Tairgím: "Go léifear an Bille don Dara Uair."
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The text of this Bill to amend our Constitution is simple, straightforward and limited solely to enabling the State to ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February last and become a member of this Union, as well as enabling the State to ratify the Agreement relating to Community Patents of 15 December 1989, between the member states of the Communities.
The form of the amendment is the same as in 1987, except that there is a reference to European Union as well as to the Communities, and to bodies competent under the Community Treaties, such as the European Monetary Institute to be established at Stage 2 of European Monetary Union. They do not include the Western European Union. The Union consists of three pillars, the Communities, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and co-operation in the sphere of Justice and Home Affairs.
The Community Patents Agreement was signed by Ireland in 1989. Because the Agreement was concluded inter-governmentally and is thus not necessitated by the obligations of EC membership, provisions which conflict with the supremacy of Irish courts would not be covered under our Constitution.
This Agreement will provide an easier and less expensive system of registering patents, valid throughout the Community. It is one of the important measures still outstanding for completion of the Internal Market. Apart from issues of principle involved in ten of our EC partners going ahead without us, it would be ludicrous to place our businesses and inventors under a competitive disadvantage. There have been consistent calls over the past three to four years for this Patents Agreement to be ratified. This is non-controversial, and should have cross-party support.
The Minister for the Environment will deal, in his contribution, with the Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1992, concerning other procedural issues, such as the text of the statement relating to the proposed amendment which will appear on polling cards and in notices to be displayed in polling stations.
The European Union Treaty represents a decisive step in the historical evolution of the Community and in the future shape of Europe as a whole. We are fortunate to be members, and to be in a position to play a full part in all future developments. The Community and now the Union represents one of the most significant achievements of the 20th century, and is poised to play a key role in the 21st century as the most modern, developed form of human organisation.
Ratification will be completed by all our partners before the end of this year, in some cases well ahead of target. We are determined to complete our ratification procedures in good time on this occasion. No insurmountable problems are foreseen in other member states. Denmark will be the only other member state holding a referendum, on 2 June. The Danish Government's campaign has the strong support of industry and business leaders as well as the trade unions. The opinion poll trend is increasingly positive.
The same arguments are being heard throughout the Community, President Mitterand in an interview on 11 April has told the French people: "I am committed to Europe, whatever the risks. The problem is to know if France will commit herself to take part in a great enterprise, from which she will emerge stronger, or if on the contrary, she will be isolated and miss her destiny... I want France to live in a zone of peace, and remain there for a long time, if not forever". These are very much our sentiments too.
Despite concerns on certain issues, the European Parliament, last month urged, by a huge majority, EC national parliaments to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. The Treaty has the support of the ETUC, which represents millions of trade unionists, as well as of employer bodies at EC level, such as UNICE and the CEEP. In that context, I welcome the decision here of SIPTU and the ATGWU, of the CII, the Irish Farmers' Association and Macra na Feirme to urge a "yes" vote.
The largely positive experience of EC membership over the past 20 years should not be obscured by present high unemployment, due mainly to demographic factors. We have experienced, taking the period as a whole, one of the highest EC growth rates. Our per capita income, which has grown by nearly a half in real terms, is now 69 per cent of the EC average instead of 59 per cent in 1973, clear evidence of covergence. We also have 70,000 more people in employment.
Ireland will surely join all our partners and the broad spectrum of opinion across the Community, in supporting the European Union Treaty, to which we will contribute and from which we will benefit. Let me remind people of what is principally involved: the provisions on Economic and Monetary Union and a single currency, which are entirely new; continued, unrestricted access for our industrial and agricultural exports to a Single Market of 360 million people, including EFTA countries, and increased opportunities for mobility throughout Europe for our young people; provisions which strengthen cohesion, with firm commitments on issues such as eligibility, rates of aid from the Structural Funds, the easing of additionality requirements, plus a reduced burden of contributions to the Community budget for less prosperous member states in the Protocol on Cohesion; the establishment of a new Cohesion Fund for the four less prosperous member states; the strengthening of existing areas for Community action such as R & D, environment and social policy; new provisions on education, culture, health, trans-European networks, industry, consumer protection, European citizenship; strengthened co-operation in the fight against drugs, fraud, international crime; strengthened co-operation on foreign and security policy, giving us greater influence than we could have on our own, and which will enhance the capacity of the Union to contribute to peace and stability in Europe and in the wider world; improved decision-making procedures, and a larger role for the European Parliament.
