Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:6 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the response of the Government to the outcome of the Referendum on the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Referendum on European Union.
Dick Spring
Ceist:7 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Referendum on the Treaty on European Union.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the action he proposes to take in conjunction with the other EC Heads of Government following the outcome of the Referendum on 18 June to advance the principles and proposals of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6,7 and 8 together.
The Government are delighted at the "Yes" to Europe given by almost 70 per cent of those who voted last Thursday. The result will give renewed momentum to the ratification of the Treaty on European Union across the Community. With the benefit of hindsight, it is perhaps fortunate for Europe that we chose to hold a referendum a fortnight after Denmark.
The result in Ireland is a further clear endorsement of this country's com mitment to Europe. It is the third European Referendum to have been won by a convincing margin and shows that our people want a place in the front rank of European nations, and clearly wish to further the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe, of which the Rome Treaty speaks.
It was a hard-fought campaign. A lot of deeply emotive issues were raised which had nothing to do with the question on which people were being asked to vote. I have no hesitation in saying that the result is a tribute to the maturity of our people, who could see what the issues really were. They exercised their democratic right to take their own decision. The result vindicated my decision to proceed with the Referendum at an early date, as a matter of national priority, in the discharge of our international responsibilities. I was criticised at the time by various commentators for rushing my fences. How wrong they were. The Irish people have given their answer to that type of criticism.
Partisan attempts were made to misrepresent the Government's case as resting solely on the promise of £6 billion. I always made it clear that that was the Commission proposal, which we fully supported. Indeed, who ever heard of a negotiator entering a negotiation by offering to take less than is being proposed? As I said at the launch of the White Paper, "the outcome may not be exactly as proposed by the Commission". That is quite simply because the final decision does not lie with the Commission.
As for those who claim the Government's campaign was badly fought, this I totally reject and, the bottom line, an excellent result has been achieved, so we cannot have got it all wrong.
We went to considerable lengths to provide information to the electorate in usable form. The Treaty and the clear and comprehensive White Paper, published by the Government, were made available in public libraries and main post offices and was on sale at the Government Publications Offices. It would have cost over £6 million to circulate the Treaty to all households. Having regard to its complexity, its use of cross-references to the other Community Treaties and its availability in public libraries and main post offices, such an expensive distribution could not be justified.
Instead the Government's short guide was distributed to every household. It was described in The Economist as “one of the clearest produced”. A series of other information leaflets was produced. There was a great deal of information published in the media by the Irish Council of the European Movement and by other bodies supporting a “Yes” vote. In the last week of the campaign we established a free telephone information service which dealt with about 4,000 calls from the public. Deputies will also recall the statement of 9 June agreed between the leaders of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy John Bruton, the Labour Party, Deputy Dick Spring and the Progressive Democrats Party, Deputy Des O'Malley, which received wide publicity. My broadcast on Tuesday night last was in response to a widespread demand that I should go on the airwaves to explain the issues simply and clearly to the people.
I would like to thank my own party and all other parties who campaigned for a "Yes" vote for their support. I believe that the statement I made jointly with the other party leaders was important in consolidating support for a "Yes" result. I believe that the standing of politics in this country was enhanced by the responsible action taken on this occasion in the national interest by the party leaders.
My own party played a full part in the campaign, especially in the latter stages. I would also like to pay tribute to the trade unions, the employers, the farm organisations, as well as bodies like the Council for the Status of Women for clear statements of support. Great credit is also due to the Irish Council of the European Movement. We succeeded on this occasion in building an unprecedented national consensus, both at the political level and among the mainstream representative organisations.
However, we never regarded the result as a foregone conclusion nor did we believe the initial opinion polls taken. The campaign here, including the experience with the freephone service, has shown up that there is a deficit of information about European developments. This will have to be improved, both here and in other countries, if the Community, in its desire to make further progress, is to carry the people with it. The proposed Joint Committee on European and Foreign Affairs will no doubt play a useful role in this.
It is very important, as was emphasised by both the Portuguese Prime Minister, who is President of the European Council, and myself at our meeting here on Thursday last, that the commitments made in the European Union Treaty, especially in regard to cohesion, be honoured in full and I will push this vigorously at next week-end's meeting of the European Council in Lisbon. Continuing support for European unity depends on the ability of Europe to look to its smaller and less developed economies, as well as to its core regions.
In short, through this magnificent result, we have succeeded in putting European Union back on the rails. I would hope that when the time for the ultimate decision comes, Denmark will decide to join and we in Ireland would certainly welcome their full participation.
On Thursday last, Ireland demonstrated that it possesses a true European vocation. This will enhance further this country's standing in Europe and should strengthen our negotiating position in EC fora. Europe is not just about a group of countries agreeing to trade and work together. In today's increasingly interdependent world, it is a Community whose aim is to foster peace by increasing prosperity, and to encourage stability by reducing the differences between the various regions.
