Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 May 1990

Vol. 398 No. 3

Private Business. - European Council Meeting: Statements.

The Taoiseach

A special meeting of the European Council took place at my invitation in Dublin Castle on 28 April. I presided over the meeting with the assistance of my colleague Deputy Gerard Collins, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. A copy of the Presidency Conclusions and related documents has been circulated to Deputies for convenience of references and placed in the Library in the usual way.

We had a very successful meeting and a number of important decisions were made. Directions were given in areas of vital importance for the future of Europe: there was a warm welcome for German unity and procedures were agreed which will ensure the smooth integration of the territory of the German Democratic Republic into the Community; the end of 1992 was set as the target date before which ratification of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference on Economic and Monetary Union which will open in December 1990 should take place; the European Council made a firm commitment to political union, and asked the Foreign Ministers to prepare proposals so that a decision can be made at the June European Council in Dublin on the holding of a second intergovernmental conference to run in parallel with the Conference on Economic and Monetary Union, with a view to ratification by member states within the same time frame; the necessity for developing a wider framework of peace, security and co-operation for all of Europe was recognised, and guidelines were agreed for participation by the Community and the member states in all proceedings and discussions within the CSCE; the European Council expressed support for the fullest use and further expansion of close transatlantic relations and endorsed the arrangements for meetings at the highest and other levels agreed between President Bush and myself at the White House in February; and the Community agreed to extend the present aid arrangements to Poland and Hungary within the framework of the Group of 14 to the other five Eastern European countries, and to conclude negotiations on association agreements with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as soon as possible.

Before looking at each of these areas in some detail, I would like to say a few words about the background to this special meeting of the European Council. We are living through a major formative period in European history; a time during which the future of the Continent and its people will be settled for a long time to come. The leaders of the Community have the major responsibility of providing the people of Europe with enlightened leadership at this time of decision.

It was with a clear awareness of these realities that we approached the agenda of this Summit, keeping clearly in our minds the central role and responsibility of the Community in the affairs of Europe. The Community is the focal point of stability in Europe, the principal source of hope for peace, democratic freedom and economic betterment for all the people of the Continent.

The dramatic pace of events in Eastern Europe, therefore, and especially the rapid progress towards German unity, led me as President to propose in February to my colleagues, the Heads of State and Government, that this special meeting of the European Council be held in April. This meeting would be in addition to the regular European Council meeting, which is scheduled in the normal way for Dublin at the end of June. Its principal task will be to consider the implications for the Community of German unification, and of developments generally in Central and Eastern Europe, and at the same time to reaffirm our commitment to the Community's own integration process.

As I stated in my letter of invitation sent on 16 February to my fellow Heads of State or Government, it was extremely important that the Twelve bring their collective voice to bear on the issues now arising, and that steps be taken to develop the Community's own integration process, and also that the demands that will be made on the Community in the new Europe would be taken into account.

I would like to review briefly some of the principal developments that have taken place since the beginning of the year. We began our EC Presidency with a comprehensive meeting between the Irish Government and the EC Commission to establish the agenda and the priorities for our Presidency. That meeting enabled Ministers to meet their counterparts in the Commission and develop an understanding on how best to co-operate in advancing the Presidency work programme.

At the special meeting of EC Foreign Ministers which we convened in January, the Community expressed support for the process of liberalisation in Central and Eastern Europe, and agreed in principle to a meeting of the CSCE later this year. A positive response was also given to requests for economic aid from Eastern Europe.

At the end of February, I visited Washington as President of the European Council with the purpose of seeking to strengthen the political relationship between the European Community and the United States. I am glad to say that I was able to reach agreement with President Bush for the holding, in each Presidency, of one meeting between the US President and the President in office of the European Council. In addition, there will be two meetings in each year between EC Foreign Ministers and the US Secretary of State.

At Ashford Castle at the end of March, the Finance Ministers of the Community had a first detailed discussion of the final stages of economic and monetary union. At this meeting, there was a considerable degree of agreement reached on the design of a future economic and monetary union, and on the general principles on which it should be based, including policies to promote cohesion.

Not just European, but international attention has been focused on events in Germany as they unfolded. Free elections have taken place in March in the German Democratic Republic and the first democratically elected Government there have now taken office. Practical steps have commenced to implement the economic and monetary union of the two German states, from the beginning of July. The impending unification of Germany and the incorporation of what is now the territory of the GDR into the Community have profound political and economic implications for all the member states, and for the Community as a whole.

In preparation for last Saturday's Summit, I undertook a tour of all the EC capitals over recent weeks to discuss with the other Heads of State and Government their priorities and their views on the agenda for this special European Council meeting in Dublin. Careful preparation and full consultation were essential if the maximum benefit was to be obtained from the special one-day meeting and if the real progress that was expected was to be achieved.

During these bilateral meetings I found broad agreement in regard to the unification of Germany, the developments in Central and Eastern Europe, and their implications for the Community. We discussed the need for the Community to move more rapidly toward political union, and many of my colleagues were anxious to see rapid progress in this area.

Arising out of this, President Mitterrand of France and Chancellor Kohl of the Federal Republic of Germany sent me a joint letter on 19 April, indicating that, in the light of the far-reaching changes in Europe, the completion of the Single Market and the realisation of economic and monetary union they considered it necessary to accelerate the political construction of the Europe of the Twelve. I have circulated the text of the letter to Deputies, and I would like to direct their specific attention to the exact terms of two aspects of the proposals by the Chancellor and the President, in view of some misleading comments which have been made in relation to the outcome of the Summit. Their letter clearly set out the procedure which the President and Chancellor suggested should be followed. Firstly, they suggested, and I quote: "The Foreign Ministers should be instructed to prepare an initial report for the meeting of the European Council in June and to submit a final report to the European Council meeting in December." That is exactly what the Summit last Saturday decided. The meeting did not sidestep elaborating proposals for political union, as it was never envisaged that it should do so. Similarly, the Summit did not shy away from fixing a date for the Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union, as this had not been suggested by anyone. On the contrary, what had been suggested was that the Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union be held parallel with the Conference on Economic and Monetary Union, when the date for that conference was fixed, in order that ratification by national parliaments of the economic and monetary union reforms and the political union reforms would be carried through within the same time scale. This was in fact agreed.

Approaching the Summit I had a strong belief that it was important that it should provide reassurance on the economic and financial consequences of German unity for the Community. This reassurance was necessary in particular for the business world and the financial markets, because of the speculation that had taken place, and the Council provided it.

The meeting began with a presentation by the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Enrique Baron. He stressed the urgency of completing the Single Market, the need for Community involvement in the process of German unification and of Europe-wide solutions to the consequences arising from it, and finally the importance of achieving genuine political union, including an enhanced parliamentary role, by a set date.

At the European Council, we expressed our deep satisfaction at the developments in Central and Eastern Europe since the Strasbourg European Council, and applauded the continuing process of change in these countries with whose peoples we share a common heritage and culture. We considered that the historic changes bring closer the realisation of a Europe emerging from a long period of ideological confrontation, which would be united in its commitment to democracy, pluralism and the rule of law, with full respect for human rights, and the principles of the market economy.

Europe now stands on the threshold of an age in which it can achieve new levels of economic growth and resume its world role of intellectual and cultural leadership, as it leaves behind the dreary barren years of the post-war period. A unique opportunity exists today to create a European family of nations sharing a common civilisation and values, but the transition will inevitably be difficult, and will require major political, economic and social co-operation between the Community and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as they seek to build a new future. The people of Central and Eastern Europe need every help and encouragement we can give. They need the anchor of stability that the Community can provide. It must also be appreciated that an enormous transformation has already taken place which would have been difficult to imagine even a short time ago, and that the pace may not always continue with such rapidity. We must do everything possible to encourage patient negotiated solutions to the difficult problems of relations between and within states.

The Council and the Community warmly and unreservedly welcomed German unification. We look forward to the positive and fruitful contribution that all Germans can make when the GDR is integrated with the Community. We are confident that German unification, which is coming about as a result of the freely expressed wish of the German people, will be a positive factor in the development of Europe and of the Community.

I consider this statement to be a very important one. First of all, it is an expression of solidarity by the Community with a member state at one of the most important moments in its history. The Federal Republic of Germany has played a key role in the development of the European Community, showing a commitment to European integration second to none. Indeed, we in Ireland are conscious of the many occasions that the Federal Republic has shown solidarity with smaller and less developed member states. It is my conviction that a united Germany will have the capacity to sustain the economic growth required to support the regeneration of the economy of the present GDR, but also at the same time to strengthen and deepen the cohesion of the Community and that it will make a key contribution to a new and closer European Union.

Our meeting was of special significance for the German people. At our joint press conference on Saturday evening in Dublin Castle, Chancellor Kohl called the meeting an historic occasion, and thanked the Presidency, the Commission and other colleagues for the warmth and friendship shown to the German people on this occasion.

The Council went on to say that a stage has been reached, where the continued dynamic development of the Community has become imperative, because it is a crucial element in the progress that is being made in establishing a reliable framework for peace and security in Europe. We therefore agreed to take further decisive steps towards European unity.

The Council expressed it satisfaction that German unification is taking place under a European roof. The Community will ensure that the integration of the territory of the GDR would be accomplished in a smooth and harmonious way. This integration will take place without revision of the Treaties, as soon as German unity is legally established. We expressed satisfaction also that this integration will contribute to faster economic growth in the Community, and agreed that it will take place in conditions of economic balance and monetary stability. This settlement I would regard as one of the most important conclusions to emerge from the meeting.

The Federal Government will keep the Community fully informed of measures being taken to align policies and legislation in the two parts of Germany, and the Commission will be fully involved with these discussions, so that transitional measures can be proposed to the Council and decisions taken quickly. The aim will be full integration as rapidly as possible, and in the period prior to unification, the GDR will benefit from a range of Community loan instruments, as well as Community support in the context of the co-ordinated assistance of the group of 24 countries for the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe.

I consider these arrangements to be highly satisfactory from every point of view. We are welcoming 16 million people into the Community, who, I am convinced, will make a very valuable contribution. No revision of the treaties or lengthy negotiations are required. The fact that the Community will be kept fully informed of agreements between the two German states, and that the Commission will be closely involved with the work ensures that practical difficulties can be dealt with. Transitional measures, taking effect from unification, will permit a balanced integration based on the principles of cohesion and solidarity, and on the need to take account of all the interests involved. Derogations from Community regimes will be permitted during the transitional period but they must be kept to the minimum required so that full integration can take place as rapidly and harmoniously as possible.

As Chancellor Kohl has made plain again and again both in Brussels, at my meeting with him in Bonn on 28 March, during the council meeting and at our press conference afterwards, there is no question of the EC's Structural Funds that have been committed to the peripheral and less developed member states being in any way diverted to East Germany. Naturally, when the GDR is fully integrated into the Community in due course, at that stage they will qualify to benefit from EC funds and programmes to the extent that they fulfil the objective criteria, and the necessary arrangements will have to be made without prejudice to existing commitments.

In our detailed discusion on the implications of German unity, both with regard to the timetable envisaged and the issues likely to arise, we had the benefit of an excellent Commission analysis based on very full information received from the German Government. The Commission President, Jacques Delors, identified three phases of the GDR's integration into the Community. Phase 1 would follow internal German economic and monetary union, the second, the transitional phase, would follow political unification, and the final phase would be the stage when Community law applied to all Germany without exception. The German Chancellor stated that he would ensure a constant flow of information, and stressed that the process towards European unity and German union are intimately linked, and in fact being addressed at the same time. He made it clear that the Federal Republic was not looking for aid, and certainly not at the expense of other countries' entitlements and that the best contribution the Community could make would be sensible transitional measures. There are obviously a number of important issues, such as access to GDR markets, the application of State aids, agriculture and fisheries, which will have to be carefully studied in order to find the most suitable transitional measures and adaptations.

With regard to the more general economic consequences of German unity, as I have remarked on a number of occasions, the Federal Republic has the strength and the resources, and of all the member States is perhaps most ideally equipped to take on a huge task of this kind. The German economy is in excellent shape with 4 per cent growth and the highest number employed in German history. The commitment of the German authorities to monetary stability, to low inflation, to the lowest interest rates consistent with that objective and to balanced economic development is well known. The fears that have been expressed about the economic and financial consequences of German unity are, therefore, misplaced.

A united Germany, for some time to come, will present an important market to its partners. Since 1987, the Irish Government have put in place a co-ordiating committee for Germany under the chairmanship of our Ambassador in Bonn to promote trade, investment, tourism and cultural exchange between Ireland and Germany.

Last year our exports to the Federal Republic increased by 18 per cent to £1.6 billion, with a trade balance of £500 million in our favour. The number of German visitors to Ireland increased by 37 per cent last year. The overall level of German investment interest in Ireland is in no way diminishing, indeed significant investment is taking place in the software and financial services sectors. There will also be new opportunities in Germany for Irish constuction firms,. The German Government have made it clear on many occasions that they welcome the participation by partners in the enlarged market that German unity and the process towards unification will provide. A dynamic united Germany will certainly add to the growth rate of the Community. The commission believe that it will be as much as ½ per cent a year. It is generally believed that in a relatively short time what is now East Germany will have a flourishing economy and that the entire EC will benefit as a result.

In parallel with the process of the unification of Germany, the Community is pressing ahead with its internal and external development. Work on completing the Single Market will continue. Some 60 per cent of the necessary legislation has been passed and we are generally on target. I would like to emphasise that the momentum of work on completing the Internal Market has been fully maintained during the Irish Presidency. The Internal Market Ministers meeting informally in March in Dromoland Castle agreed that "substantial progress has been made and the pace is still good". The European Council in Dublin expressed satisfaction with progress achieved so far towards establishing the Single Market. During the next few weeks, there will be two Internal Market Councils, and we also expect important decisions to be adopted in the area of energy procurement, air transport liberalisation, communications, insurance, clean cars, a public procurement enforcement directive, testing and certification of products, food standards, animal and plant health and right of residence.

The Council confirmed that the Community will establish in stages economic and monetary union, in accordance with the principles of economic and social cohesion and the conclusions of the European Councils in Madrid and Strasbourg. It was confirmed that preparations would be intensified, so as to allow the InterGovernmental Conference, opening in December 1990, to conclude its work rapidly. As I noted earlier, substantial progress has already been made towards EMU in the course of our Presidency, particularly at the Ashford Castle meeting, and the European Council took a further important step beyond the decision made at its meeting in Strasbourg in December by laying down a target date now for ratification of treaty changes before the end of 1992.

The implications of the Single Market and of EMU are enormous. I believe they can be highly beneficial for Ireland, provided we maintain tight economic discipline at home, and negotiate the necessary continuing measures to support the achievement of cohesion in the Community. A Community of 340 million people, without barriers or restrictions to trade and with a combined purchasing power of over £3,000 billion, will be the largest economic entity in the world, and is likely to be the most dynamic. As part of it, Ireland can be a successful and profitable location for industry and services, selling into the wider European market.

Membership of the EMS has enabled us to maintain below average inflation, and interest rates several points below those of our nearest neighbour, Great Britain. The different stages of EMU will lead to closer co-ordination of economic and monetary policies, and far from removing our responsibility for the sound management of our affairs it will reinforce it. The maintenance of strict budgetary discipline and low inflation will be essential for economic success in a united Europe. As a member of the Community we can take part in decisions affecting us internationally, which we would not be in a position to do outside it.