The White Paper provides a comprehensive and factual outline of what is in the Treaty. There is a thorough and objective analysis and assessment of the implications and benefits for this country. We will also be distributing to every household a brief, simple guide to the Treaty and the issues involved.
EMU is the natural extension of the Single Market. Increased co-ordination of economic policies and the development of a single monetary policy and a single currency under European Monetary Union are required, if the full benefits of the Single Market are to be realised.
Irish firms are already successfully meeting the challenge of the Single Market. This is of much greater importance for us than most member states. Our EC partners take over 75 per cent of our exports, which represent 42 per cent of our national output, three times the Community average, and we have a £2½ billion surplus with them. Our exports last year were valued at £15 billion, a 5 per cent increase on the 1990 figures, with the rate of growth of indigenous exports once again out-performing total export growth. This was a remarkable performance, given very difficult economic conditions. All the indications are of increased export buoyancy so far this year, with a £500 million trade surplus in the first two months. These figures demonstrate the benefits of our participation in the Community, quite apart from the direct impact of Structural Funds.
The Economic and Social Research Institute in a recent report concluded that European Monetary Union, taken together with 1992 and the Structural Funds, could raise GNP by an extra 7 to 8 per cent by the year 2000 and increase net employment by 55,000. As a direct result of European Monetary Union, substantially more young people will be able to find jobs in Ireland. While I would not wish to claim that there is no possible downside to European Monetary Union for Ireland, it is up to us to confront the challenges and the difficulties.
The economic and budgetary policies which the Government have been pursuing successfully here at home since 1987, combining financial discipline with structural transformation, and complemented by the progress towards the Single Market and the significant increases in the Structural Funds, have contributed to a major improvement in our economic performance.
Our economic growth rates at close to 5 per cent over five years have been above the Community average, leading again to an increase in total employment after a period of sharp decline.
Our inflation rate has remained in low single figures due to our exchange rate policy within the EMS and to moderate wage developments arising from the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
Our public finances have been brought under control, with the national debt-GNP ratio steadily declining, down 23 points.
Our interest rate differential vis-á-vis the Deutsche-Mark has been reduced from 9 per cent to less than 1 per cent.
Our balance of payments surplus is growing.
A more recent Commission study, "One Market, One Money" suggested that European Monetary Union, with the Single Market, could add at least 15 per cent, equal to four years' growth, to output and income in the EC as a bloc. This will happen in a number of ways. First, economic union implies closer co-ordination of economic policy — with a more beneficial impact on growth and employment than the sum of the individual policies of the State acting alone. This is something which successive Irish Governments have long sought.
Secondly, the primary aim of the single monetary policy, under an independent European Central Bank, will be price stability — the only sound basis for sustainable economic growth and lower interest rates. Under European Monetary Union, the level of interest rates and mortgage rates will reflect economic conditions in all member states, including Ireland, rather than in just one, as at present.
Thirdly, establishment of a single currency will greatly reduce and ultimately eliminate exchange risks and transaction costs — thus giving an impetus to trade, investment, efficiency and confidence throughout the Community. This should be of considerable advantage to a country like Ireland, that has a currency that is not widely known or traded outside of Ireland, and it will be of great benefit to Irish people travelling abroad and to the tourism industry.
Fourthly, European Monetary Union will make the Community one of the largest economic and monetary entities in the world — better able to compete on equal terms with the United States and Japan.
We are also closely linked with the outside world from the point of view of investment, and we should benefit from a liberal Community regime for capital movements.
