Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Sep 2002

Vol. 554 No. 4

An Bille um an Séú Leasú is Fiche ar an mBunreacht, 2002: An Dara Céim (Atógáil). Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002: Second Stage (Resumed).

Atairgeadh an cheist: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Just short of 30 years ago Ireland joined the European Economic Community. Some 50 years after independence, we were still widely seen as an adjunct to Britain and not without some reason. Most of our trade was with Britain, our currency was sterling and we had no control or influence over our interest rates. Our industry was very basic. We were hugely dependent on agriculture but could do nothing to influence international agriculture prices.

We had little enough influence in European or world affairs. We had no European Commissioner and there were few, if any, Irish people working in European institutions. There were no international meetings in Ireland. The North had descended into violence and disorder, but there was no prospect that Ireland could bring an American, European or international role to play to help build peace.

Within the country women were banned from the workplace if they got married. Equal pay for equal work was just a dream and we had no equality legislation. Our environment had no effective legal protection. Our cities and towns were smoggy. It could take two or more years to get a telephone having paid a deposit. For decades motorways had been built in Britain, France, Germany and Italy but in Ireland we just had a few miles of dual carriageway and many humpback bridges, bad bends and accident blackspots.

A lot done, more to do.

Exactly. People of my age and older will remember being taught in school that Ireland was "a small peripheral country with no natural resources". The lesson of geography was that we were poor and peripheral.

Our history lesson, however, since 1973 has taught us the opposite. Politically, socially and economically Ireland has gained much from European membership. In short, one could say it was then that we had we had no money, power or influence. We have been there already and things have changed for the better in the 30 years of our EU membership.

When we were accepted for membership of the EEC and we voted strongly in favour of it, we started a long-term journey of development and progress in all areas of national life. It was a great act of vision for Irish voters in 1973 to reject the "poor and peripheral" destiny for Ireland. It was real leadership on the part of two Taoisigh, Seán Lemass and Jack Lynch, to bring over a decade of hard work since our first application for membership to a successful conclusion.

What about Dr. Garret FitzGerald?

Yes, but I am talking about the two Taoisigh involved in our application to join. I am happy to acknowledge the important role Dr. FitzGerald played as Foreign Minister and in other respects.

We started to build the economic and political standing we have today. We moved out from the shadow of Britain in terms of trade, our currency and international relations to the point where we could reach a fully mature relationship with Britain in the Good Friday Agreement, which is very much in the context of equal EU membership.

We built more of a role for ourselves in the world, our economy developed and we diversified trade. We built up jobs that rode on the crest of international markets rather than struggled in the backwater of a dependent relationship with Britain. We developed our education, skill levels, infrastructure, environment and social protection. We began the long march towards real equality for women in the workplace and in a wider society. We found again that we were a European nation in a fully developed sense with balanced economic and political relationships across Europe. We took our place, a natural place, at the European table where decisions were worked through and shared for all member states of the European Union.

In all this we showed we had not forgotten that in each millennium this island of ours was never locked and inward looking. We were always fully open and European – in pre-history, before Christ and after the Romans. The Irish were at the court of Charlemagne. We were part of the European theatre in the centuries of political revolution. Our struggle for independence inspired others across the British empire and beyond.

If we had lost a way to express this heritage fully by the late 1960s, then our membership of the European Union brought us back to where we have always belonged, the heart of Europe. Since then we have played our role in building European institutions to resolve the protracted conflicts of the 20th century, culminating in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain.

As we all know, the last 30 years have not been a story of smooth progress onwards and upwards for our economy. We messed up our economy in a big way in the 1980s. Membership of the European Union did not guarantee success. It did not save us from ourselves and it never could. It was never the case that the European Union would run the country for us. It still does not and it will not do so now or under the Nice treaty.

The Tánaiste was part of the flag-carrying in 1977.

I ask the Deputy to allow the Tánaiste to speak without interruption. We have only a limited time for debate.

I am not assigning blame to anyone. I am talking about all of us as a nation.

We have key areas of national policy where we have to take responsibility for getting it right or wrong ourselves – for example, the national finances and tax and health policies. Fortunately, we have recovered from our self-imposed economic failure after many difficult years. The European Union was a great help to us while we corrected our national finances, worked hard to be competitive and brought in the right tax and employment policies to encourage investment and enterprise.

The process of recovery from mass emigration and mass unemployment was faster and more sustainable by virtue of the help we received from the European Union. Our full and active membership of the EU has meant that we can attract jobs and investment. We are part of the European Single Market. We helped shape the rules of that market and we share its benefits and responsibilities. Without it Ireland would never have seemed as attractive a place for international investment and Irish businesses would never have been able to grow jobs and look forward as they have since 1973.

It is very difficult to underestimate the importance of our decision 30 years ago to join the EEC, as it was known then. It has always been important for us to actively engage with Europe and the people chose to do so in three subsequent referenda. The "No" result in last year's referendum on the Treaty of Nice, however, called into question the direction of our development since 1973. It would have been wrong to reject, ignore or undermine the fact of that result and the Government has listened to what it meant.

Many people did not vote last year. I accept that they may have felt they did not have enough information to make an informed decision and that they believed the Government should have done more to give them real reasons to vote "Yes". Some people may have voted "No" for that reason and I accept my part of the responsibility for that, along with the responsibility to act in the national interest in response to it. As political leaders, members of the Government were reminded by last year's vote not to presume that our proposals will receive the assent of those we serve. The message sent out by last year's result has been received in this House, in Government Buildings, in Brussels and in other European capitals.

