as well and that there was great ignorance in individual countries about the history, culture and economics of the various other members of the EC. Denmark in particular were — and I think still are — exceptionally cautious about any movement that would give a status to education under the Treaty. France was not quite so strong but exceptionally cautious about it and Britain always maintained that in this field they had localised educational structures and that they could not fit them into any kind of European setting. Now the local structures are to be dispensed with and there is to be more centralisation. Whether that will bring about any change I do not know. We would not have that faltering in Europe had the proper educational initiative been taken.

What third level institution in Ireland has specialised in European studies? There are in the new NIHE some faculties or departments who deal with this area but one cannot say that European studies have impacted very heavily on our universities. On the eve of our joining the EC I discovered that in one important department of one of our major universities no congnisance whatsoever had been taken of European commerce, European economics or European law at that time. Therefore, if the idea faltered it faltered because it was not nurtured or sustained. The economics of the Parliament, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and so on became paramount and as a result people developed the idea, "What can I grab out of this? I must get the most I can whatever happens with regard to the European ideal." I am talking here and there are people who would say: "That man has not his feet on the ground at all." I suppose it would be a legitimate accusation to level at me but anybody who examines what has happened will have to concede that we need something more than disputes about butter, beef, olive oil, wine and all the other subjects that are paramount in European discussion and debate at present.

On page 7 of the leabhrán we have the statement:

The Single European Act represents the culmination of a process of debate and negotiation within the European Community in recent years on how the impetus towards progress on European integration could be restored and strengthened.

The very words chosen there are an indication of the truth of what I am saying, that there is a necessity for restoration and strengthening of what had become a very weak motivation on the part of the participating countries.

I will take the first point here about the European Parliament. The Single European Act in so far as it gives a stronger role to the European Parliament should be welcomed by this House. I quote now from page 14:

Articles 8 and 9 also provide in relation to Article 237 ... and Article 238 ..... of the existing EEC Treaty, that such agreements will henceforth require the assent of the European Parliament.

The European Parliament is in a rather strange kind of position. We understand a Parliament to be effective in making laws. The European Parliament is directly elected now but has not got the power to make laws. Indeed, when you consider the ideological mix in the Parliament now, it might be a very hazardous thing to advocate that it should have, at this stage at any rate, direct law making powers but the fact that this Single European Act gives it more status than it had previously, that it has to assent to certain agreements, is bound to enhance its position in the Community. According to this paper it is a modest enhancing of the role and stature of the European Parliament and the Community's decision making process and offers the Parliament scope for increasing its influence. Everybody in this House would agree that that is desirable as far as the democratic process is concerned.

Another area which should command our support is the high technology provision in the Single European Act. At the period that I have mentioned the people who were advocating on a philosophic basis that we should have a European Community as such advocated, even at that early stage in the early sixties when the late Seán Lemass first put the idea forward of joining the Community, that this would be an important area in the future. That is almost a generation ago now. It shows the wisdom of the original thinkers who were responsible for this. Unfortunately, what has spurred them on now to do this — and again it shows a philosophic weakness — is the effect of Japanese and US developments in this field. The development has been so great and the competition in the manufactured goods area has been so keen that the Community is impelled now to do something about it because if they do not they will end up as a technological backwater. It is an area in which we should be interested. It is not merely an industrial area but an educational area. We have made considerable strides in this area since we joined the Community and since the early sixties. It is consoling to know that the products of our education system have, against European competition, on a number of occasions succeeded in taking the European prize in open competition, when we enter the winner of the Aer Lingus Young Scientist of the Year Competitions.

The completion of the market by 1992 has drawn a good deal of interest and has excited quite a number of fears. I make no apology for harking back to the origin of the idea that we should join the Community. At that time there was strong emphasis on the fact that there was a quadrangle of heavily developed industry in the heart of Europe and it was stressed that the Regional Fund, more so than the Social Fund which assumed more significance as time went on, would be utilised to counteract the magnet in the centre of Europe drawing everything towards itself. Nobody could say that that is an urgent part of the European philosophy at the moment. I do not believe in Ireland being the baksheesh candidate in Europe on all occasions, and we should not develop a reputation for having the begging bowl out all the time but we should take a cold look at economic development. We should take a cold hard look at the areas that are being left behind and hard decisions should be taken to deploy the Regional Fund in these areas.

The already established practice of the heads of State or heads of Government meetings gets formal recognition in the Single European Act. The people who complain that these meetings, not having any root in the Treaty of Rome, have assumed too much significance, are now answered, in that a decision is being taken to incorporate formally into the treaty these meetings of the heads of State and heads of Government. Sometimes they are more damaging than helpful in the European context in that on occasion they have aroused hopes and encouraged speculation as to what they could achieve and then when the bland communiques were issued people were disappointed to discover — and the one in London recently was an example — that nothing very much had been achieved despite the fact that there were very high powered representatives of the various nations meeting, with the expertise of these nations at their disposal. That can have a damaging effect in much the same way as the concentration on the economic matters exclusively over the past number of years has damaged the whole idea of a united Europe.

The co-operation envisaged between the Council of Ministers and the Parliament in articles 6 and 7 is part of enhancing the role of the European Parliament which is directly elected now and must be allowed to develop its muscle in the structures of the EC.

I would not like to talk for too long about the new provisions for the qualified majority but there is certainly a new danger to small countries in having the qualified majority provisions applied over a certain range of decisions in Europe. Perhaps we may be a little too timid but we should be careful and not give away a weapon which we can use. It has been said during the course of this debate that there is an awful lot of talk about the veto but that it is seldom if ever applied. That is true but it is also true that the veto is there and this must impact on decision makers in such a way as to lead them to seek out every possible avenue to a solution to a problem, to travel down every road to seek a compromise so that they can get a Community decision which will command the support of everybody in a given situation.

I would be very careful about giving extra powers to the Commission. The Taoiseach visited my constituency and in answer to a question quoted in the local paper he said that the Commission has power and competence in that regard and that there is nothing we can do about it. The Commission is being given extra powers on implementation and management. I would like a little further teasing out of the word "management" in those circumstances. Originally the Commission was regarded as the power house of ideas in the Community. The ideas were presented to Parliament, political decisions were made and they came back to the Commission for implementation. Perhaps, at times the political process frustrated the best efforts of the Commission in presenting ideas and policies for the benefit of Europe but I would be more than cautious about giving the Commission any new powers. I would like to get the views of the people who have expertise in this area as to what exactly is meant by "management" and "implementation" powers.

Debate adjourned.