Increased co-ordination of economic policies will be implemented by means of mutual surveillance and rules on budget deficits and their financing. The crucial rule on excessive budget deficits has been misinterpreted by even informed commentators. Ireland, as of now, meets the criterion that the budget deficit should not exceed a ratio of 3 per cent of GDP. The debt criterion would be breached, if the stock of debt exceeded 60 per cent of GDP and was not sufficiently diminishing towards this figure. Ireland's performance accords with that criterion, as acknowledged by the ECOFIN Council last February. The targets set in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress indicate a firm resolve to maintain that position, not just to ensure our ability to participate in the final stage of European Monetary Union, but also to secure economic well-being. Member states will still be free to set their own budgetary priorities with regard to revenue and expenditure, but they will have to pay due regard to these agreed constraints.
It has been suggested in some quarters that the provisions of European Monetary Union would mean "hairshirt budgets", higher taxes and cutbacks. On the contrary, we will continue to pursue the successful budgetary policies of the last few years, restraining borrowing, cutting taxes, and maintaining public services. But if we were to vote "no", it is then that we would have "hairshirt" budgets with a vengeance. Public expenditure would have to be cut severely, including inevitably social spending; many projects would have to be cancelled; and taxes would have to be raised. Interest rates and mortgage rates would rise substantially.
A major contribution to our economic performance since 1989 has been made by the increased Structural Funds, which are necessary, if we are to have a chance to compete on equal terms. They have enabled us to accelerate nearly all our economic and social development programmes. As the White Paper states, Community assistance has allowed public expenditure to be brought to a level far higher than would otherwise have been possible. Between 1989 and 1993, there will have been £861 million in EC assistance for industry, £165 million for tourism, £562 million for roads and transport, £96 million for water and sewerage, £67 million for rural development, £56 million for forestry, £66 million for environmentally friendly farming, £347 million for other support measures for agriculture, £712 million for housing and education, and £200 million for a joint programme with Northern Ireland to promote cross-Border economic co-operation.
I particularly want to stress the important contribution that programmes like INTERREG can make to life in the Border areas, and the important fillip the EC can give to larger projects such as the Dublin-Belfast railway and the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal, which help to knit the two small economies on this island closer together and which are undoubtedly part of the framework for future peace and prosperity. Customs barriers, and the economic border between North and South, will disappear on 1 January next. The future of Ireland in Europe will be an important dimension of strand two of the political talks that are now under way.
If we want to see our road network improved, our railways maintained, a modern public transport system provided for Dublin, more college places, proper and permanent income supports for our farmers, greater rural development, and more comprehensive programmes and training for the unemployed, and the Social Charter implemented then we will need additional funds. Social problems, like emigration from rural areas in the west, or high urban unemployment, will be difficult to tackle without increased resources. The gross European contribution to this year's budget alone is £2,200 million. In net terms, we get £6 per head for every £1 we contribute; the highest ratio for any member state. Where could much of this be replaced if we voted "no"?
The Commission proposes to double the assistance to the four less prosperous member states from the Structural and Cohesion Funds taken together, so that we could reasonably look forward to receiving roughly £6,000 million between 1994 and 1998. Of course, tough negotiations lie ahead. We will rest our case for our full share on our very high level of unemployment and on our productive use of funds to date, which have resulted in an otherwise greatly improved economic performance. We will not get access to any of the funds attached to the Treaty, if we vote "no". That is the certain position.
Doubt has been cast on the political reality of a further doubling of the Structural Funds in Europe generally. We were faced with a similar situation in 1987, when the doubling of the Structural Funds was first proposed. It was not actually agreed by the European Council until long after the Single European Act had been ratified. Even in 1989, I remember, all the sceptics doubted that we would get £3 billion. It is now clear that we will, in full.
Much has been made of British and German opposition to this size of increase. Britain has been traditionally opposed, but in 1988 it did not at the end of the day use the veto. The German attitude, while often extremely reserved is, in the last analysis, dictated by a broad statesmanlike view of what European unity requires. Last December at Maastricht, Chancellor Kohl played a positive role in persuading Britain to accept, however reluctantly, the new Cohesion Fund, despite the financial burden of German unity.