It is also a noble ideal, involving the deepening of solidarity between the European peoples, while respecting their respective histories, cultures and traditions. It also has the potential for a constructive and unselfish European role in promoting peace, liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and prosperity throughout the world.
The House can be assured that once the Treaty is ratified throughout the Community, the Government here and all Ministers directly concerned will avail of every opportunity to press for its full implementation in the interests of the people of Ireland, of Europe, and of the world at large.
It is appropriate to congratulate the Government on their success in the Referendum campaign. As one of my party spokespersons said, it was a battle between David and Goliath and on this occasion Goliath won. When does the Taoiseach expect the Joint Committee on European and Foreign Affairs to be up and running? Is it proposed to maintain the current restriction in the draft terms of reference of that committee which specifically excludes discussion by that committee of the negotiating position of the Government on EC matters? This would render that committee virtually useless in terms of monitoring developments at EC level. Will the Taoiseach indicate his attitude with regard to current proposals on increased Structural Funds and the intention to maintain the current level of funding for two years, with increases starting to apply from the third year? It appears there will be no increases for at least two years. What other measures does the Taoiseach intend to take, other than the establishment of the European and Foreign Affairs Committee, to increase awareness of foreign affairs among the general public?
The proposed new Foreign Affairs Committee is a matter for discussion between the Whips. Discussion is continuing at that level and I do not propose to discuss the matter further here. Regarding the Deputy's reference to a proposal not to increase Structural Funds for two years, he may be misreading some press reports in that regard. Some member states say there is head room in the present level of resources that could accommodate proposals for Structural Funds without further increases for the next year. I would not regard that as being possible for the second year but for one year it is quite likely. The question of Structural Funds is at the negotiating stage and will be the subject of many more meetings in the future. It will certainly not be concluded at the Lisbon Summit this weekend. We will continue to press for and to support the proposals by President Delors and the Commission for a doubling of Structural Funds for Ireland. That proposal will not necessarily become the victim if there are no increases in the level of resources in 1993, should the summit or the Council of Ministers decide that. It may or may not happen.
I seek information on two aspects. The Taoiseach accepted in his reply that there was an obvious deficit of information in relation to European developments and one to which the electorate reacted very strongly. Would the Taoiseach accept that there is a very strong argument for having two committees of this House, the Foreign Affairs Committee and a separate European committee? It is urgent and important to have a coherent committee for policy development which will allow the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or the Minister in charge of European affairs, to consult with colleagues in this House on a regular basis prior to making the Government's input at senior level meetings. Would the Taoiseach envisage a role for our MEPs in that regard? What do the Taoiseach and his colleagues at prime ministerial level envisage happening to the Maastricht Treaty in the event of the Danes not ratifying?
I will take the latter part of the question first. The question does not arise until all other eleven member states have completed the ratification process. None of us is entitled to take the view that the position will remain as it is today. In relation to the Foreign Affairs Committee, discussions are continuing with the Whips in that regard. I understand there was a proposal to have a special sub-committee to look at the European aspect of foreign affairs. Part of that proposal is that MEPs should attend and make contributions. That is very desirable. The information deficit arises in trying to transmit information about what is happening in the European Parliament, the policies being developed there and the views of members, as well as some aspects of policy emanating from Brussels. There is an onus on MEPs, and on the information service of the Commission and the European Parliament, to improve matters. I have already said it is desirable that MEPs should attend and make contributions.
The Taoiseach has already answered many of the supplementary questions that might have been prompted by these questions. In view of large-scale disquiet across Europe about access to information about Europe and the Maastricht Treaty, and having regard to the fact that the national parliaments of the 12 member states are currently televised and accessible to the public, is the Taoiseach prepared to raise in Lisbon the possibility of having meetings of Councils of Ministers open to the public and to the cameras, so that the suspicion of behind-closed-doors deals can be removed?
There are certain aspects with which I would not agree but perhaps I would agree on other aspects where information could perhaps be improved. Councils of Ministers have to be responsible to their national parliaments and to stand over the decisions they have taken. That is their responsibility. I do not see any disregard for the general public in relation to information. Information emanates from Government decisions. After every Council meeting the media are there to find out what took place and they know the exact agenda. I do not see any great deficit there. There are many aspects of meetings of Councils of Ministers which I would not be in favour of opening to the general public, just as is the case with Cabinet meetings.
Would the Taoiseach agree that with the present Cabinet there would be no need to bring in reporters because the information comes out anyway?
Once the Progressive Democrats are there we do not need television.
Would the Taoiseach agree that some of the so-called information deficit could be corrected by having more frequent debates in this House on the reports produced by the Department of Foreign Affairs every six months and the reports produced by a European affairs committee? The holding of such debates would give a better chance that such reports would come to the attention of the general public, due to the attendance of the press, who frequently do not attend meetings of the EC committee.