In many ways the most important result of our meeting was that the European Council confirmed its commitment to political union. This decision was taken unanimously. It seems to me that it derives from the proposition that economic and monetary union without a supportive political framework would be difficult to sustain.

The European Council agreed that the Foreign Ministers should carry out a detailed examination on the need for possible treaty changes involved in: strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the union; enabling the Community and its institutions to respond efficiently and effectively to the demands of the new situation; and assuring unity and coherence in the Community's international action.

The Council also asked the Foreign Ministers to put forward a range of proposals rather than one specific model of a structure for political union. The Council at its June meeting will discuss and assess these proposals. The Foreign Ministers in their report will obviously cover such matters as the respective role and functions of the Community institutions, the balance and coherence between them, ways of reinforcing the Community's voice internationally, and ways of strengthening internal cohesion.

Thus, we have succeeded in Dublin in establishing a parallel process whereby all the key decisions on the Single Market, economic and monetary union and political union will be taken before the end of 1992. Bearing in mind that German unification will be taking place at the same time, not to mention other developments which I will come to, we are talking about an unprecedented strengthening and transformation of the entire Community. This is clearly an exciting time which holds much for the future of the peoples of Europe. An enormous responsibility rests on all of us to ensure that it is handled successfully.

There is widespread support for the view that political union must fully respect the principle of subsidiarity. This principle is intended to ensure that those functions best carried out at national or regional level will continue to be dealt with at that level, with matters which require common action and which can best be dealt with at Community level being entrusted to the appropriate Community institutions and procedures.

I would also like to emphasise that our discussions at present relate to an economic, social and political Community. With regard to security, as I understand the position of our Community partners, it is that they wish the NATO alliance and their membership of it to continue. They also wish to have the US to continue to be involved in European defence through the NATO alliance. It is in that forum that they discuss defence and military matters.

The Community's relations with other countries and groups of countries have steadily grown in importance, in parallel with the internal strengthening of the Community. The Council stated that the Community will act as a political entity on the international scene, open to good relations with other countries and groups of countries. As the Council noted, the progress towards the restoration of freedom and democracy in Eastern Europe, and the prospects of a successful conclusion to arms reduction negotiations, make it possible and necessary to develop a wider framework of peace, security and co-operation throughout Europe. The CSCE provides such a framework and the Community and its member states will play a leading role in all proceedings and discussions within the CSCE and in efforts to establish new structures or agreements based on the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, while maintaining existing member states' security arrangements. I would like to draw attention to the explicit affirmation about the maintenance of the existing security arrangements of member states, which of course includes ourselves.

The Helsinki Final Act of the CSCE made a very significant contribution to the reduction of tensions in Europe and to the bringing about of a situation which has enabled the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to actively pursue political freedom and democratic government. At present, the CSCE represents a very important mechanism for the development of a new framework of security and co-operation in Europe. Every country in Europe, with the exception of Albania, along with the US and Canada are members of this 35 nation conference. Its primary role is to build confidence and co-operation, and within the CSCE framework, security has come to have a much broader meaning than just military armaments and defence. It embraces political and economic aspects as well. Ireland will play a full part along with its Community partners in the CSCE process and in whatever future arrangements for the security of Europe that can be agreed. We will, as a member of the European Community, take part in any security and confidence building arrangements embracing Europe as a whole agreed within the CSCE.

The European Council agreed draft guidelines on the Community's approach to the CSCE, and noted that there is wide agreement on the desirability of convening a Summit meeting of the CSCE participating states before the end of the year. The necessary decisions need to be taken, so as to ensure that the preparations essential for a successful outcome are completed in good time. The Twelve are proposing a Preparatory Committee meeting starting in July, and that the Summit itself take place in Paris. As the Foreign Ministers meeting in Dublin on 20 February stated, the Twelve envisage a balanced development of the CSCE, including the development of pluralist democracy, human rights, better protection of minorities, human contacts, security, economic co-operation, the environment, further co-operation in the Mediterranean and cultural co-operation. The Summit will enable consideration to be given to new institutional arrangements within the CSCE process, including the possibility of regular consultative meetings of Foreign Ministers and the establishment of a small secretariat. Already, there has been a positive outcome from the Bonn Conference on Economic Co-operation in Europe, which acknowledged the link between political pluralism and market economies, and a meeting will take place in June on the human rights dimension in Copenhagen. The Twelve also look forward to an early successful conclusion to the negotiation on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. To sum up, the CSCE represents a very important opportunity to establish on firm foundations stable, peaceful and democratic government with full respect of human rights across the whole of Europe.

The European Council welcomed the wide range of measures through which the Community will assist the countries of Central and Eastern Europe; the establishment of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the conclusion of trade and co-operation agreements between the Community and most of these countries, the Community's programmes on professional, trading or student exchanges which are soon to be finalised. It is obvious that the development of the Eastern European economies will greatly depend on the flow of private investment for their success. For this reason the European Council wished to encourage the transfer of private capital and investment towards these countries, and asked the Commission to study the implementation of the most appropriate accompanying measures. The Council agreed that action within the framework of the Group of 24 should be extended to the GDR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Rumania. Discussions are to start forthwith on association agreements with each of the Central and East European countries, especially tailored to the needs and circumstances of each individual country. The agreements will include an institutional framework for political dialogue. We fixed the objective of concluding those agreements as soon as possible, on the understanding that the basic conditions with regard to the principles of democracy and a transition towards a market oriented economy are fulfilled.

From these measures it can be seen that the Community has taken a leading role in supporting the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe so as to under-pin their political and economic structures.

The European Council reaffirmed that the Community attaches great importance to, and will work actively for, early agreement with our EFTA partners on the establishment of a European economic area. Negotiations with the EFTA countries, Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, who are now seeking a new and closer relationship with the Community must not be overlooked in the excitement over other developments. These countries have a combined population of about 32 million, have firmly founded democratic institutions, and include some of the economically most developed countries in Europe.

The establishment of a new European economic area would undoubtedly both enlarge the market and create increased competition for the member states of the Community. The draft mandate for the negotiations is practically finalised by the Commission, on the basis of which negotiations can proceed. The EFTA countries attach great importance to this, but there are undoubtedly difficult issues to be resolved, particularly in the area of decision making.

The European Council affirmed that the Community would make the fullest use of and further develop its close transatlantic relations based on regular contacts at the highest levels. My colleagues expressed their satisfaction with the understanding I reached as President of the European Council with the President of the United States on the holding of a meeting at that level during each country's Presidency together with other regular meetings involving the Ministers for Foreign Affairs, and including meetings with the Commission. I believe we have, in this way, opened a new chapter in the relationship between the United States and the European Community, and that the meetings that will take place as a result of this agreement will in the future be of vital importance in maintaining a close transatlantic entente and enhancing EC-US political and economic ties.

The Community also confirmed that it would pursue and intensify its relations with the Mediterranean countries, with Japan, Canada and Australia and other members of the OECD, and with the countries of Asia and Latin America, and its special relationship with the ACP countries.

The European Council also expressed its serious concern about the threat posed by the illegal trade in drugs. It asked the high level co-ordinators group to report with a view to bringing before the European Council in June measures that would form part of vigorous action by the Community and member states against drug abuse and the illicit production, distribution and sale of narcotic drugs.

To sum up, the results of our special European Council meeting in Dublin were substantial and positive. I believe that the first 1990 Dublin Summit will be looked back on as a significant point of departure in the history of Europe. A feature of this particular Summit was the harmonious atmosphere that prevailed throughout and greatly facilitated the constructive and fruitful discussions that took place. A clear strategy has now been adopted for the integration of the GDR into the Community, the future development of the Community itself, for its relations with the other countries in Europe, with the United States and the other countries of the world. The Community now has an extremely ambitious agenda. It has committed itself firmly to political union and there are now firm grounds for believing that the way is open for the achievement of lasting peace and prosperity throughout the whole of our European continent.

Mr. Barry

Last week's Summit of the European Heads of Government was called initially to discuss German unification and to assess its implications for the future development of the European Community. It was only during the ten days prior to the conference that political union of the European Community was added to the agenda. It appears that political union took over and the very important, urgent and immediate question of the unification of Germany and its effect on the Community did not receive the attention I believe it warrants.

One of the objectives of the meeting was to reaffirm the necessity for the Twelve member states of the European Community to consult and act collectively. Yet immediately after the Summit the German Chancellor said that the future arrangements regarding Berlin, the security of Germany, will be conducted by what is called the "two-plus-four", that is the two parts of Germany and the four — France, Britain, the Soviet Union and America. Yet two of those are not even part of the European Community. The Council of Ministers handed over to those six countries the right to discuss a fact that would have a major implication for the whole Twelve Members of the Community. At a time when the Community is moving towards closer economic and political union it is vital that the notion of collective strategy and purpose is recognised by all member states. The results of the Summit indicate that this point was not stressed. The agenda of the meeting was very skilfully steered away from what I understood — which is a fact and what was originally called for — to have been one of its objectives, to discuss the impact on the Community of German unification and move toward the longer-term, very important, difficult to grapple with, problem of political union. This was borne out clearly from the press conference given by the Taoiseach, the British Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl afterwards.

We need to clarify what greater political union means but we must do so in the context of a whole range of changed circumstances and relationships. The ramifications of German unification are profound and rapid. The member states of the European Community must take account of this change and devise a common approach. It has not been treated with sufficient seriousness by this Government, by other member states of the Community or to the degree I believe it warrants. If I might para-phrase Mark Twain — the rumours of the success of last Saturday's Summit have been greatly exaggerated by the Taoiseach here today and by the press briefings which he and his Ministers gave afterwards.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Barry

Indeed they were. The ability of the European Council meetings to be an effective decision-making mechanism will determine the future success of the European Community. The Taoiseach spoke here again this morning of the harmonious relationship that existed during the course of the Summit. I do not think that is a good thing. Past Summit meetings were characterised by cries and drama related to real, crucial issues which the European Community Council were discussing on Saturday last. We are told there was a harmonious atmosphere even though the approach by member states should have been and was different, but that did not emerge; it was swept aside, put under the carpet.

The communiqué was bland and general, posed more questions than it provided answers, as did the Taoiseach's comments in the House this morning. The Summit last Saturday did not appear to have any sense of urgency, hardly seemed to recognise the task facing the European Community over the next decade, particularly in relation to German unification. The Taoiseach has said that the EC has firmly, decisively and categorically committed itself to political union. But its attendant problems were not addressed at all except for the fact that the Foreign Ministers were asked to bring forward a shopping list of possible forms of political union by the meeting in December next. Too many of the problems obtaining were not addressed by that Summit. Indeed the Foreign Ministers deserve from their Heads of State more guidance in that regard than they received on Saturday last. For example, they deserve more guidance in relation to the Single European Act, the effect and implications of the Single European Market by 1992, monetary union, single currency, single foreign policy, security of defence — to which I will revert later because the Taoiseach glossed over that here this morning — and, of course, the very important point from Ireland's point of view — cohesion; how we will be affected. Will there be a marker put down by the Government to say that any form of political union in the future can take place only after the economic development of the Community is restored so that those areas on the periphery are brought up to the standard of the countries in the centre.

The Community is facing two different challenges. The first is to draw up a blueprint for European monetary union and refashion existing European structures to accommodate greater political unity. Of course, the second is to work out a strategy for a wider association of European countries about which the Taoiseach spoke this morning. The Community must also maintain its original vision, that of a democratic, just and peaceful society that cherishes individual intellectual freedom.

I wonder why the Summit of Saturday last did not carry out a sort of stocktaking of the probes we are making towards 1992. I know the Taoiseach said this morning that his fellow Heads of State said they were satisfied with the probes being made and congratulated the Taoiseach on the work being done. But after the nudge given by the British Foreign Secretary about his disappointment at the progress being made, I should have thought it would have been appropriate that the Heads of State would have sat down and drawn up a check list of what had been done and what needs to be done; how far have we advanced towards the free movement of people, goods, services and capital as envisaged under the Single European Act? It would have been an appropriate time to have done so as well because we are precisely half way in that period from 1 July 1987 — when the Single European Act came into effect — and 31 December 1992 when all of these proposals are supposed to have been adopted and ratified by national parliaments.

The Fifth Report of the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament issued in Brussels on 28 March 1990, page 5, paragraph 16 — I agree with this and thought the Council of Ministers on Saturday last might have paid heed to it — said:

... the Community is now at a crucial stage in implementation of the Single Act. This year will determine whether or not the objectives set out in 1985 and confirmed by the Single Act will be attained.

Yet, except for self-laudatory phrases, there does not appear to have been any detailed attention paid to that.

The Taoiseach said this morning that almost 60 per cent of the proposals that need to be adopted have been accepted so far. At first sight that would appear to be commendable progress. But one must remember that the 60 per cent so far adopted comprised by far the easier ones, that the more difficult will arise in the future. Indeed that is borne out by the same report from which I have already quoted and which says that, when the Single European Act came into effect, of the proposals on the table, 19 per cent needed unanimous agreement; whereas at present, of the proposals remaining to be dealt with, 23 per cent need unanimous agreement. Therefore, it will be clearly seen that more difficult proposals lie ahead. When I say we are half way between 1 July 1987 and 31 December 1992, on the calendar that is correct but, of course, if national parliaments are to ratify those proposals, they will have to be adopted by the Council of Ministers well before 31 December 1992; in fact they will have to be adopted in the early spring of 1992 to allow national parliaments sufficient time for their ratification. The position is much more urgent than would be thought from the assertion by the European Council and again by the Taoiseach this morning — that progress is satisfactory. Progress is not satisfactory. More difficult decisions have to be taken and we shall have less time for them in the future than has been the case to date.

After the British Foreign Minister talked about giving the nudge forward our Minister for Finance said they were awaiting proposals from the Commission. Yet the same report of the European Commission of 28 March last, the same report from which I have already quoted says, on page 6:

The Commission has honoured its commitments; on 7 April 1990, 1,000 days before the 1992 deadline, all proposals are before the Council, but the fact that the Council has taken partial decisions in certain areas (such as transport) or departed from the approach recommended by the Commission (as in taxation) will call for additional proposals.

Therefore, the Commission has done its job. If there is any hold-up in the movement forward towards 1992 it will be at Council level. I do not intend that to be a particular criticism of the Irish Presidency because, by and large the Presidency has worked hard over the past three or four months, but I want to emphasise and underline the urgency that has not been apparent from the Summit of Saturday last, about how close we are to the deadline of 1992. I want to impress upon the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that, unless the momentum is increased for the last few months of this Presidency into the Italian Presidency, the deadline in 1992, with ratification by all national parliaments, will be extremely difficult to meet.

As we move towards the completion of the Single European Market questions arise on the shape of the political institutions necessary to facilitate European integration.

For instance, what role will the Council of Ministers play and how can the European Parliament, the only directly elected European institution, be strengthened and expanded? Given the press briefing he gave last Saturday, the Taoiseach seems to have reservations about a greater role for the parliament. Perhaps this is due to the lack of influence of the grouping to which his party are attached in the European Parliament.

The conventional wisdom was that we were one voice in 12 and for this reason a strong Irish presence there would be of more benefit. Without coming to any conclusion I would like to advance the suggestion that perhaps we should reconsider this view. Following the introduction of majority voting we now have only three votes out of a total of 76 and not one out of 12. In the European Parliament the Irish MEPs are members of a wide group of different interests. For instance, my party are attached to the Christian Democrats while the Labour Party are attached to the Socialists and Deputy De Rossa's party to the Communist grouping. Would it be fair to call it that?