In this context, I would like to draw attention to a very positive interview in Der Spiegel by State Secretary Koehler of the German Finance Ministry about Ireland's recent economic progress. He was arguing that political solidarity in Western Europe was essential if it was to help the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and that the poorer member countries needed flanking support to reduce differences in development, a process from which all would profit. He strongly defended the Cohesion Fund, to protect the environment and to promote infrastructural investment, as creating better conditions for private investment. He then cited as a specific example a structurally weak country like Ireland, which had not misused its Structural Funds at others' expense but had brought its budget deficit down dramatically since 1986.
The recent comments on the Irish "Convergence Programme" by the ECOFIN Council meeting of 10 February 1992 conveyed a similar message. The Council stated:
Ireland's progress in recent years showed that it was possible to combine growth with stabilisation, and in particular to continue the catching-up process with successful pursuit of monetary stability.
The Council stressed two contributions from the Community: the hard currency option within the EMS, which has promoted adjustment, while the strong growth performance has drawn substantial support from the Structural Funds. From an EC viewpoint, Ireland has proved a model for the productive use of the Structural Funds within a framework of strict economic discipline. I can think of no better platform for pressing for a continuation and stepping up of the current policy approach by the Community and by Ireland.
A number of people have argued that, even if doubled again, the funds will still represent only a fraction of the transfers within a federal state. I strongly urge Deputies to keep their feet on the ground. The EC is not a fully fledged federal state, certainly at this stage. If we make unrealistic demands for huge automatic transfers, based on misleading analogies, we will do our case a disservice. We must proceed sensibly, and not imagine that our partners are going to make an unearned present to us of their standards of living without prolonged effort on our own part. Deputies who attend party meetings regularly with other European political leaders know the truth of what I am saying and that exaggerated demands are purely for domestic consumption. The Government's approach to Structural or Cohesion Funds is not one of a begging bowl attitude, but rather of our entitlements under the various funds of the different treaties. They were set up to help regions like Ireland to cope with increased competition in a more closely integrated Community. They are part of a deal that benefits all member states, including the wealthier ones.
Any suggestion that Ireland will not be a full member in future of the Single Market and of the Union would cause a major loss of investment confidence with devastating consequences for jobs. Who would invest to cater for a market of 3.5 million, when opportunities abound elsewhere in a market 100 times that size?
The Treaty on European Union has overwhelming support among all Europe's main political parties and groupings. All the mature socialist parties in Europe, including the British Labour Party, are now firmly pro-European, and many leading political figures, who have been a driving force behind European Union, such as President Mitterand and President Delors, come from a socialist background. Even the Danish Social Democrats, who long held deep reservations about European integration, now back ratification of the European Union Treaty as "imperative". Surely it is now reasonable to ask for a clear statement, not provided yesterday, of where the Labour Party here stand on a "yes" or "no" vote for Europe, especially as they have time and again, with much less justification, accused the Government of indecision. They have dithered and dallied for long enough. It is time to come off the fence and to show that they have a clear view supported by all their Deputies on this major issue.
The EC has always been socially progressive, but especially so in recent years. The social dimension is seen as an essential adjunct to the Single Market. Ireland did not opt out of the Social Charter.
At the Strasbourg European Council in December 1989, eleven of the twelve member states adopted the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers. The charter is a political statement of intent and covers areas such as the right of freedom of association, equal pay, working conditions and conditions of employment. Early in 1990 the Commission launched an action programme to implement it. Because of slow progress the Government joined at Maastricht with ten other member states in an agreement on social policy which increases the Community's capacity to act on social matters. The adoption of the Agreement by the Eleven was necessary in the face of the unwillingness of the UK to go beyond existing Treaty provisions on social policy. The Agreement is linked to the Treaty by a protocol. It has treaty effect in so far as the eleven member states are concerned. The Eleven will have full access to all of the institutional machinery of the Community, including the Court of Justice.