I have made my position abundantly clear since I took office as Taoiseach. I said I was in favour of more open debate and I have facilitated Opposition parties with a couple of debates on the Maastricht Treaty. We will certainly consider in the context of Friday sittings how we can accommodate more debates on reports of European meetings and how we can best inform the general public. This matter must also be tackled by the European Commission's information service and by the European Parliament and its members. They have a responsibility to communicate better with the Irish public who are their electorate and who want to know more about what is going on.
Does any contingency plan exist to deal with the situation, which we hope will not occur, if the Danes do not ratify? Would the Taoiseach agree that the Delors II package is a five-year programme and that therefore it is irrelevant that other member states refer to the possibility that there might be head-room for one year since that is tantamount to a rejection of the Delors II five-year approach? Would the Taoiseach agree that the experience of the referendum would suggest that it would be useful if the Government of the day were to publish a Green Paper in advance of the opening of negotiations on the next intergovernmental conference setting out what the Government hope might be achieved, so that public debate on the subject would we well informed from the beginning, rather than having to publish a White Paper to inform people about what is already a fait accompli?
We will look at the latter part of the question. The Deputy appears to be under a misunderstanding. The case being made by member states in relation to raising the level of resources is not being put forward as an argument to reduce any part of the Delors II package. That argument is being put forward by certain member states who say that if there is sufficient available resources to look after the expenditure side of the Commission why should it be raised in 1993. That does not mean that funds would not be available for the Delors II package even if there was no increase. We will continue to look for an increase. The Deputy should not be shaking his head; that is the reality. I am at the table and I know the position. If the Deputy does not want to believe what I said that is fine, but that is the reality.
I discussed this matter with the British Prime Minister in Rio and he made comments similar to those I am making today. We will leave the matter for discussion and negotiation and we will come back to it in this House. I should like to reinforce what I said, the increase being sought is from 1.2 per cent to 1.37 per cent, an increase of .17 percentage points at a time when the projections for the results of economic and monetary union would be for an inclusive 15 per cent of growth in GDP. That is the basis of my argument for the increase, not the question of whether there may or may not be head-room.
May I ask one final question?
Before Deputy Bruton intervenes again may I say, for the information of the House, that I shall be proceeding to ordinary questions at 3.30 p.m. in accordance with our Standing Orders. Deputy John Bruton for a final question.
Would the Taoiseach agree that it is essential that the Delors II package be fully agreed for the full five years before any discussion takes places on enlargement?
The Deputy should be aware that the agreement and decisions taken at Maastricht were that discussions had to be completed on the financial arrangements and financial prospectus before the enlargement topic could be opened.
Deputy J. Mitchell rose.
Sorry, Deputy Garland has been offering for some time.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach two brief questions. First, in the event of the other ten remaining countries ratifying this Treaty will he give a clear and unequivocal statement that he will support the right of the Danes to renegotiate the Treaty? Will he say when he anticipates the next Maastricht referendum will be held?
The next Maastricht Treaty referendum will probably be in France in September. On the question of what I will or will not support in the hypothetical question the Deputy posed, I would remind him that the Danish Government fully agreed there would be no renegotiation of the Maastricht Treaty. They agreed with the Eleven proceeding and that has been confirmed by many other leaders since. I have no doubt it will be the subject of discussion at the Summit in Lisbon next weekend.
The Danish people did not agree that.
The question I wish to ask the Taoiseach arises directly from the supplementary replies just given. Does the Taoiseach mean to indicate that no attempts will be made to facilitate Denmark coming under the Maastricht Treaty? The Taoiseach also indicated there would be no renegotiation but where does that leave the solemn declaration and Protocol 17 for the future?
I clearly stated the decision of the Eleven member states at Oslo. I repeat what I said often in this House, and elsewhere, that the door is open and remains open. We would welcome the Danes back into the fold and we want to see them go ahead as one of the Twelve member states. I will not try to form opinions on hypothetical situations in advance of something happening.
What about Protocol 17?
I am calling Deputy De Rossa. I had hoped to deal with many more questions concerning the Taoiseach's Office today.
The people have obviously given their go ahead for the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty by an overwhelming majority. Can the Taoiseach indicate when it is proposed that this House will ratify the Treaty? Can he also indicate the Government's position with regard to the proposed intervention force which the Western European Union have agreed to establish and if the Government were present, as observers, when that decision was made or, indeed, if application has been made?
The latter part of the question is a separate issue and, perhaps, the Deputy would table a separate question on it. The ratification process will not take place during the current session.
I am calling Deputy McCormack for a final question.
Does the Taoiseach think the Irish sheep farmers who strongly supported the Maastricht Treaty would have done so if the 20 per cent reduction in ewe premiums had been announced before rather than after the referendum?
That is a separate matter.
It is a totally separate matter.