Proinsias De Rossa

It is called the left union group.

Mr. Barry

Fianna Fáil are attached to another smaller grouping. The groupings in the parliament are now becoming much more important. Decisions are made within the groups who then try to influence the parliament. The Socialists and Christian Democrats sometimes work closely together. We have strong influence within the groups who in turn influence the parliament. As I say, we need to thrash this matter out a little bit more and come to conclusions but I would not automatically come to the conclusion at this point that more power for the parliament would be a bad thing for the country. We should look at this much more carefully.

Mr. S. Barrett

It would be a bad thing for Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Barry

The strength of an Irish Minister in the Council of Ministers has been diminished as a result of the introduction of the Single European Act and majority voting in the Council. The Commission is not directly elected — something that has been much criticised — but in fairness one would have to say that the Commission as constituted during the past 18 to 20 years has been extremely sensitive to our concerns and has been concerned to see the economy was not damaged by any of the decisions it took. In that regard it has been very good but it is difficult to encourage the democratic process in Eastern Europe when at the same time an important power broker at the centre of the Community is not elected.

This morning in his speech the Taoiseach made reference, as he did at his press conference last week, to the importance of subsidiarity. Of course he is correct but it would be of help if the Government practised this in the country and not just preached it to Brussels. The theory is that one does not do anything at a higher level which can be done better at local level. That is fine as far as the Government are concerned in that they do not allow Brussels do anything which they can do. It should also be the case that the Government should not do anything in Dublin which could be done better in the regions. The refusal of the Government to establish regions to administer the Regional Funds places a serious question mark on their commitment to the principle of subsidiarity.

As I said, last week's meeting was rightly called to discuss the unification of Germany and the effects this will have on the Community. The future of a unified Germany lies within the European Community but how will the Community deal with the expansion necessary to facilitate membership applications from Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and perhaps other emerging democracies in central Europe? What form will membership take and at what stage will membership be accepted? Furthermore, what will happen to the applications already on the table from Austria and Turkey?

It appears the Council failed last Saturday to carry out any indepth study of these problems and spent far less time discussing the problems posed for the Community by the unification of Germany than they did in discussing political union. I would hold that the unification of Germany is going to have profound effects on the Community. For instance, its population will increase by 5 per cent at one fell swoop through the addition of a new country. The Taoiseach made reference today to the six EFTA members and stated that the total population of those countries is 32 million. We should bear in mind that the population of East Germany is 15 million, yet we are going to add this country to the Community without giving any thought to the consequences. This would be equal to adding another Netherlands, Belgium or the combined populations of Portugal and Ireland to the Community. It seems the Community has no say.

I am aware last Saturday reference was made to keeping the Community informed but the membership of Ireland, the United Kingdom and Denmark and, subsequently, the membership of Greece, Spain and Portugal was preceded by years of endless detailed discussions before they were allowed join the Community. Adding economies and populations of that size to the Community places an enormous strain on the institutions of the other member states. It is a very slow, difficult and time consuming process, yet, as I say, a country whose population is equal to the combined populations of Portugal and Ireland or half the population of the six EFTA members is going to be added almost at a stroke of a pen without any thought being given to the implications.

The communique issued last Saturday states that during the period prior to unification the Federal Government will keep the Community fully informed of any relevant measures discussed and agreed between the authorities of the two Germanys for the purpose of aligning their policies and legislation and that the Commisison will be fully involved in these discussions. It is not being made clear whether the Commission is going to be present at the table or whether it is going to be merely involved in the discussions that will take place once the Federal Government have so informed the other member states. It must be remembered that we also have rights.

I fully subscribe to what the Taoiseach has repeatedly said, as he did this morning, that there is no other country in the Community, perhaps in the world, better equipped in terms of the strength of its economy to absorb a country the size of East Germany than West Germany but that is not the point. Another 11 member states have signed agreements with the Federal Republic of Germany which is part of the European Community. Their economies are going to be affected. I accept the West Germans have no wish to load the cost of unification on the poorer states of the Community, I am sure that that is not their intention, but we are going to be affected.

There is a reference that the East Germans will of course have the right to benefit from the Structural Funds after unification. That is as it should be but if the Structural Funds are to be increased so that the East Germans can benefit from them and other existing parts of the Community will still get their share of the funds, obviously there will be an increased budget and if there is to be an increased budget we will have to contribute to it. We will be affected as will other European countries. To constantly repeat, as the Taoiseach has done now for six months, that this will have no effect on us is unreasonable. It will have an effect on us. I believe every existing commitment will be met but in the future the Community will not be the same as it is now. We are going through the process of completing the Single European Act but half way through it the circumstances of the Community are changed because of another population growth of 5 per cent and the inclusion of a fairly substantial country without the normal process that would apply to any other country such as Austria or Turkey and which did apply to Greece, Spain and Portugal and other countries that joined after the initial Six came together. The European Summit last week has been irresponsible in letting the people of Europe think that this will not have an effect on anything that happens here.

I want to give an example of how we will be affected. I know of a factory in this country that is German owned, which was brought here may be 20 years ago by the IDA and which has been very successful. It was part of a company that, before the war, had had plants all over the then Germany. When the division of Germany came those plants in Eastern Germany were nationalised and taken over by the East German Government. The western part of it grew and expanded and opened a plant here in Ireland. Last year they started an extensive expansion plan costing £25 million. They applied to their headquarters in Germany for permission to go ahead with this and that was granted. Earlier this year the headquarters office came back to them and asked them to put that plan on hold because now, rather than expanding in Ireland, they would wish to put the money into the plants they had before the war in what was to become East Germany. While there will be minimal direct transfer of resources out of here there will definitely be indirect effects on this economy because of firms adopting that stand. The lack of consideration and deep thought being given to the unification of Germany and its effect on the other 11 member states is certainly unworthy in view of the kind of careful planning that went into previous enlargements of the Community. Let us make no mistake about it; this is what this is.

The industries in East Germany are said to be extremely dirty and environmentally unfriendly. It will take many years to bring them up to the level of some of the industries in other parts of Europe. Does that mean that after the unification of Germany the environmental proposals and directives that are now part of the European Community are not going to be applied in East Germany and that they will be allowed to derogate from them in the future? If so, what effect does that have on the competitive position of competing companies in the rest of the Community? These are questions that should be asked and which deserve answers. I presumed they would be asked at the Council meeting that was called last Saturday. They appear, however, to have been ignored or not to have had sufficient attention given to them. I suspect there was an understandable desire on the part of Heads of State, in their enthusiasm for seeing a united Germany as part of the European Community, to side-step all these issues. Even though East Germany is not the same as other countries its entry to the European Community should be treated in a similar fashion, desirable as is the unification of Germany. The same will apply in the future to the other Eastern European countries — Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and maybe others as well.

In the communiqué last Saturday it was also said that discussions would start forthwith in the Council on the basis of the Commission's communication and association agreements with each of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe which include an institutional framework for political dialogue. The Community will work to complete the association agreements in negotiating with these countries as soon as possible on the understanding that the basic conditions with regard to democratic principles and the transition towards a market economy are fulfilled, all of which I approve of. Is this with the objective of having them apply for membership of the Community in the future? It has been estimated that to bring the economies of these countries, whose national debts are even more horrendous than ours up to western European level, will cost about £100 million a year over the next ten years. That will mean sacrifices on the part of other democracies in the European Community. We should not pretend that that will not happen. We should recognise that established individually sensitive democracies in these Eastern European states is a worthy end in itself and that it is necessary to make a sacrifice for that purpose, but we should not go around saying that no sacrifice will be required to help build democracies in these countries. If we are to help build democracies in these countries it means the transfer of resources of about £100 million a year over the next ten years.

One of the central issues in a politically unified Europe will be the question of security and defence arrangements. From our point of view European union will demand a radical reassessment of our military neutrality. The Taoiseach was very clear about our commitment to the process of European political unity. Does he agree that our participation in an integrated European Community requires an undertaking to defend that community?

The order in which these things is done is important. An indication that we would defend that political unity is one thing but a firm commitment to do it now without the economies and political unity being put in place would be another.

It appears from what the Taoiseach said this morning that he feels that all this talk of defence and security is being shuffled away into the CSCE. This, of course, is a very valuable body which has done extremely good work since 1975 on the Helsinki Act. When the two super powers — perhaps one of them is no longer a super power — have lowered their guard and when their suspicions of one another are not as focused as they have been for the last 40 years a common security programme for all of Europe may be developed in time. That situation has not been reached now, however, and if the European Community goes ahead at the rate that the Council last week said it should, it certainly will not be possible by the time political unity has been reached. We will have to face this problem, and to duck and weave and pretend it does not exist is not right. It may be, after extensive public debate in this House and outside it, that we are not prepared to pay the price of defending that political unity when it arises. If so, the quicker we reach that decision the better. To pretend that shuffling with the CSCE will not present a problem is not the correct thing to do.

The Taoiseach said earlier that we are now firmly, decisively and categorically committed to political union in Europe. From my party's point of view the logic of that statement is that if such political union comes into existence it would be inconceivable if we were not prepared to play our part defending that union. I know other Members do not share that view, indeed they do not wish political union to come about because they are not willing to defend it and that applies outside this House as well, but I think we should start a debate on this as quickly as possible because if we do not, the debate will be taken on to the streets, which would be undesirable.

In Ireland the word "neutrality" has not been properly defined. It means different things to different people. As I remarked earlier the word has an emotional attachment rather than any clear meaning for some people. This is the place to talk about the concept of neutrality but preferably it should be discussed in a Foreign Affairs Committee. We should have the debate soon and not wait until political union is a fait accompli. Some sections of the Irish community will be totally unaware that the political union in favour of which they were asked to wave flags will demand that they defend that union. The Government should lead the debate on this subject in this House. Preferably this subject should be debated by a Foreign Affairs Committee which is more urgently needed than ever.

I hope the Government will realise the wisdom of establishing such a committee because we have to keep track of events in Europe, including the unification of Germany and its effect on this economy. I welcome the unification of Germany and the movement towards democracy in European Europe. We should encourage this but we have to pay a price in economic and other terms but it is worth paying the price because a Europe which is founded on democratic, just and Christian principles is of benefit to all mankind and will diminish the prospects of war in the future. However, this requires some sacrifice on our part. I hope that a debate on the sacrifice required will not be pushed aside as it was during last Saturday's Summit and as were the difficult questions on the effects of German unification on this country. There are costs to be paid and we should not pretend otherwise. Having said that, I welcome the movement towards European union.

The movement towards bringing this country into the European Community, which began in the late sixties and early seventies, was led by this party. When the Community chose to recharge its batteries in the mid-eighties, culminating in the Single European Act and the movement towards a common market in 1992, this party had a major role to play. We have always been a party committed to working towards the goal of political union in Europe. We have not dodged that issue nor have we ever pretended it did not involve a cost in some areas through the transfer of sovereignty in some respects. We have said frequently in the intervening 20 years that if political union came about our party would try to persuade the people that it would be perfectly desirable and natural that we should play our part in the defence of that community.

I was disappointed with the Summit because it did not address the problems for which it was called, that is, the problems facing Europe as a result of the unification of Germany. By introducing the prospect of the Summit also discussing European unity, the German Chancellor effectively got the Summit to sidestep the difficult question that still needs to be asked by the Council of Ministers on the effects of German unification on the rest of Europe.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair understands that in consideration of demands on the Minister for Foreign Affairs later on, the main spokesperson for the Labour Party and The Workers' Party are agreeable to my calling on the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Collins)

I extend my thanks and appreciation to the Labour Party and to The Workers' Party for facilitating me in this way.

In his speech earlier today, the Taoiseach has already provided a comprehensive and wide ranging survey of the course of recent developments in Europe. In particular, he has set out the response of the European Community as decided by the European Council at its special meeting in Dublin last Saturday. This was a meeting of immense importance for Ireland, for the European Community and indeed for all of Europe and beyond. It is very clear that at this critical period in Europe's history the European Community cannot take an inward looking attitude or adopt a passive approach. The events taking place in Europe demand a response from the Community.

We must ensure that the Community has the strength, the resources and the institutions to develop its own integration and to maintain its own specific weight and influence. In no other way can we cope with the rapidly changing conditions on our Continent.

The Community must be able to turn to the outside world, in particular to the rest of Europe, and assume the role which the new political opportunities and challenges demand. The promise of a Europe no longer divided into hostile camps can be realised only with the active political and economic support of a European Community conscious of its responsibilities and confident in its ability to carry them out.

The European Council last weekend has made a major contribution towards enabling the Community to fulfil its task. I believe that the results of this meeting are particularly encouraging, not least because the Community has demonstrated its ability to combine proper attention to its internal development with a purposeful response to the wave of change which has overtaken the East.

Underlying all the considerations of the European Council — and indeed the series of meetings which preceded it — was a full and clear recognition that the effects of these momentous changes will not be confined to one half of the Continent.

The changes in Eastern Europe are peaceful, but no less radical for that. The transformation of the East-West relationship which is taking place now promises to be far reaching. The changes we are witnessing today are very different from those born out of conflict, revolution and war and hold out great hope for a future of peace and freedom. Among the changes being brought about are new structures and new ways of conducting international relations have to be devised. These are essential in order to deal with the uncertainties which inevitably accompany such far reaching change.

We warmly welcome the change and the renewal we are witnessing today. It seems that now, at last, Europe can overcome the divisions inherited from the Second World War. For more than 40 years Europe has been beset by institutionalised confrontation, with the threat of war inherent in it, and the stifling of human freedom and creativity. It is time now to move on towards a new Europe which can guarantee all its people a decent and humane future. It is with a great sense of relief that we greet the ending of the Cold War, a period when the normal development of half of our Continent seemed to have frozen over. Today there is, instead, a sense that normal political forces have been liberated. This movement can be seen through all the confusion and abruptness of the dramatic events which have swept across Eastern Europe in recent months.

In country after country, people have acted decisively to regain control of their destiny. Governments which for so long were imposed on the people to obey them are now yielding place to Governments who accept that their legitimacy derives exclusively from the democratic will of their citizens. We must pay tribute to the millions of people whose determination and restraint have brought about peaceful change on so vast a scale, who have demonstrated what Vaclav Havel calls "the power of the powerless". We must also recognise the crucial role of the Soviet Union which has given the most concrete and convincing demonstration of the reality of its new approach, without which the process of liberation in Eastern Europe would have been so much more problematic.

In the Soviet Union, a new vision of society is seeking to assert itself against the stagnation and intolerance which were the hallmarks of the old regime. Human rights, political freedom, democracy and the rule of law have all made great advances. Political and economic reform, openness and respect for the individual are gaining ground. This change is also apparent in the Soviet Union's foreign policy.

As a result of these changes, the two super powers are now actively building a new relationship which transcends the antagonisms of the past. Co-operation is replacing confrontation. We hope that this trend has become firmly established and is leading the world ever farther away from the confrontation which at times threatened humanity with the ultimate catastrophe. Concrete steps are also being taken to end the military rivalry. For more than 40 years each side has sought to undo the other in the numbers and destructiveness of its arms. Happily, a series of disarmament negotiations currently taking place promise to bring an end to this dangerous and senseless arms race.