The Agreement among the Eleven on social policy, along with Britain's opt-out clause in European Monetary Union, provides an interesting example of what a group of member states can do if they wish to go ahead with the development of European Union. It requires no great imagination to see this precise arrangement as a model to implement the Treaty on European Union if Ireland does not ratify. Another clear example was in 1979, when we joined the EMS and Britain stayed out.
There has been much discussion, though narrowly focussed, in recent months about the rights of women. The Community has been enormously positive for the rights of women. Community law has been the main inspiration for our domestic legislation on equal pay, equal opportunities and equal treatment, with regard to access to employment, training, promotion and working conditions, as well as in social security. Social cover has recently been extended to part-time workers, as well as protective labour legislation. Further progress will be made under the European Union and the Social Charter.
More than rights and freedoms are involved. Many of these rights have important financial consequences. For example, we are now paying back money for equal treatment in the social welfare system, when a previous Government failed to fulfil their obligations to women under EC law between 1984 and 1986. The hypocrisy of some members of that Government, now posturing as champions of women's rights, does not impress the women of Ireland. Incidentally, the cost of this Government back money to Irish women is £22 million, which we provided in the 1992 budget, with further significant payments due in 1993 and 1994. I am confident that the women of Ireland will ensure by a "yes" vote that they will not be downgraded to second-class European citizens.
The Community has been equally positive with regard to the rights of workers, encouraging participation in decision-making, protecting health and safety at work and generally encouraging social partnership. Access to the European job market will be increasingly important, regardless of economic conditions, for our young people, providing them with opportunities for mobility and job experience and acquisition of working languages. Over 22,000 students in regional technical colleges and vocational education committee colleges receive direct grants and 1,000 research students will benefit this year from ERASMUS grants for study abroad. FÁS programmes, which will have trained more than 200,000 people from 1989-93, also receive indispensable EC funding.
In view of all this, it is inconceivable how any self-respecting socialist could sit on the fence with regard to the European Union Treaty, let alone oppose it. There is no middle way, only a vote for or against. Support should not be conditional on the resolution of this or that individual issue. This debate is a good test of whether parties in this House are able to see the wood from the trees, the broad European issues from the strictly domestic ones.
The only significant party in Europe to oppose the Treaty is the French Communist Party. It is ironic that, despite all their numerous name changes, the Deputies now calling themselves Democratic Left find themselves still aligned with their former allies in the European Parliament, the French Communist Party, in outright opposition to the European Union Treaty. Surely the time has come to abandon old style hard left opposition to the EC which is a throwback to the Cold War.
There are interesting reports that many of the European Greens have a more positive attitude to the European Union Treaty. The Green Group of the European Parliament, as quoted in Agence Europe on 24 March 1992, called on the European Parliament as well as national Parliaments to ratify the Treaty, having sought from the European Council an agenda to repair alleged flaws in the Treaty. In particular, they want a further IGC at an early date and a draft European Constitution, an idea that does not much smack of outright opposition to European Union. The traditionally pro-European French Greens at their executive meeting ten days ago decided on a qualified “yes” and to distance themselves from the hardline left calls for a renegotiation. This is in great contrast to the unconditional opposition of the Greens in Ireland.
The Community has been a positive force for the protection of the environment. Community legislation has provided norms and standards which we now apply. The £1 billion investment required between now and the end of the century in Ireland to clear up pollution on farms, to improve the quality of rivers and lakes and seashores, to prevent air and marine pollution, depends on a significant contribution from the Structural and Cohesion Funds. The only way we can accelerate improvement of our environment is as full members of the European Union. Much concern is felt about the hazards of nuclear power. Who, if not the Community, is going to help the countries of Eastern Europe to make safe dangerous nuclear power stations; and to clean up the appalling pollution left by the State run economies? I would challenge the Green Party to explain how our environment or Europe's environment will be improved or enhanced by non-participation in European Union. Will opponents also explain to farmers how, without the Common Agricultural Policy they would fare on world markets where prices for meat, grain and dairy products are one half to one third of what they get in the Community?