Already, intermediate-range nuclear missiles, an entire class of weapons, are being eliminated. The United States and the Soviet Union expect to reach agreement later this year on major reductions in strategic nuclear arms. This should lead on to further negotiations which will, we hope, eventually result in agreement to ban all nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the two alliances are currently conducting negotiations in Vienna whose purpose is to place their conventional armed forces on a completely defensive footing by removing their capacity to mount an invasion or a surprise attack. These are all very encouraging signs. They show that countries are now beginning to accept that no lasting security can be found by exclusive reliance on military means of warding off aggression. We look forward to a progressive reduction of the military stand-off and a corresponding willingness to build up the political, co-operative means of assuring peace and stability.

The European Community welcomes and supports these developments. The Community is fully conscious of its own role and responsibilities and the need for a forthcoming and encouraging response. This sense of responsibility and willingness to respond were already very much in evidence at the informal meeting of Heads of Government in Paris on 18 November last. A number of concrete projects designed to bring specific assistance to Eastern Europe were set in train at that meeting. These included a new bank for reconstruction and development to help in economic restructuring, a foundation for training to assist in providing management skills, participation in Community programmes, financial aid for Poland and Hungary, closer involvement of East European countries in international organisations such as GATT and the Council of Europe. A series of meetings have taken place since then, culminating in last Saturday's special meeting of the European Council. The main reason for calling the special meeting of the European Council was to consider the implications for the Community of German unification and the changes in Central and Eastern Europe for the Community.

The European Council clearly underlined that the changes which are under way will have major implications for the development of the Community. It gave a warm welcome to German unification, as Deputies will have noted from the text of the conclusions of the meeting. It also considered that unification will be a positive factor in the development of the Community — in effect a catalyst in the future development of closer integration.

On Saturday we were able to note with satisfaction that German unification is taking place under the Community roof and in full respect for the common body of law which as a member of the Community the Federal Republic shares with its partners. The economic effects of unification will be positive and, as the conclusions point out, will take place in conditions of economic balance and monetary stability. The Commission estimates that it could add a further one half per cent to Community growth rates in the next couple of years, a view which is reflected in the conclusions of Saturday's meeting.

As is concluded by the European Council, unification will not require revision of the treaties. The Federal Republic will continue to keep the Community fully informed of the development of the process and the Commission will be fully involved. The Commission will report on the transitional arrangements required and propose the necessary legislation for consideration by the Council. Transitional measures will be confined to what is strictly necessary and aim at rapid integration of the regions involved into the Community.

At the European Council we were able to establish the basis for the Community's involvement with German unification. The Community as a whole will have a role to play in regard to the historic process now under way in Germany. It is right this should be the case and our German partners agree. They acknowledge the importance of the Community and its development to the Federal Republic over the last four decades and it is clear that their commitment is unwavering.

The Community has applied the same intense examination to the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe as it has to German reunification. The necessary decisions in both the political and economic fields have been taken by the Community and are now being implemented. The Community has formulated a comprehensive, detailed and concrete response which will lend practical help to the countries of Eastern Europe in this difficult transition period. We cannot, of course, replace their own efforts, but we can and must supplement them. In this we have been guided by three basic principles. First, the Community wants to see the divisions of Europe overcome and a new set of relations established between European countries. Second, the Community insists on the need for a sense of responsibility on all sides so that the necessary changes will not have the effect, which nobody desires, of prejudicing stability in Europe. Third, the Community is ready to develop deeper and closer relations with Eastern Europe based on an intensified political dialogue and increased co-operation of all areas. In particular the Community is determined to provide support for economic reform in these countries.

The countries of Eastern Europe have travelled an enormous distance in recent weeks and months, but the safe completion of this journey will require wisdom, realism and political resolve on the part of all, both East and West. We have a responsibility, both nationally and in our role as Presidency of the European Community, to do what we can to promote an international order founded on the principles of peace and justice. We should neither exaggerate nor minimise the role a country such as ours can play. We have firmly supported the action of the Community which has been a strong source of support, as well as an example, to the newly liberalising countries of Eastern Europe. In all international councils we have given clear expression to our views on disarmament, human rights, democracy, and the right of nations to choose their own path freely. We have spoken out firmly against actions and policies which perpetrate confrontation and we have advocated with all our strength policies which lead to reconciliation. We accept our responsibilities gladly and we will carry them out, as best we can, with the sole aim of helping to bring about a genuine and lasting peace among all our nations and to restore the values of freedom, openness and diversity which define European civilisation.

Another important area in which we can contribute towards the achievement of these goals is through our participation in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Together with our partners in the Twelve, we regard the CSCE as a particularly useful and promising development in international affairs. At its centre is the Helsinki Final Act drawn up in 1975. The Final Act encompasses a number of basic principles which Ireland has always strongly advocated. These include the rule of law, reduction of tensions, cessation of the arms race, the right of individual countries to pursue their own path and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. We believe that all these principles must be scrupulously observed if peace and security are to be built on a firm and lasting basis.

It is not and never has been our view that a stable international system can be based on a competitive search for military advantage. In our view, this reliance on increasingly destructive weapons has in itself been one of the major causes of distrust and tension in East-West relations. While we can understand the legitimate security concerns of states, we consider that the very existence of massive armed forces has obstructed progress towards a more co-operative and harmonious international system. It is not enough, however, to halt and reverse the arms race. It is necessary to accompany this with structures to relieve the sources of tension and ultimately remove them. The Helsinki process aims precisely at achieving this. It is, moreover, an effort which draws this particular lesson from the tragic experience of European conflict.

The CSCE process, as the European Council stated last Saturday, "will serve as a framework for reform and stability on our continent". The spirit on which it is based recognises that the existing state of relations in Europe can be transformed only by peaceful means; that all the participating states have a shared interest in security and co-operation; that they must all take part on the basis of full equality; and that the entire range of our relations must be treated in a comprehensive manner and differences among us addressed openly and honestly.

At a time when radical and sweeping change is taking place at an extremely rapid pace we are fortunate to have an arrangement such as the CSCE already in place. The Community is already providing assistance to the countries of Eastern Europe to help them manage their internal transformation into democratic states and to overcome the enormous economic difficulties which they face. At the same time, it is essential to provide a pan-European framework in which the international dimension to these changes can be given shape and be embedded in a stable structure. This has to involve all the countries of Europe, as well as the United States and Canada. The European Council expressed the desire that the CSCE would be balanced in development encompassing "notably the development of pluralist democracy, the rule of law, human rights, better protection of minorities, human contacts, security, economic co-operation, the environment, further co-operation in the Mediterranean and co-operation in the field of culture".

We believe that the Summit meeting of the CSCE due to take place at the end of this year will bring this process to a new level. We expect that this meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the CSCE countries will lay the foundations for a lasting peace where confrontation and military rivalry will have no place. This will be a community of European and North American States in which conflict between East and West will be as unthinkable as it is today among the Twelve members of the European Community. This is an enterprise in which this country has a full part to play.

The European Council made substantial progress in mapping out the approach of the Community to the task of integration of the territory of the GDR after integration and to its relations with European and other countries during the nineties.

In parallel with this the Council also agreed on the need to continue and intensify its internal development. Major objectives for that development are the achievement of the Single Market and the establishment of Economic and Monetary Union. These objectives are, of course, set in the context of the goal of European Union. The first line of the Rome Treaty reads:

"Determined to lay the foundation of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"

The opening lines of the Single European Act remind us of this commitment and speak of the will "to transform relations among the States into a European Union".

On the first objective of completing the Internal Market by the end of 1992, an ambitious programme for legislation is under way and agreement has been achieved on about 60 per cent of the proposals. We are on target for the Single Market. A number of important measures have gone through under the Irish Presidency as the Taoiseach has outlined earlier. We expect to reach agreement before July on a series of measures in the areas of transport, animal and plant health, telecommunications etc. Difficult and complex proposals, particularly in the taxation area remain to be negotiated in the next year or so. In addition, the completion of the market requires that measures be not only agreed but also implemented. Here again, I might add, Ireland is to the forefront, and we should be happy that we are among the top five as regards the number of Internal Market measures in force. The momentum towards this objective must be built up throughout the Community and the Heads of State and Government confirmed their commitment to this.

The Treaty and Single Act refer to the progressive realisation of Economic and Monetary Union. The Strasbourg Council decided on the holding of an Intergovernmental Conference to discuss possible Treaty changes needed for the final stages of EMU. Since then, intensive work has been under way in order to prepare fully and adequately for that Conference. The Ministers of Finance have reached the decisions necessary to launch the first stage, on schedule on 1 July this year. This will involve greater convergence of economic policies among the member states and increased co-operation between the Central Banks in the context of liberalisation of the movements of capital. The Finance Ministers and the specialist committees under their aegis have also reached a significant level of agreement on certain essential elements of Economic and Monetary Union. Foreign Affairs Ministers are to begin examination next week of the institutional aspects.

The intention is to make a progress report to the June European Council with a view to setting guidelines for further work during the Italian Presidency. In the meantime last week's European Council noted that the preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference are well advanced. They agreed that they could now set a timetable for completion of the negotiations by the end of 1992.

As Deputies are aware, Ireland is committed to working towards EMU. Economic and monetary integration is a logical concomitant to opening the Single Market. Our task in the coming months is to ensure a balanced outcome from the negotiations so that all regions and member states will benefit from these developments.

As I mentioned earlier, the moves towards the Single Market and EMU should be seen in the perspective of European Union. The Community needs constantly to ensure that progress is being maintained towards ultimate union. As we become more closely interlinked in various areas of policy, we must ensure that our institutions can respond in an effective way to the demands placed upon them. We must seek ways to avoid blockages or paralysis. For this purpose the decision-making mechanisms and the roles of the institutions must be reviewed periodically. It is equally important that those who make decisions do so in a context of democratic control. This also needs to be monitored and, if necessary, adjusted from time to time. In addition, as the member states of the Community speak more and more with one voice and act in concert on the international scene the mechanisms for integration should be reviewed.

The Heads of State and Government confirmed their commitment to political union and asked the Foreign Ministers to undertake a detailed examination on the need for possible Treaty changes. Proposals are to be made to the June European Council with a view to a second Intergovernmental Conference which would work simultaneously with the IGC on Economic and Monetary Union with the objective of ratification of the results by the end of 1992.

That examination is already in hands. Foreign Ministers will discuss the matter at the General Affairs Council on 7 and 8 May and will work intensively through May and June to draw up a report of the issues involved. This will provide the basis for an in-depth discussion by the Heads of State and Government in June.

I want to turn now to the question of where the European Community fits into international developments and what its role should be. As I said earlier, we cannot be an inward-looking Community. This is not a question of choice. In no sense can the European Community — or Ireland, for that matter — build a wall around itself and hope to continue as before, ignoring the tidal wave of change in the outside world. But this is not new. The European Community has never seen its future as simply a bloc of countries coming together sporadically to pursue common trade interests. That has already been impossible for a long time in view of the challenges posed by the United States, Japan and the newly industrialising countries. We have already for many years been evolving policies to deal with these challenges successively and in a spirit of co-operation and mutual benefit. Furthermore, we have long recognised that the growing gap between North and South, between the developed and the developing countries, cannot be tolerated. Here again, we have developed effective co-operation policies through the Lome Convention with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. We have also — and again for several years — been working towards common foreign policy positions through the framework of European Political Co-operation. Finally, I should state the obvious fact that we had already decided, long before the peaceful revolution in Eastern Europe, to create a Single European Market in 1992.

The conclusion I would draw from all this is that the European Community is already well prepared to play a dynamic role in the world while at the same time strengthening its own integration and sense of unity. There is no contradiction between these two poles of the Community's policy. Indeed, they are inseparable. Far from one line being pursued at the expense of the other, they mutually reinforce one another.

At the same time, it is quite clear that the challenge and opportunity we are now facing is far greater than anything that has gone before. That is why it is so important that the European Council on Saturday was able to decide on a further strengthening of the Community's efforts to achieve closer integration. Three years after the ratification of the Single European Act we no longer hear derisory accusations of "Euro-sclerosis". The Community is making ready to progress further towards the goal of political union. The collective commitment to that objective which the European Council reaffirmed last Saturday demonstrates the Community's determination to meet the challenges ahead.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Before calling Deputy Quinn I would like to acknowledge his co-operation in the matter, of not requiring me to interrupt the Minister during the speech which went a little over the prescribed time.

Mr. Quinn

First, we all should compliment the Government, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the other bodies involved in the physical arrangements not just for the Summit that took place in Dublin Castle last Saturday but also since the commencement of this Presidency. There was some scepticism about the elaborate arrangements that were put in place, but had the Irish Presidency not taken extra preparations upon itself, the onslaught of unforeseen events might have overwhelmed the relatively small administration. To that extent it should be acknowledged that the preparations that have taken place have proven to be wise and have served us well as a nation.

The Dublin Summit began the process of preparing the Community of Twelve for some form of political union. The Irish Presidency facilitated the deliberations of that Summit and has vigorously promoted its conclusions on behalf of the Council. However, the Irish Government on behalf of the Irish people have been remarkably coy in giving any indication as to what their concept of European political union might be and how it would impact on the lives and wellbeing of the Irish people. The Labour Party are particularly concerned at the apparent absence of any position by the Irish Government on this crucial matter. Ringing declarations praising the advent of freedom and rhetoric enthusing the concept of a greater European political union are no substitute for clear and well set out requirements, safeguards and proposals which will best meet the needs of the Irish people. This Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Coalition Government have been remarkable for the poverty of their ideas on the European dimension of political union which must be addressed before the Irish people can advance to the next stage of greater integration and political unity.

The Labour Party welcome the progress which has been made within Europe, which has resulted in the removal of barriers and the re-establishment of democracies. The events in Central and Eastern Europe give us much pleasure. The defeat, without violence, of Stalinist left totalitarianism provides a sense of vindication for democratic socialists throughout Europe. We can at last say that the acrimonious and intense divisions between the Labour Party and their sister parties in the socialist internationale, the Communist parties of Central and Eastern Europe and their Western European allies has started to come to an end. Those parties who were once wedded to a rigid adherence to the principle of democratic centralism now accept that the advancement of humanity along a socialist path can only be made within a democratic and free society.

The Labour Party have a very clear perspective of the future of Europe. We share with the Confederation of European Socialist Parties a range of values and practical experience derived from many years of international co-operation, and a view on how progress towards a greater political union among the 12 sovereign states can be made.

The Labour Party assert that progress towards greater political union in the short term must take place within the framework of the totality of the Single European Act. We would remind the Government and, indeed, the people at large that the Single European Act provided for more things than the completion of the Single Market by 1992. Side by side with that important task is the concept of economic and social cohesion. In addition the doubling of Structural Funds was seen as a necessary immediate response to offset the dislocating impact which the completed Internal Market will have on disadvantaged and peripheral regions in the economy. Finally in relation to the Single European Act, the strengthening of the Community's confidence with regard to the environmental matters was a clear recognition of the increasingly important role which environmental concerns must have in all aspects of Community policy.

The decision of the Strasbourg Summit in 1989 to arrange for an inter-governmental conference in December 1990 to move to the next stage of economic and monetary union has not been fully or adequately presented in the Irish media by the present Government. Listening to Government spokespersons, including Cabinet Ministers and economic commentators, the impression has been created that the December Intergovernmental Conference will concern itself exclusively with the problems and possibilities of monetary union. Economic and monetary union implies a much more fundamental harmonisation of the 12 separate economies of the member states than is implicit in the easy talk about fixing parities between currencies and the establishment of some form of European federal central bank.

Our most recent experience of greater European integration in the field of social affairs and regional policy as handled by this Government gives the Labour Party grave reason for concern. If the manner in which these two important consequences of the completion of the Single Market have been handled is an indication of the Government's competence to move to the next stage of political union, then the Labour Party declare that they have no confidence in the ability of this administration to protect the interest of all the Irish people in a future Europe.

The continued excessive secrecy surrounding the allocation of the Structural Funds in respect of regional development is a national scandal. The continued refusal by the Minister for Finance to reestablish, as he promised nearly a year ago, the advisory committees and the working groups for the seven sub-regions which together were components of Ireland's regional plan submitted to the Community in Brussels, tells it own tale. The exclusion from the process of local democratically elected groups and the representative bodies flies totally and utterly against the spirit of the reconstructed Structural Funds as established under the Single European Act and rips away the rhetoric of freedom with which the Taoiseach's speech and the speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs are riddled. If they are so in love with democracy and freedom, why not start with the seven sub-regional committees in this country?

Mr. Roche

What did the Deputy's party do with the fund when they were in power?

Mr. Quinn

I would not stick my head over the ditch if I were Deputy Roche. The Government have already been criticised indirectly and directly, not just by me but by the person responsible for this, and that is the Commissioner with responsibility for regional affairs both in this country and in the European Parliament. I am sure Deputy De Rossa will be able to articulate the time, place and exact content of that criticism.

With regard to the Social Charter, the Irish Government's position in private has been in marked contrast to their posturing in public. They, as distinct from the Irish Presidency, have evaded the possibility of strengthening the provisions of social protection to which every European citizen and worker is entitled by means of European-wide directives. The lack of a clear analysis from the Government of the many possibilities for a deepened European political union is an indication of the poverty of the political debate over which they have presided in this House. Their continued refusal to allow the establishment by the Oireachtas of a foreign affairs committee will be dealt with at some length by my colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, who first advocated such a committee some years ago.

However, a view of the variety of European-wide institutions and political organisations gives an indication of the complexity of the task confronting those charged with the development of a path towards greater political unity. As far as the Labour Party are concerned, the socialist group in the European Parliament and the parties who make up that group in every one of the member states have a very clear idea as to the problems that confront us and the kinds of structures we would like to see.

In view of the fact that we listened for the last hour and a half to both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs speak about greater political union without at any stage outlining the problems or difficulties relating to it, it might be useful if the House were to summarise for itself the wide range of existing institutions all of which will have to be accommodated or integrated in some shape or form if we are to take the next step towards political union.

Even with the rapid changes that are taking place in central Europe, there are two sets of European institutions, a western set and an eastern set. Then there is a European-wide set of institutions as well. The western set includes NATO and the Western European Union — Ireland is not a member of either — and the European Community of which we have been a full member since 1973. We have the EFTA countries, six countries on the western divide of Europe, and the OECD, a European organisation with other countries. That organisation is based in Paris and has a predominance of European countries. There is also the Council of Europe to which Members of the House belong. It is exclusively confined to the western post-Cold War Europe divide of the Continent.

On the eastern side of the current division of European institutions there is the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and COMECON, the economic community of the Soviet Union and its former Communist allies. There are two pan-European institutions, the CSCE, to which reference has been made, and the original post-war United Nations economic commission of Europe.

Any debate about political union, and any discussion on how we should move to some form of greater political unity along the lines implicitly set out in the speeches of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will have to address themselves to how that union or greater political unity will relate to the existing institutions operating within a European framework. I have to say that the poverty of analysis, the absence of any recognition by the politicians in this Coalition Government of the existence of those institutions, and the implications for any kind of change, are frightening. My colleague, Deputy Michael Higgins, will deal with this at some length. The question of greater political union within the European Community is more complex and comprehensive in its implications for our relationship not just with other member states but with other states on the Continent. We are not given any indication that the Government are aware of the problems or are formulating any type of response.

We have heard speeches from the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs setting out a clear timetable within which the Minister for Foreign Affairs will have to have a draft report prepared by June for the December conference on the steps that can be taken with regard to political unity in the Community.

With regard to European structures, there is a chronic need for the Government to allow a comprehensive debate on the options they see open to us. It is not sufficient for the Government in the privacy of Iveagh House or the Department of the Taoiseach to formulate a set of options for themselves, present them and negotiate on them across the tables of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs or others and present us at a later stage with a fait accompli suggesting to us that we can take them or leave them. That is not up to the standard of democratic accountability to which so much fulsome praise was given by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Democratic accountability brings me to my next point, the whole question of what has been described as the democratic deficit within the existing array of European institutions. We are acutely aware of the democratic deficit in so far as we seldom, if ever, get an opportunity to have a proper debate with the Minister for Foreign Affairs who has primarily political responsibility for our relationship with the rest of the Community. Today's debate is graphic evidence of that. The order of speakers had to be altered, and it was done so voluntarily by Deputy De Rossa and I, to accommodate the Minister for Foreign Affairs who, having made his speech, had to leave the Chamber due to the pressure of business. We appreciate and recognise that but it is very hard to have a debate in an empty Chamber when the person who attended the Council meetings, notwithstanding the help he received from his Minister of State, will not be present for it.

What has happened today is an indication of a problem that is endemic in the House when we are talking about Ireland's relationship with the European Community. Members of the European Parliament who are also Members of the House — we have only two of them — frequently are not in a position to put questions to relevant Ministers who are Presidents of the various Councils of the EC. Yet, those Ministers are subject to scrutiny by the committees of the European Parliament in a manner which if it happened here would be very damaging and revealing. Not only is there a democratic deficit within this establishment between the elected Members and the members of the Government who have positions within the Presidency of the EC or who represent Ireland at the Councils of Ministers, whether on the Internal Market, the Social Affairs Council, the Council of Ministers of Agriculture or ECOFIN but the level of accountability is inadequate. It will become increasingly more inadequate if we move to a grater level of integration within the Community. Unless there is a change in the framework of our Standing Orders it will become completely inadequate when the Single Market is completed in 1992.

Secondly, I should like to refer to the democratic deficit within the Community institutions between the elected members of the citizens of Europe in the European Parliament on the one hand and the Commission and the Council of Ministers on the other. A member of the Socialist Group to which the Labour Party belongs, Mr. Martin, produced a fine report which was recently adopted by the European Parliament and which includes some tentative proposals for increasing the role of the European Parliament and strengthening its provisions. While that may address certain problems of democracy vis-à-vis the Parliament, the Commission and the Council, it does not address the central problem of the relationship between the 12 national Parliaments and the European institutions.

We are not prepared as a political party committed to advancing the well-being of all the people on this island, but particularly the working people who are the most vulnerable sections of our society, to go down a further step of European integration, of European political union, seduced by rhetoric or ringing phrases unless it is made very clear to us what the precise relationship will be between the people we represent and the institutions that will be making decisions. It amazes me that a political party with the traditions of Fianna Fáil have so embraced, without any critical analysis, the rhetoric of Europeanism that pervades the speeches of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. That bears no relationship to the history of the Fianna Fáil Party and is not consistent with the position they adopted between 1982 and 1987 but then, consistency was never their strong point.

However, the problems of the Fianna Fáil Party do not necessarily concern me but the responsibility they have until the next election to represent the interests of the Irish people is a matter of concern to the House. In the final phrase of his speech the Taoiseach embraced greater political union and he did not suggest that safeguards of any substantial kind would have to be put in place to protect the interests of all the people on the island, particularly those of this State. That is a cause for great alarm.

Let me now move on to a point I want to raise in relation to the best interests of the people of this island within a broader European framework. It is clear that at some stage the Community will be enlarged. It is the view of the socialist group — and The Labour Party — that, prior to any additional enlargement the internal operation, integration and cohesion of the Community — particularly social cohesion — should be strengthened with renewed vigour. We are not talking about a static Community, fixed with 12 member states and not advancing any further. However, rather than broadening the membership on a fast track we would be in favour of a deepening of the integration of the Community, not just in some form of completed single internal market but in terms of a real social Community that recognises its responsibilities to every citizen and not just to every worker, and as the amended Social Charter now refers to.

In that regard this country's interests — and the Irish peoples' interests — can be best served as Ireland, as distinct from holding the Presidency promotes the current negotiations between the EFTA countries and the Community with regard to the creation of a European economic area. I am saddened and somewhat alarmed at the lack of attention that the Irish Presidency has given to the negotiations with the EFTA countries in relation to the mandate which must be agreed at the June Dublin Summit with a view to a clear timetable which will enable that European Economic area to come into being simultaneously with the completion of the Internal Market in 1992. It is not in Ireland's interests to slow down that process. It is very much in our interest to create new allies with the EFTA countries because those countries, on the periphery of Europe with developed economic systems, and the social democratic tradition that has brought the standards of living of the people way above what we currently enjoy — and to which we continue to aspire — will share the sort of tradition of solidarity to which we must now turn if we want to ensure that we have a place in a large Europe of perhaps 400 million people.

Hiding under the coat-tails of France, because they have the same antiquated agricultural system as ours, or being nice to the Germans because they have a big fat cheque book at present is not the future road for Ireland in a community of 400 million or 500 million people.

I urge the Government, particularly the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, in respect of the EFTA countries and the mandate in particular to make renewed efforts to ensure that the mandate emerges from the June Summit. In that regard I regret that the Government were unable to find time to meet the Prime Minister of Norway who had to cancel a visit here due to pressure of Irish Presidency business. Prime Ministers of EFTA countries do not often come to this country. We will have the Presidency only every six years and — following the enlargement of the Community — it will be extended to seven or eight years given the rotation principle. The opportunity to avail of the occasion to create new alliances in that regard was missed.

I want to talk about our position as a neutral State within the Community and the need to have that position strengthened notwithstanding anything said earlier by Deputy Barry on behalf of Fine Gael. Ireland is a neutral State and the Labour Party have never had any difficulty about neutrality. I do not know why the Fine Gael Party, the Fianna Fáil Party and others say it is time we had a debate on it so that people may spell out their positions. We have been spelling out our position in relation to neutrality since about 1927. If people want the texts, documents and references they are available. We have a very clear idea of what we mean by being neutral and my colleague, Deputy Higgins, will elaborate in his inimitable style later.

In terms of where we should be building new alliances, it is in the interests of the Irish people that we should unreservedly support the application of Austria to join the European Community conterminous with the completion of the Internal Market and the creation of the European Economic area. Austria's membership of the European Community will not require any negotiation or derogation from any standards or principles currently in operation within Community law. They have said quite clearly that they are prepared to take on the responsibilities of full membership, the only EFTA country to do so. They have declared that their formalised neutrality — formalised in the sense of a parliamentary resolution after 1955 — is not a barrier to their membership of the European Community. Those of us who are committed to Irish neutrality should welcome that. People in this House who hide behind some kind of equivocation on the realities of that neutrality perhaps feel threatened by the advent of Austria to the European Community. We do not, because it is in the interests of the Irish people because the Presidency of the European Community will have passed from Dublin Castle and Kinsealy by 1 July and Deputy Haughey will revert to being the ordinary Taoiseach of this small and relatively peripheral State within the European Community. We need friends after June in different parts of the Community who think like us, who aspire to the same social value system that we have and who want to advance their people in a way in which we would like to advance. Austria is one of those countries to which we should relate. I make that comment in the full knowledge that Chancellor Uranitzky will be in Dublin next week. I hope that the Government will avail of that opportunity to unequivocally state their position on this matter.

The last area to which I want to refer is the question of European security and the CSCE to which the Taoiseach referred in his speech. I know that Deputy Michael Higgins will elaborate in this regard. We welcome the decision to convene the CSCE conference at the end of this year and we hope that the Government will participate fully in it. The position now in regard to the change in Europe, particularly the way in which we will have the extraordinarily anomalous position of a member state of the European Community being simultaneously a member of NATO — of which we are not a member — having part of its territory a member of the Warsaw Pact, or, alternatively, part of its territory — I am now referring to the GDR — containing troops from one of the Warsaw Pact countries or more, indicates the dramatic changes that have taken place within Europe. This change will continue at a speed and pace which we cannot at this stage even contemplate. The "two plus four" meeting concerning the future of a united Germany will give the final picture in relation to that part of the security jigsaw of Europe.

There is now, as never before, a major role to be played by Ireland's position of being simultaneously a member of the European Community and a neutral State. In the past, Irish delegations and Foreign Ministers have been ambivalent as to what Ireland's role should be in that regard because the other 11 member states of the European Community effectively spoke as a NATO group on occasions. The boundary line between when the Community was speaking either as a NATO group with the additional NATO members of Norway and others and when it spoke simply within the context of European political co-operation was frequently blurred.

Ireland for its own reasons — which I have always opposed — never fully participated in the European group of neutral and non-aligned nations. This is a mistake and, in the context of a future Europe, post the Cold War divisions and the aggressive military blocs of the NATO alliance and the Warsaw Pact, the position of the Labour Party in relation to neutrality will be vindicated by history rather than, as Deputy Barry suggested, made redundant by history.

It would appear that the rest of Europe are moving to the position currently held by the Swedes, the Finns, the Austrians, the Maltese and the Irish. What we are looking for is some form of security arrangements because as has been rightly said by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, military alliances alone are not sufficient to guarantee peace. There has to be a series of political arrangements between States, sometimes of different cultures and different political systems, based on mutual respect and self confidence for each other which will, in turn, lower the temperature, so to speak, between those countries and reduce the necessity for excessive military alliances of either an aggressive or defensive kind.

The whole area of the CSCE, particularly in the context of changes which have taken place in Europe with the transformation of central and Eastern Europe, alters radically the position Ireland previously held in regard to the CSCE, on matters of security and its relationship within the EPC on the one hand and European neutral states on the other. At some stage this Administration will have to come clean and state clearly what their position is in relation to these matters, what their role will be in regard to those groups, what their negotiating position will be and whether their stand will be outside that of the EPC. If our stand outside EPC is going to be one which reflects clearly Ireland's sense of positive neutrality the Labour Party will fully and unreservedly endorse it.

I have attempted to go over the array of items which have been raised by the two Government speakers. They covered a wide range of items concerning not just the conclusions of the Summit meeting in Dublin but the implications for this Republic of greater political union. I want to repeat the grave fears I put on the record of the House at the outset of my contribution.

Either Government do not have the slightest idea of what European political union means or they are not prepared to share it with the rest of this House. Either one of those positions would be of grave concern to me. Regrettably I am forced to the conclusion that the first position is the reality — the Government do not have the slightest idea of what their position will be, what line they will take and how it will affect the Irish people. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that but they should not keep it to themselves. They do not have, so to speak, to privatise their ignorance and not share it. This House can make a contribution. The three parties on this side of the House are connected to European political movements which have a vision of the future and an idea as to where we should be going, whether it is with the European Peoples' Party, the Left Unity Group or the Socialist Group. I will have the decency not to refer to the vision of the Gaullist-Fianna Fáil Group in the European Parliament.

This House should be fully engaged in democratically formulating on behalf of the Irish people a vision of the future which we can all share and which will strengthen the negotiating position of the Irish Government at the bargaining table when the hard decisions to which Deputy Peter Barry referred have to be made and when the trade off between sovereignty and the benefit of participating in a wider political union have to be measured. The continued failure to involve the Oireachtas in the discussions on the future of Europe is a massive indictment of the political poverty of Fianna Fáil in relation to European development.