Neutrality is not an issue. No decisions are required under this Treaty about participation in a common defence policy, or what shape that might take. The Treaty does not require us to change our policy of non-participation in military alliances. Unanimous agreement will be needed at any future intergovernmental conference which would then require to be ratified, by referendum of the Irish people, before there could be any change.
The whole context of European security has changed. The system of opposing alliances no longer exists. The old military doctrines are becoming obsolete. The crucial point is that other European countries with a tradition of neutrality — Austria, Finland and Sweden — are seeking membership of the new European Union on the basis of the Treaty. It would be extraordinary if we, as members of the Community for 20 years, were suddenly to opt out, while those who did not join in 1972 because of their neutrality, have now decided to come in. As the Belgian Foreign Minister put it recently, the Union cannot require membership of a defence community, but neither in the context of a developing foreign and security policy can the eventual formation of a defence arm be ruled out. We have always accepted that possibility.
The doctrinaire arguments being put forward here by opponents of the Union Treaty are unchanged since 1987 — as if the peaceful revolutions in Eastern Europe had not happened. Conditions are much more favourable than they were even five years ago for the implementation of the benign, non-aggressive type of policy based on agreement, co-operation and a broader concept of security. Our tradition and that of other like minded smaller European countries has much to contribute to the European Union of the future.
Much is made of differing longer term agendas for the Community. Opponents of the Treaty also have their wider long term agendas. Many of them have on every possible occasion since 1972, opposed Irish membership of the Community and our participation in the further progress of the Community. Others not merely oppose the European Union Treaty, but have a wider political and economic strategy, involving repudiation of the national debt and abolition of the main sources of revenue, designed to make Ireland a revolutionary model for countries of the Third World, of which we would then presumably be an integral part. Others from a strange mixture of Republican and Marxist philosophy stand on grounds of national sovereignty, forgetting that countries like Albania and North Korea are the most sovereign in the world, with few if any obligations to others, and corresponding poverty to go with it. Yet others continue, as in 1987, to perceive threats, however remote, to one aspect of fundamental rights and regard this as taking total precedence over all other aspects of the nation's welfare.
However, even though I profoundly disagree with them, the opponents of the Treaty are doing a service to democracy in ensuring that all possible fears and concerns are fully debated, before a decision is made in the full light of all the foreseeable consequences. Those who campaign conscientiously against the Treaty are mostly patriotic people by their own lights. The debate will contribute to a new synthesis of wisdom and public knowledge about Europe. When we were in Opposition in 1986, we argued for a referendum on the Single European Act. It was healthy that one was held in 1987. There has been no argument about having a referendum now, and similarly in the future, if further fundamental changes in the Community or in the Union need to be approved. Regular consultation of the people is the foundation of the strong pro-European consensus that we have.
The Treaty also expands and formalises the Community role in development co-operation, and the budget proposals for 1993-97 propose increased aid, which Irish development agencies such as Trocaire and Concern will help channel to developing countries.
Article 128 of the Treaty, included at Ireland's behest, offers great potential to enrich our cultural life. It stresses that the EC will respect the national and regional diversity of the different cultures of Europe, while also emphasising our common cultural heritage. The EC can take action to assist cultural initiatives of European significance in co-operation with member states.
I have not been able to enter into detail on many important subjects, which my colleagues will deal with in much greater depth. The European Union Treaty represents an important achievement as well as a valuable opportunity. From what other source could we expect brighter prospects for the future? How else could we ever hope to achieve in due course average European living standards coupled with the highest quality of life? What other route offers greater hope for peace and stability both in Ireland and Europe, transcending the historic conflicts and oppositions of the past? I look forward to a strong campaign concentrated on the key issues, and I would like all parties to give a clear signal that Ireland is determined to remain in the centre of future European development. A good result would enhance the status of Ireland in Europe and at the negotiating table. I am confident the Treaty will receive the support of an overwhelming majority of the Irish people.