Proinsias De Rossa

It is not at all satisfactory that this House is only allowed discuss these issues in the aftermath of Summit meetings. Calls have been made regularly in this House over a long period for a foreign affairs committee which could address, on a consistent basis, the various political international issues. Yet the Government have consistently refused to enable such a committee to be established. Various parties on the Opposition benches sought a debate in advance of last weekend's summit meeting on the issues which would be dealt with. At the time the primary issue was German unification. We were promised that that debate would take place. Yet we still find ourselves in the position of discussing events in the aftermath of the Summit instead of in advance of it.

This must be based on the view of the Government that nobody in this House has any contribution to make on these issues other than themselves or that in some way the contributions made by Deputies in this House would undermine their position.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

They might even be treasonous.

Proinsias De Rossa

It seems extraordinary that slightly less than one half of the elected representatives of the Irish people are effectively precluded from making a reasoned and genuine contribution to the development of our politics both nationally and internationally.

My second point relates to the statements made by the Taoiseach indicating that he has taken on board what I regard as the super power mentality. This must concern us. He said that the Community is the focal point of stability in Europe, the principle source of hope for peace, democratic freedom and economic betterment for all the people of the continent. The continent does not consist of 12 European States. It is extraordinary that the Taoiseach should stand up here and imply that the only states which are democratic and committed to peace are the members of the European Community.

The Taoiseach also referred to new levels of economic growth in Europe and said it can resume its world role of intellectual and cultural leadership.

Mr. M. Higgins

There is a fair history to that.

Proinsias De Rossa

It is extraordinary that the Taoiseach of this small country should stand up here and utter that nonsense. There is no doubt that Europe has contributed considerably in the past to civilisation generally but to get up here and talk about Europe resuming its world role in this regard is utter nonsense and smacks very much of the idea that in some way the European Community is in competition with the United States, Japan and other countries which also seem to believe they have a role to play on the world stage and that the people of this world are just cogs to be manipulated and dragged along as the great leaders of the world proceed with their grand plans.

Mr. Roche

I wonder if Deputy De Rossa's failure to refer to the USSR was a Freudian slip?

Proinsias De Rossa

Deputy Roche will have an opportunity to make his contribution very shortly. I look forward to hearing it as I am sure it will be of his usual high standard.

In relation to this idea of a world role, the leadership of the world and of the Community comprising the sole location of culture, civilisation, democracy and peace I should point out that the Continent of Europe is a mosaic of nationalities, religions, cultures, traditions, a whole range of areas which actually create the kind of progress civilisation can make. To think of it in terms of a single culture, a single contribution, is a denial of that diversity. I am quite certain that Irish people do not want to lose their unique cultural tradition which, in itself, is fragmented into other traditions. Neither do the French and the various traditions obtaining within their community, or the Belgians; one could go on and on. It is important that we bear that in mind. Otherwise we will end up with the type of view that there is a homogeneous Continent which has a single view, representing a single culture, even a single religion.

I heard Deputy Barry speak about Europe being based on Christian principles. Christian principles are fine but there are others equally valid in the religious context which are not Christian. There are also secular values equally valid. We must endeavour to break out of this insularity which constricts our thinking in relation to the values Europe can project and protect, also to avoid the idea that in some way Europe will become a super power in the not too distant future, that in some way this small island will be up there with the big boys.

Obviously it is a coincidence that the Summit on Saturday last — to discuss the issue of German unification with all the questions that poses of the military status of a future united Germany — should have been held in the only neutral State of the European Community. It is also of interest that, while the meeting was called on the issue of German unification, the question of political union emerged at the top of the agenda, let it be said, very much on the insistence of the West German and French Governments, presumably in their interests.

I am concerned that the moves towards German unification are proceeding at a pace which does not allow of adequate consideration of all the issues involved. What will be the military status of the territory currently comprising the German Democratic Republic? Will a unified Germany be a member of NATO? Will it be neutral, non-aligned, or part of a new security network? These are questions which apparently are now left to West Germany to decide. Indeed, the role which East Germany will have seems very vague. We will have a representative of the East German Government in Ireland over the weekend who is endeavouring to establish that East Germany is a sovereign state with rights of its own and will not allow itself simply to be gobbled up, on the one hand, by West Germany and, subsequently, by the European Community; that it does have rights and concerns, must be treated as an equal and not merely as some appendage to be drawn into the European Community because it extends the market somewhat more and provides a few more opportunities for business to develop, for gross domestic product to rise and so on.

These questions are far from resolved. Yet, they have a fundamental bearing on the future arrangements of the entire European Community. They will also greatly affect the direction in which future Community security policy generally develops. I might refer to the following comment made by the Taoiseach in the course of his statement this morning:

I would also like to emphasise that our discussions at present relate to an economic, social and political Community. With regard to security, as I understand the position of our Community partners, it is that they wish the NATO alliance and their membership of it to continue. They also wish to have the US to continue to be involved in European defence through the NATO alliance. It is in that forum that they discuss defence and military matters.

It may be that the Taoiseach was simply trying to be clever in dodging the question of the military aspects of security increasingly on the agenda of the European Community but it seems to me also by his expression "as I understand the position of our Community partners, it is that they wish the NATO alliance and their membership of it to continue" he does not enunciate the Government view of what is their attitude to NATO; whether they will be taking a position that NATO is now redundant as is the Warsaw Pact. It is totally inadequate for the Taoiseach to come into this House and talk about the Summit of Saturday last — which dealt with the question of German unification, its implications, of European political union — and say simply that, as he understands the position of the other members of the EC, NATO should remain in place and so on. That is a totally inadequate response on his part in informing this House of what took place at that Summit. Once again it highlights the urgent need for a forum of this House to address such questions. It is quite extraordinary, for instance, that the parties in this House, certainly my party, over the years have failed to get a briefing from the Department of Foreign Affairs on their attitudes to various international issues. Some few years ago when I requested such a briefing I was told: "We do not do that kind of thing; we are responsible directly to the Government".

Interestingly, in the European Parliament, the Department of Foreign Affairs provide a very useful form of briefing to Irish Members. For instance, the new European Communities Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs provided me with a briefing on the Martin report dated 2 March 1990, a useful briefing, comprising a summary of the position to date. Naturally I did not agree with its recommendations but it was useful information to have. I wonder why it is that our Government refuse to brief Opposition parties severally in this House. There is a total, blanket denial of information resulting in Deputies of this House having to scratch around to ascertain what is going on, to ascertain what is the attitude of Government. We have Question Time, based on the principle that a Minister will divulge as little as he can as rarely as he can. It is just not satisfactory in view of the major changes taking place in Europe, both East and West.

On the economic front the implications of unification of Germany are substantial. Various economic commentators have warned of the danger of an increase in German and European Community inflation levels, the risk of interest rates rising still higher. There are questions related to diversion of investment within the Community and away from existing programmes in developing countries. It would be naive to assume that the so-called integration of the German Democractic Republic into the Community — if the various reports on economic reorganisation and reinvestment are correct — will not involve at least some diversion of funds currently allocated for less developed regions. While the communiqué issued after the Summit on Saturday last stated that costs will be borne by the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic will still be entitled to the same treatment as other member states, as would be their right as a member of the Community. There is no indication of what stance the Taoiseach took on the question of Irish neutrality and our economic interests. Neither is there any indication in the details of the conference or press coverage if any guarantees were provided on the matter.

I am further concerned that the West German Government in their desire to bring about a rapid completion of the unification process are excluding other member states from full involvement in the process. While I note the Bonn Government have pledged to keep the Community fully informed on aspects of the unification process which directly affect or impinge on the Community, how is direct impingement to be defined? Will it be defined by the European Community or by the West German Government? Given the substantial financial considerations involved in that process I note in particular Chancellor Kohl's direct rejection of special financial support from the Community for the processs. This would have entitled the Community to a greater involvement and I suspect the reason behind rejecting the aid was that they did not want to have the European Community interfering, as they would see it, in the process of absorbing East Germany into West Germany.

Let me point out at this juncture that we would be foolish if we allowed ourselves be led to believe that everyone in East Germany is cock-a-hoop about unification with West Germany. Protests have been mounted all over the place on the need to defend the social advances which have been made in East Germany. We should bear this in mind. In relation to the unification of Germany, the fact is there is now an opportunity to replace the so-called Cold War structures with a pan-European system more in tune with the needs of the nineties. For all the talk about the end of the Cold War, and I am very happy that the tensions between East and West have been reduced to a large extent, the reality is that the tanks and missiles are still in place and it is clear that for a long time to come, even if substantial reductions are made in arms, we will have this iron wall of tanks and missiles between East and West.

If this country of ours simply nods its head in agreement with the proposal to retain NATO and the consequent retention of the Warsaw Pact a demilitarised Europe, never mind a demilitarised Germany, is an unreal dream. There is a real risk that the West will conclude that they have won the Cold War and there is no longer a need to do anything other than fiddle around with the edges of the structures which have existed for the past 50 years. This to my mind is a little Europe approach and wastes a unique opportunity to create an outward looking society devoid of the confrontational power blocks which have existed for so long and which would free resources for application to very desirable social objectives in both East and West.

It is important that German unity be seen as a process rather than as an over-night event. In any negotiations it is vital that East Germany be recognised as a sovereign state with equal negotiating rights while the educational, political, social and cultural achievements of the peoples of the two Germanies should not be simply washed away. The nature of a unified Germany is of vital interest to more than just the super powers and Germany itself. It should not automatically be assumed that the old style NATO alliance should automatically take over East Germany and continue in the same outdated fashion. Having been a symbol of power block politics in the past a new demilitarised and neutral Germany within a pan-European security structure can — if a unique opportunity is grasped — become a beacon of hope, peace and disarmament throughout the world.

I wish to refer briefly to the question of 1992 and the concerns which we have to address if we are not to be left on the sidelines in the developments which are taking place. We need to exert influence on a range of issues if we are to be partners in Europe and to ensure that the social constraints on capital which have existed to a greater or lesser degree in various member states up to now should be maintained and strengthened both nationally and at European level. It was for this purpose that the idea of a Social Charter for citizens was promoted in the first place. This Social Charter has been consistently watered down and reduced to a much narrower concept of a Social Charter for workers which does very little to improve their lot. We have now reached a position where an implementation programme is being developed but judging from the debates in the European Parliament and the various compromises being reached at that level it is clear that the employer organisations have far more clout with governments, the Commission and the European Council than do the trade union movement or any of the other social organisations concerned with ensuring people are not exploited by capital.

Another question which needs to be addressed is the question of cohesion. As I understand it, this is an attempt to ensure the under-developed regions of the Community are assisted in catching up with the more developed regions and that Structural Funds are provided by the Community in trying to achieve this. It is clear that the funding provided by the European Community to this country is consistently used by the Government to replace central Government funding for projects already being funded.

I am very concerned about a report which I received recently that the Government have agreed that Ireland no longer be regarded as an objective 1 country, that the Commission has decided to redesignate Ireland at a higher level and the Government have agreed with this. I ask the Government to announce before the end of this debate or at some point soon what their attitude to these Commission proposals is. As I understand it, the Government have already agreed with the proposal that Ireland no longer be an objective 1 country, that the eastern seaboard be designated as an objective 3 or 4 region with the rest of the country being designated an objective 4, 5 or 5b region. This is a serious question and I ask the Government to address it in a serious way as it will have major implications in terms of the assistance this country will get from the European Community so that we do not continue to live on charity, as I indicated elsewhere, but rather are brought up to a level where we can exist as equals within the Community.

The question of European political union has emerged quite suddenly as a major topic for a variety of reasons. Indeed The Workers' Party are favourably disposed towards a federal type European union. The political debate about such a union, however, has not yet taken place here; it has not been debated to any significant extent. We end up discussing summits after the event instead of before they take place. Two months ago the Government refused to allow the formation of a foreign affairs committee. Decisions on the question of European union at the Dublin summit will be made and one wonders about the Government's blueprint going into that meeting. Deputy Quinn suggested that as far as he can see they do not have a blueprint, they do not know where they are going. I suspect that they have a vague idea about where they are going — they will go where the other 11 go and they are not particularly concerned to shape political union one way or the other.

It is important, therefore, that this House should have an opportunity to debate that issue. When will we be informed of the progress being made on developing the Irish Government's stance on this issue? When will proposals be brought before the Dáil so that we can have a thorough debate and tease out the implications for Irish neutrality and for Ireland's status and position vis-à-vis the various Community institutions?

The communiqué issued at the weekend expresses satisfaction with progress achieved so far towards establishing the Single Market, but I cannot share this optimistic analysis in view of the slowness and ineffectiveness of the measures to reflect the social dimension which I mentioned earlier. We do have a European social charter which has been considerably watered down. The texts which have already come before the Council to implement it — for instance, on the companies statute rights of migrant workers and those of transnational companies — are proceeding extremely slowly. There is need for implementation of programmes to assist less developed regions and this will be all the more important in the context of closer economic contact between the Community and the East European States.

Attention to the social dimension is all the more vital given the speeding up of moves towards economic and monetary union. It is quite unacceptable that the process of EMU should be accelerated while social policy aspects of the Community are being more and more ignored. Any attempt to implement EMU without the full parallel development of social policy will prove disastrous for people in Ireland and other peripheral regions of the Community. There is clearly an attempt to consign the social dimension to the status of an accessory to other developments concerning economic matters. This is clearly a retreat from the understanding that social rights and protection for citizens should receive high priority in the 1992 process. It represents a further surrender to the demands of capital restructuring with the likelihood of an expansion of EC companies into countries of Eastern Europe where trade union structures and rights seem to be considerably weakened as a result of the recent changes in those countries. The danger of increased unemployment accompanied by a reduction in the standard of working conditions and wages for workers in member states is very real. There is, therefore, a need for immediate prioritising of these issues by the institutions of the Community.

In the introduction to the Social Charter there is a reference to the social development and social cohesion having the same importance as economic and monetary union. We cannot accept the creation of an Internal Market which will provide even greater wealth for multinationals but tolerate a huge level of unemployment, diminished social rights for workers and even wider income gaps between different regions of the Community.

Finally, the issue of tackling income gaps and differentials in the Community deserves further specific consideration. The report by the NESC on Ireland's performance since joining the EC and our economic prospects after 1992 should have brought a dose of reality to the 1992 debate. Our income per head of population compared to the Community average was 61.8 per cent. Today it is virtually unchanged at 62.3 per cent. Unemployment then was 80,000. Today it stands at three times that figure, while emigration then was negligible and has risen to close to 50,000 annually as we start into the nineties. If this disappointing performance is not to be repeated in the process of bringing about Internal Market and economic and monetary union, then crucial decisions must be taken and fought for at European level.

My understanding is that the European Commission are prepared to allow member states whose average income per head is 75 per cent or less of the EC average to take specific measures to assist industrialisation and development of their economies. This Government and others have shown a remarkable reluctance to take these kinds of initiatives. One must ask why. The answer quite clearly is that they are ideologically opposed to such intervention. There is need, in particular, for the carrot and stick approach to multinationals in that they have failed to develop linkages with Irish firms and to use Irish inputs. Government policy so far has been all carrot and no stick. For instance, why not let the level of grants payable, or even the level of tax such companies pay, be determined by the extent of Irish inputs? I mention this as an example of how the Government are failing to utilise the potential within the EC structures to benefit the Irish economy. It would seem we are in danger of repeating the same ineffectual and incompetent approach to the Internal Market and the EMU.

There is a need to push for a revamped approach to industrial policy within the Community as a whole. We should be pressing for a common industrial policy which could be utilised to boost the development of indigenous industry in Ireland and in other peripheral States which would ensure that we would be less dependent on mobile international investment. There is further cause for concern in the effects on relations with and assistance to developing countries that result from developments in Eastern Europe and the increased economic contact with and investment in these countries by the Community.

In the 1990 legislative programme between the Commission and the European Parliament, there is reference to the inclusion of appropriate resources in the Community budget for co-operation with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The word "resources" is missing in relation to countries in Asia and Latin America. Last weekend's statement from the meeting of the European Council repeats the same emphasis specifying in detail plans for new economic and financial involvement with Eastern European countries adding that it will pursue its special relationship with ACP countries. To my mind there is a clear need to do more than pursue existing relationships with the least developed States. There is a need to agree, as a matter of urgency, an increased financial commitment to these countries to tackle problems, such as recurring horrific famine we see in Ethiopia, and to tackle the endemic underdevelopment of so many African countries.

One case which convinces me that investment in Eastern Europe is already affecting assistance to the Third World concerns a health project sanctioned in Tanzania which an Irish aid agency was due to carry out. This project had been cancelled at the pre-contract stage late last year and despite questioning by me in the European Parliament on the matter and assurances that it would be sorted out, the issue of funding for this project has still not been sorted out. This is a clear indication of the kind of shift in thinking that has taken place with regard to aid.

I wonder, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, how much time I have left.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will be required to finish at about 1.50 p.m.

Proinsias De Rossa

In view of the time available to me, I would like to return to the question of political union. I cannot accept that the preparatory work for discussions on the vital issue of European political union should be carried out solely by Foreign Ministers and that our Parliament may have no input whatsoever into the formulation of policies and strategies on the proposed political union. I hope the Taoiseach can clarify his position on the matter and inform us when it will be debated and decided on by this House.

The Workers' Party have called on numerous occasions for the development of an Oireachtas foreign affairs committee to deal with issues relating to Irish foreign policy, but effectively, we have failed to make any progress in this area. I now argue that there is a need for a specific Oireachtas all-party committee to investigate and deal with the issue of European political union and I call on the Taoiseach to confirm his attitude to the establishment of such a committee and to state whether he is in favour of it. If he is not in favour of it, he should state why he does not regard the Members of this House as competent to deal with such an important issue which has a bearing on the future of Irish people and indeed the future of this Parliament.

Given that the Dáil has been effectively ignored on this issue so far, the immediate question that arises is the role of national parliaments in the event of political union occurring in Europe. To what degree will power be ceded to European institutions? What will be the interrelationship between the Commission, the Council and the European parliament? The fundamental objective has to be a more democratic Europe, but how are we to achieve this? At present there is no democratic accountability to the citizens of Europe. The European Parliament, although elected by the citizens of Europe, must be given real democratic powers. Allowing 15 minutes discussion on the Parliament before the beginning of a summit is not acceptable or adequate. Any move towards political union must go hand-in-hand with the granting of greater powers to the European Parliament and the direct involvement of citizens in decision-making and the protection of their democratic rights to participate from the bottom up.

Political union has also major consequences for Irish neutrality. If the Taoiseach's recent remarks about Irish neutrality being no longer relevant to the Europe of today are anything to go by, there is a vital need for the Dáil and Seanad to be allowed to express their views on how this core political value is to be treated. This does not mean that we must wrap neutrality in cottonwool and decide it is an untouchable dogma or that it must be preserved in its existing form for all time. However, it means that it is a value that is important in the current world and we must address the question as to how it can be a positive tool in the hands of our Government at international level?

Irish foreign policy should be geared towards promoting a debate on the creation of a non-nuclear Europe and how countries like Ireland, Austria and Finland can use their experience of neutrality to bring about the dismantling of the now redundant Warsaw and NATO pact alliances or how Germany could be unified as a demilitarised and neutral country as a model for a future demilitarised Europe. We should look at the question of Irish neutrality in the context of the future of overall European security. Ireland should use its neutral status to work towards the creation of a Common European home and the concept of a "security community" where there would be no expectation or toleration for the use of military force between states on the Continent. It is important to stress the need to set up a committee to examine the various options open to us in the field of European political union. I urge the Government representative who will close this debate to address that question as well as the other matters I have raised.

There are one or two other items I wish to raise before I conclude. First, I wish to address the issue of COCOM which was debated in the European Parliament quite recently. Countries who have signed the COCOM agreement have refused to transfer technology to Eastern European countries. Ireland is not formally a member of this committee and is not formally bound by its rules. Indeed, the Irish Government deny that they apply the COCOM restrictions. However, it is well known that various Government agencies scrutinise exports of high technology equipment to countries who are out of favour with the United States. I know, for instance that Irish customs officials recently refused to allow the export of medical equipment to a Latin American country solely because the US still dislike the political views of that country. In addition, Ireland is heavily dependent on investment by transnational companies, particularly in the high technology area and the effects of the COCOM agreement are also felt here. Subsidiaries of some multinational companies are specifically precluded from exporting their products to the developing countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere with a consequent loss to the Irish economy.

Apart from the military objective, these restraints on free trade were used as a particularly objectionable form of protectionism for home-based industries by the US. They, therefore, had the dual effect of contravening Ireland's neutrality, which is being cited as the reason Ireland is not a COCOM signatory, as well as depriving the Irish economy of expansion opportunities with a consequent loss of jobs in these industries, which continue to be heavily subvented by the Irish taxpayer. This is an important issue. I know the Irish Government have consistently said they are not involved in COCOM but it is clear that COCOM rules apply to industries operating in Ireland. It is time we sought the support of other Euopean countries and I know there is considerable support for the idea of loosening up the COCOM arrangement.

I also wish to comment on our National Development Plan which was submitted to and adopted by the Commission. At the time it was submitted there was considerable concern that it had been developed without any democratic input by local organisations and people on the ground and that the committees which had been established at local level did not give adequate opportunities for input by the people on the ground. I mention this point because the community workers' co-op, who took a leading role in fighting for democratic input into the plan, lodged a complaint with the European Community to the effect that the Government were in breach of EC rules and regulations with regard to people having the right to have an input into the programme. The Committee on Petitions have agreed to accept the complaint for investigation. It is important that the Government take on board that they were wrong in not allowing the type of input they should have had and in creating the monitoring committees which are in place to monitor the implementation of the plan, and are a non-democratic form of monitoring. It is important the Government recognise that and take steps to change it before the European Parliament finds them in breach of EC regulations.

Mrs. Owen

Like other speakers, I welcome the fact that we are having this debate here today. Of course there is a necessity, on the part of the Taoiseach, to have such a debate following a Summit such as we had here last weekend. I would not like to find that in some future debate it is thrown at us that we had an opportunity to have a day long debate about European issues, with our being asked why we are whingeing about the lack of a forum to discuss foreign affairs issues, about our not having a foreign affairs committee. I am laying down the marker that this debate today should not be used in that way by the Minister for Foreign Affairs or by any other Minister on the Government side to say: "Look how wonderful we are, look how much democracy we are allowing you, look how much input we are allowing you." As other speakers have said, a forum is required to debate this matter and this forum of the full Dáil is not a good way to deal with some of the very complex issues that are arising in the changing face of Europe. I would again plead with the Minister for Foreign Affairs to reconsider the decision he made in this House of not allowing us to participate at an effective level whereby we could find areas of common consensus, help to change each other's minds, if that is what we wish to do, and bring about a comprehensive involvement of the Dáil and Seanad in foreign affairs issues.

I gave a wry smile when I read the opening line of the Taoiseach's speech in which he said he invited people to the Summit. That was a little disingenuous. I have a recollection that the call for the Summit to discuss German reunification initially emanated from President Kohl who is quite clearly the very dominant leader in Europe at the moment, and that is to be understood in view of the central position of Germany and the fact that it is the reunification of Germany that is exercising our minds in Europe at present. Undoubtedly, the Taoiseach, in his role as President, invited people.

I took the time last night while preparing for this debate to take out the dictionary and have a look at the definition of "chairman" and of "president". There was a very clear reasoning behind calling the person in charge of the affairs of the Community each six months a president as opposed to a chairman. The dictionary says a chairman is somebody who chairs or presides over a meeting but there is a further definition for the word "president" or the word, "preside". I believe this role is not being taken on now by the Taoiseach, as President. It says a president is somebody who presides over a meeting but it also says it is somebody who exercises control and authority. I submit that the Taoiseach, as President, has been lacking in that role. There is no doubt in my mind that when he took over the Presidency of the EC he hijacked it in a way that was never meant to be done — totally on a PR front. Sadly, it took a number of weeks for any journalist or media person to come out openly and say that that was what was happening. The first person who had the courage to say so was Seán Flynn in The Irish Times. He began to punch holes in the PR facade that was being built around the Presidency.

We took over the Presidency inexorably as night follows day because our country begins with the letter "I". We will take over the Presidency again when the alphabet comes around to "I" again, Italy will follow us and so on. That does not mean that we should just say we have taken over the Presidency and that, therefore, we should do something about it. We have a responsibility to make a mark during our Presidency. I think, when the history books are written, the mark that is being made during this Presidency will not be as great as the hype and the PR job that was done on it will show.

I do not wish to be unpatriotic. There is a sort of unwritten principle that when Ministers go abroad, they represent the people of Ireland: they do not represent Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. For that reason I feel let down. The Taoiseach is representing all the people of Ireland as President of the Community. He is not just representing himself as a person or representing his party or trying to bring up their ratings in the polls. He is representing all the people who voted either for or against the Single European Act and he must not forget that. He must not imagine himself as some monster presidential force moving through Europe. He runs the risk, in doing that, of being equated to a leader in an African country who just went wild in his wish to be seen as some kind of Deity. He has to guard against that because he owes it to the people of Ireland. He must make an impact in this six months that will improve the Community.

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. Owen

Deputy Roche will have his chance to have a go at me if that is what he wants to do. If I am touching a raw nerve, he will perhaps have a chance to expose that nerve further. I am reminded of the huge impact Ireland made in its Presidency in 1984 when the then Senator Jim Dooge was President of the Council of Ministers and was responsible for bringing about the details of the Single European Act, a major moving forward of the European Community. During the 1984 Presidency the Government here were responsible for bringing forward the so-called Dublin plan which was a major response to the famine in Africa. It is still referred to as the Dublin plan and has become part of the working documents and work of the Presidency during 1984.

All of us as Irish citizens want to be able to look back on this six months and see what was achieved, and I am quite sure the Taoiseach would like that, too. I hope, that at the end of the six months it will not be just said that it certainly was a very high profile Presidency, that there were lots of pictures in the papers, a lot of wonderful dinners and so on. It is more than that and we must make it clear to the Government that we want them to act for us.

The Summit that was held last weekend was very important and I am very glad it took place. I do not think it was the unqualified success we are meant to believe it was but on the other hand I will not run it down to the extent that some people would like to. It is a part of the process. During our six months maybe the process will not go as far as we would like and we cannot make any major announcements but that happens to be the way the Presidency works. There is a certain amount of luck involved in the time at which you take over the Presidency of the Community. We may hold the Presidency when certain matters are moving forward very fast. The better Presidencies will deal with the contingencies of the day as they see them when they hold the Presidency. We are all trying to overcome each other with our superlatives that this is the most historical event and that the most fundamental, far-reaching changes have taken place.

One of the best statements I have seen on what has happened in Europe, particularly in Germany, and how it came about is contained in a speech made by the Minister of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany and formerly Minister of Finance, Dr. Gerhard Stoltenberg, at the London School of Economics in February of this year. I would commend people who have not had a chance to see this statement to read it. I find it a very clear expose of Germany in its growth post war. I will quote one piece from it that particularly struck me and that seems to crystallise what has happened.

The dynamics of the process of European unification and the growing attractiveness of free Europe are certainly among the factors that have led to dramatic changes in the formerly socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, changes which we as Germans are noting and following with special hopes and expectations. The reasons which may have been ultimately decisive for the fundamental change in world politics was marked out by Ludwig Erhard, a former longtime chancellor in West Germany almost 30 years ago when he said that "as time goes on, the Russian leaders may arrive at the conviction that they are spending too much money on weapons, on defence. They might realise that they cannot force their people any longer to follow them on this road". Gorbachev has recognised this and has drawn his conclusions from it. This is his historic achievement, regardless of how the situation now develops.

That shows that the process we are now seeing is not something that has happened overnight and that we in the Community can take some of the credit for what has happened. In our efforts to try to get a European Community as it now exists we have helped to make the policies we have created more attractive and this has moved the people of those counties where there were such repressive Governments towards claiming their own self-determination and independence.

The whole question of where we are now and where these exciting, fundamental and far reaching changes are leading us makes us, as Europeans, look to ourselves to see whether we are just mouthing platitudes about how we would like to see things progress and how we would like to see everybody participate in a Community.

I say to the Taoiseach, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, and all the other Ministers of the Government the time has now come to put into practice the very fine speeches which are made in this House and elsewhere, helped probably by the Ministers but written by civil servants who see a policy formation and some bright changes in Europe. Now is the time to make them act. They cannot just remain words on paper.

I refer to what the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, said in the European Parliament on 16 January 1990 in his Presidency address there. He talked about his aims during the Presidency and said: "We must work to make our Community relevant to all our citizens". These are not just words. They have to be acted on. European integration will mean little if it does not bring real and tangible benefits to our people and improvements in their living and working conditions. These are wonderful sentiments, we would all espouse them but they are no use as long as they remain as typed words on the script. They must be acted on. By his actions and the actions of the Government we will judge, and they will judged in future times, as to whether they actually meant that they want to make the Community relevant to all its people.

That is the reason I was so disappointed, and continue to be, at the messages I am getting from the Taoiseach and his Ministers. We should at least have an opinion on what political union means. Margaret Thatcher said at the weekend political union means different things to different people; at least it means something to her and to other leaders in Europe. Let it mean something and let us hear what it means to the Taoiseach and to the Government. I have not heard — and I do not know whether any other Members here have heard — a definition. I was disappointed that even a base document for the Summit of last weekend was not available from the Presidency. That is the difference between chairing a meeting and presiding; a president of a meeting exercises control and authority, takes initiatives and moves forward — even if they are small steps forward.

It was disappointing to read in the very good coverage in The Irish Times of 30 April 1990 that there were no positions stated. The Taoiseach was just there in his role as a chairman making sure that people got their opportunity to speak, etc. His position should be more than that. I hope that before the end of the Presidency and the next Summit he will take a more dominant and initiating role in the job he is doing. All we hear is what political union is not. We do not think the Irish Government are opposed to the kind of common security policy favoured in France, West Germany and Belgium; they are opposed to the plan to give greater powers to the European Parliament. The Irish Government cannot be opposed to giving greater control and power to the European Parliament because they are bound by the law, the Single European Act which we ratified by referendum, which intrinsically includes an increased power for the European Parliament. The Government cannot take such a stand because it would be illegal. The Single European Act was adopted by a vote of the people and not just the select benches of this House. Throughout the Single European Act the role of the European Parliament is referred to, the role of the European Parliament and the co-operation that has to be sought with the European Parliament. Article 7.2 (b) states:

The Council's common position shall be communicated to the European Parliament. The Council and the Commission shall inform the European Parliament fully of the reasons which led the Council to adopt its common position ...

If, within three months of such communication, the European Parliament approves this common position or has not taken a decision ... the Council shall definitively adopt the Act ...

The European Parliament can take a decision and convey that decision to the Commission.

The European Parliament may within a period of three months, by an absolute majority of its component members propose amendments to the Council. If the Council does not agree with those amendments they must come and be answerable to the Parliament. If they are overruling a decision of the Parliament they can only do so with a unaminous decision of the Council. Throughout the Act there are references to the co-operation and the need to go to the European Parliament.

If the Taoiseach thinks the European Parliament is not worth that much and he does not want to include it, perhaps his thinking is coloured by the fact that his members belong to such an insignificant group in the European Parliament and have no greater power and control. The Labour Party belong to the largest group and the Fine Gael Party belong to the second largest group and our members are not insignificant in the Parliament. They play their part in forming opinion, in changing opinion and participating in the relevant debates in the European Parliament forum. Perhaps the Government should look at the membership of their own European Parliament Members in a particular group and not be reported as saying that the 15 European Members, because it is such a small number, have only a marginal influence in the 518 member assembly.

This issue of political union has to be tackled, we have to debate it. For me political union does not mean a subsuming or a subjugation of our independence and our nationality, it does not mean I can no longer say I am an Irishwoman that I have to say I am a European woman. I want to be an Irishwoman until I die. What it does mean is that there can be areas of common policies, there can be fundamental base lines of human rights and civil rights laid down on a macro-European basis that allows the citizens of Europe to feel a unity with each other without subjugating their own nationality, identity and patriotism to their own country. The Single European Act allows for all that. The General Declaration on Articles 13 to 19 of the Single European Act states that:

Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for ... controlling immigration from third countries, and to combat terrorism, crime, the traffic in drugs and illicit trading in works of art and antiques.

There are many similar type clauses in the Act. The concept of political union does not mean subjugation of ourselves into one big polyglot mess. We can continue to have our nationality but we have to face up to the reality that we are in the European Community and there has to be common positions on some things. That is the starting off ground of finding political unity.

I should like to say a few words on the changes which are taking place. They are exciting but they have also exposed the sad underbelly of suffering and repression that has existed in the Eastern European countries. Perhaps some or all of us knew that something like this was going on in these countries but because we did not have access to information we tended to ignore it. Now that it has been exposed we have to assist. This will mean sacrifices on our part. I do not wish — and I join with Deputy De Rossa — that in order to rectify problems and assist these countries that the less well off and developing countries have to bear the burden. We can afford to make some sacrifices. Generosity is what we call for from Europe in solving these problems. Sacrifices will have to be made and prices will have to be paid, but let us make these sacrifices and see them through.

Mr. Roche

Whatever about other Members of this House not being aware of the suffering, deprivation and denial of human rights in Eastern Europe, the last person who can claim to be ignorant of that is Deputy De Rossa, given his long fraternal linkages with the odious regimes that were there. There were those of us in this House who took enough time over the years to travel to Eastern Europe to acquaint ourselves at first hand with those facts. I cannot understand for the life of me why Deputy Owen would find kindredship, but then she must choose her own friends.

At 4 p.m. on Wednesday next we observe the 40th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in the history of Europe as a continent. On 9 May 1950, a Tuesday, at 4 p.m., the French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, announced to a surprised audience that his Government and the Government of Germany were to place their entire coal and steel production under the control of a common high authority, relinquishing national sovereignty in the two industries that made war possible. This is essential. Every time we speak about a union or a move to further union, we will always speak about the issue of sovereignty. As you move from one towards the other sovereignty is the issue you focus on.

Schuman had succumbed to the logic of Jean Monnet who suggested that the best way to resolve the problem between France and Germany was to "invert the problem", not so much to ban war, which is an impossibility, but to surrender to a common community the means of waging war. Out of Schuman's initiative came the Treaty of Paris, the 39th anniversary of which has just passed largely unobserved in this country. The Treaty of Paris established the Coal and Steel Community which was the forerunner and model of the present European Communities.

The modern movement towards a united Europe was born out of the ashes of a Europe that had been devastated by war. A whole generation of people had been subjected to the trauma of war. By the late forties survival was the imperative. The US — it is strange that nobody ever bothers to recognise their generosity in these debates — had, through the Marshall Plan and its encouraging — indeed forcing the establishment of the OEEC, supported post-war reconstruction.

However, by May 1950 another threat was facing Europe. To the East an empire as odious as the facist empire was emerging, an empire which was careless of human rights, contemptuous of democracy and contemptuous of freedom. The ideology of Stalinist communism had crushed any hope of post-war democracy in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Freedom was to be denied still to the people of Latvia and Estonia, the Baltic States and the Balkans. We should remember when we discuss European union and the recent momentous events — here I am at one with Deputy Owen — that we should welcome the recognition of how wrong the ideology in the East was. With the US standing down its armies in Europe at that time and regrouping, to their discredit, in SouthEast Asia following the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu, Europe's destiny was once again placed, somewhat unwillingly in European hands.

The main bulwark against the threat of communist domination over the years was, oddly, not to be NATO. The latent threat of communist imperialism never really threatened the Western democracies because of their long history in democracy. Rather the bulwark against the communist spread was the common Community which had been founded initially to prevent war within Western Europe by the nations of Western Europe themselves. Peace in Western Europe in the last 45 years has been more attributable to the economic and social progress which flowed from the ECSC, from the Schumann initiatives and later from the EC than from standing armies or military alliances, though there is no doubt that standing armies and military alliances played their part in that peace. The essential peace we have enjoyed in Western Europe was due to the fact that nations had sufficient foresight to see that there were common realities that should be striven for. Nations understood that the absolute adherence to national sovereignty had led previously to difficulties and some new path had to emerge. The odd thing is that the communist bloc threat under the new tsars was the initiator in many ways, the external catalyst, of the European peace we have observed. In an ironic way then the march of European unity is historically bracketed to the rise and decline of communism.

The imperative to form new arrangements in EC States came initially as a part response to the growing threat of communist dominance. The malaise which the EC descended into in recent times came from a perceived decline of that threat from the thawing of the cold war. The irony now is that the disintegration of communism in the Central European States and in particular the rebirth of democracy in Eastern Germany has become the new catalyst for discussion on European integration in general and political union between the 12 member states of the EC in particular.

Let me stray momentarily from this main point. There is a domestic irony in all of this in that, while Eastern Europe had become the catalyst for discussions on democratic union in Dublin Castle last week, the awakening of democracy in Eastern Europe had such little impact on Stalin's camp followers at their weekend soiree at the RDS. When the communist parties of Hungary, East Germany, Romania and elsewhere are seeking fig leaves to cover their shame, or new titles, or simply doing the decent thing and disbanding altogether, our very own, The Workers' Party, were still clinging to the dogma of democratic centralism, whatever that means, to the inherently undemocratic device of secret branches within workplaces and to their self-admitted secret cells in our public service institutions. Shame on them. However, I digress somewhat and there will be times and other places when we can consider the proclivities of The Workers' Party——

Mr. Byrne

Maybe the Deputy will expose the members of Taca.

Mr. Roche

——and the De Rossa confessions at the weekend. The events in Eastern Europe and their impact have been comprehensively outlined in the Taoiseach's statement. We are, as the Taoiseach said, living in times of major change. The conjunction of Ireland's Presidency and the events in Eastern Europe and in particular in East Germany have placed the Irish Presidency in a central role in these events. We have been justifiably proud of the role played by the Irish Presidency and every Irish person who is not blinkered by political prejudice must share the pride felt on this side of the House in the energy and statesmanship shown by our Taoiseach in his handling of these events.

I have listened to some of the contributions and particularly the last contribution from Fine Gael, and I think it is a great pity that such a proportion of the time in this important debate has been wasted on invective, abuse and a bigoted interpretation on recent events. However, that is for themselves.

I turn now to an aspect of all these events which I think particularly important, that is the economic implications of the movement we are now witnessing both for Europe and for Ireland. The momentous developments of the last year in Eastern Europe have completely changed the economic conditions on the Continent. The key players in the EC are looking to such former centrally planned economies as Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia as attractive locations in which to invest their capital. Recent days have witnessed the agreement between East and West Germany on monetary union. This will naturally have implications for investment decisions of West German industrialists and financial institutions. East Germany is seen as the gateway to Eastern Europe and this is a decisive factor in the decisions of investors. While we welcome the ending of the partition of Germany, not least because it throws into higher relief the anomaly of Ireland's division, it is to be hoped that German monetary union will not have an adverse effect on this country. In their zeal to unify their country and convert millions of Ostmarks into Deutsche Marks, the Germans must exercise caution lest inflationary pressures rise on the Deutsche Mark. This could force up German interest rates and, because of our close connection with the Deutsche Mark in the EMS, it could also have an adverse effect on rates here and undermine our current economic recovery. We must face those realities.

It should be recalled that over the years many West German companies have established operations in East Germany and with the convertibility of the Ostmark those companies are well placed to greatly expand their power in the marketplace. Those who doubt this should look at the activities of astute Japanese investors in the wake of the collapse of the Berlin Wall last year. Seeing the potential for growth in East Germany, they pumped millions, indeed billions, of yen into West German publicly-quoted companies, particularly companies with connections in East Germany, and drove up share prices dramatically on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. Clearly, they want to have a share in the anticipated rise in the prosperity of West German companies which emerges from the unification of that country.

The German banks are straining at the bit to set their operations in place in East Germany. Institutions such as Deutsche Bank, Commerz Bank and Dresdner Bank, recognising the commercial banking opportunities present by the development of a new market economy, are set to allocate vast resources to the establishment of their presence. Indeed, the Dresdner Bank is so enthused by the prospects that, according to reports in one German newspaper, it has acquired 35 prefabricated branches ready to establish them in East Germany in order to get ahead of competitors. Within the EC the attractions of East Germany and Eastern Europe generally have not been recognised by the Germans alone. Farseeing French and Italian companies and financial institutions have laid plans for projects of their own.

Among the leading EFTA countries, Austria has moved to exploit opportunities within the Single Market and in Eastern Europe. As we know, the country is seeking membership of the EC and I welcome that. I agree that it would be nice to have a second neutral nation in the Community. Already Austria is undertaking a major overhaul of its company law with a view to bringing it into line with EC standards. However, we would do well to be aware of Austria's attention to the Eastern European market. In financial circles one hears that investment is taking place in Hungary by Austrian businesses and banks at an unprecedented rate. As one commentator observed, "they seem to be trying to create an economic version of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire." Perhaps this is excessive, but when one sees the number of Austrian companies with Hungarian subsidiaries up and running some truth is discernible in the statement. Indeed, if one asks a partner of the big six consulting and auditing firms in this city about the situation in Hungary they will say that in that country there is such a heavy demand for the services of the big six firms that finding the personnel to carry out the work is a major problem. While a lot of investment is long term, the trend is clearly established. With low labour costs, no labour shortages, and a central location in continental Europe, the attractions of the "virgin market" are obvious.

In the context of the EC, the reactions of some of our partners are worthy of close attention and, in some cases, are worthy of copying. A common theme in Dutch business circles these days is that their businessmen relish the prospect of German unity. They, quite rightly, see the opportunity to expand their exports to the newly unified state. This draw to the centre of the Community is something about which we should all be aware. With our location on the periphery of the Continent, Irish businessmen will be hard-pressed to compete with their Dutch counterparts for access to the new German markets.

In recent times we have heard countries that share our peripheral location in Europe voice concerns about the levels of competition they will face. Increasingly, for example, Greek and Portuguese politicians and businessmen are coming to appreciate the harsh conditions that will exist in the liberalised markets of the greater Europe. There is a recognition among Eastern European states that, while wishing to avoid exploitation by rapacious foreigners, they are competing now for scarce capital and must make themselves as attractive to investors are possible. That is something we must be aware of. One has only to recall that Czechoslovakia for example, has a higher national income than Greece and a more central location than Greece to understand the concerns of the Greeks about the movements.

For Ireland there is a mixture of pleasure and anxiety at the changes in Europe. As committed Europeans we welcome the moves towards a Europe of peace, co-operation and prosperity. What right-minded person would not welcome a move towards a Europe where peace, prosperity and co-operation will be the order of the day? However, as an island people dependent on exports to survive we must be aware of our changed situation. It is because of the seriousness of the economic implications of German unity that the details in the Taoiseach's speech today are particularly welcome. I regret greatly that Opposition spokespersons have not focused in the debate on those details and teased the matter out further.

More than ever we need to ensure that we have our niche markets clearly identified so that our competitive advantages, where they exist, may be exploited. There must be an appreciation that the competition for scarce investment resources and market share is set to increase greatly. The IDA and other State agencies will have to galvanise their efforts because of this. There is, indeed, a great challenge and one which we cannot afford to ignore. As the Taoiseach said, we can reap the benefits of the new Europe only if we maintain high economic discipline at home and if we negotiate the necessary continuing measures to support the achievement of cohesion within the Community. With good Government, and we have good Government, and with clear heads in common with other Europeans, we have a great deal to gain from the momentous events of the recent past.

It would be remiss of me if I concluded without taking up one or two of the points that have been made. A number of speakers, particularly Fine Gael and Labour members, decried the lack of a committee of foreign affairs. I would welcome a committee of foreign affairs but I wonder why the spokespersons for those parties were so muted in their comment when their parties were in power. We needed a foreign affairs committee then. We had, for example, the movement to the Single European Act and that was when we should have discussed European union and not now. Yet, those Members did not have anything to say about the need for such a committee.

Mr. M. Higgins

That is not true.

Mr. Roche

Another disingenuous comment was made by Deputy Quinn. He commented on the fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who had explained that he was going to a meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, had to leave the House. I should like to put it on record that Deputy Quinn, as soon as he made his contribution, left the Chamber and I do not believe that his excuse for doing that was greater than the explanation put forward by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. M. Higgins

As spokesperson on Foreign Affairs for the Labour Party I should like to begin my contribution by putting the record straight. If the last speaker cares to look at the spring edition of Studies he will see the history of the effort to form a committee on foreign affairs. It was proposed by me when I was in the Seanad.

Mr. Roche

I did not deny that but the Deputy's party did not do anything about it when they were in power.

Mr. M. Higgins

The suggestion that the case was not made during the debate on the Single European Act is factually not true. It would be ungenerous of me, in relation to the debate that is taking place, not to compliment the Government on the logistical handling of the recent meeting in Dublin. It reflected great credit on them and on the officials responsible within the Department of Foreign Affairs and related Departments. However, in responding to the comments on that meeting by the President in Office of the European Council, the Taoiseach, it is important that we should address some fundamental questions. The Taoiseach said that the success of the Council meeting was in having a conterminous development of arguments on the twin subjects of German unification and European political union. It is extremely important today that the citizens of Ireland hear what we are doing to enable a dialogue to take place on the content of this important concept of political union.

The fact is that we have to discuss this in a vacuum and in the absence of a foreign affairs committee or any other related structure. There is also a vacuum in relation to any dialogue that might be going on at a public level. All of that gives a very hollow ring to our use of language in terms of the evolution of European freedom, European democracy or European participation. We are, in many senses, uniquely committed to exclusion from debate on these issues through our parliamentary and public structures.

Debate adjourned.