A majority of a minority voted last year against a treaty designed to extend membership of the EU to more countries and to offer to them some of the opportunities we have enjoyed for 30 years. I do not think the Irish people wanted to say "No" to new member states last year, as this would involve turning away countries that suffered for 45 years under internal totalitarian rule, dominated by an external superpower and prevented from acting in accordance with their European heritage. I do not think we wanted to say "No" to the jobs and investment that arise from our participation in the Single Market. I do not believe we intended to say "No" to our influence in the community of nations that is the European Union. I do not consider that Irish people want a sudden about turn in our European role. If we reject the Nice treaty again we will, in effect, reject all these things. This is how such a decision would be viewed among our fellow member states, among applicant countries and among international investors in Ireland.

The job of bringing jobs to Ireland will be harder if we vote "No". Some on the "No" side claim this is not the case or that it ought not to be so, but the world will make up its own mind. Whether we like it or not, a rejection of the treaty will be perceived negatively rather than positively for Ireland.

A "No" vote would be an immediate slap in the face for applicant countries. Analysis conducted for clients of Citigroup, one of the world's largest banks, recently found that a "No" vote would be damaging for applicant countries, as it would begin to cost them millions from the day after the referendum. This is not a theoretical damage that would begin later, but right away and in real money terms. The cost of borrowing would increase for such countries, as investors would see their delay in joining the EU as making their government bonds less attractive. Analysts for Citigroup pointed out that applicant countries would be delayed from joining the EU until 2006 or 2007, instead of 2004. This view outside Ireland contrasts with that of "No" campaigners here that a "No" vote would not delay or stop new member states joining. The latter view is simply wrong and is not accepted by the applicant countries. It is not shared by observers who make their living by judging international markets.

The Citigroup analysts believe a "No" vote would be bad for Europe. They told their influential audience that a "No" vote would be viewed as another example of the EU's failure to pursue difficult matters, a failure which has usually been negative for the euro. The sum total of a "No" vote would be a reduction in new jobs for Ireland, a delay and an immediate cost for applicant countries and a negative signal to send to Europe. This would not represent a great achievement for Ireland. We can hope that analysts will not be hard on us and that they will talk about things other than money, but we know that they will as that is the way of the world. We can choose to work against the world or to make it work for us. A "Yes" vote will be a decisive confirmation that we want to make the world work for us, rather than trying to work against it.

In the forthcoming referendum, we can choose to tell the countries of central and eastern Europe to wait to join the EU while we try to ensure Europe does things our way. We can try to assure them that the wait will not be long or costly, but that would not be fair, responsible or credible. By 1973, Ireland had waited more than ten years to be allowed into the EEC, as a result of a political row between France and the United Kingdom. We had done nothing wrong, we had offended no one and we were not a threat to anyone. Our path was blocked and our progress held up, however, for reasons that had nothing to do with us and were outside our control. It was unfair and it cost us at least ten years of development. Are we willing to do the same to applicant countries today? I cannot believe that we want to impose on them the frustration of the delay that was imposed on us. They have done nothing wrong, they have not offended us and they are not a threat to us. How can we impose on them a cost and a delay for reasons that have nothing to do with them? There is no point in pretending that would not be the real effect of a "No" vote. When they eventually join, what will we say to them as we try to develop trade, political and cultural links? I do not believe, as I have said, that the people want to do this to the countries waiting to join the Union.

Ireland has changed and grown since 1973, just as the EU has changed and grown. We have worked in a Community that has grown to 15 member states. The voting rules have changed, the Single Market has been brought in and the euro has been introduced. We have lost nothing and gained a great deal as a result of these changes. There have been rule changes before, new member states have joined and new markets have opened. There have been constant challenges in pursuing our interests in managing the Common Agriculture Policy, as well as regional, monetary and social policies. The changes brought about by the Nice treaty will not change fundamentally our ability to secure our interests in Europe while contributing to the welfare of all. They certainly will not wipe out our national identity. After 30 years of EU membership, has Ireland ceased to be identifiably Irish? Has the Netherlands lost its identity during almost 50 years of EU membership? Has Portugal ceased to be Portugal since 1986?

Eurosceptics and "No" campaigners claim that the EU is a conspiracy by the large powers, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, that wish to dominate all other member states. They argue that the Nice treaty is their method of finally getting their way, but this is simply not true. Why have France and Germany waited since the 1950s to lord it over everyone else? Why have they given up their second commissioner? Why do they accept voting weights that are under weight relative to their large populations? Why do they share decision making with us at all? Is it not absurd to claim that after 30 years of successful membership, we are about to lose our identity and succumb to the power of large states? It is absurd and wrong. It cannot be defended by reference to the contents of the treaty.

I could continue for a long time refuting the false claims and myths put about by those urging a "No" vote. Fundamentally, however, people are looking for positive reasons to vote "Yes". They want to hear from the Government why we should approve the changes in the Nice treaty. They want to hear about the real consequences of voting "Yes" or "No". They do not want exaggerations or myths. In effect, voters are asking for reasons to vote "Yes" and saying that they will think about them seriously. I can give three such reasons.

First, a "Yes" vote will help us create more and better jobs. Ratification of the treaty will help jobs, but a failure to do so will hinder job creation. A bigger Europe will mean more opportunities for employment, trade and investment, if we continue to work hard and stay competitive. It sends a positive signal internationally. Second, a "Yes" vote would be a boost for others in Europe who were denied for decades the opportunities and freedoms we take for granted. The hallmark of Irish people is hospitality and generosity. At the heart of our identity are the values of solidarity and fair play. We have never sought to progress at the expense of others, we have never blocked progress for other people and we have never refused to help. Third, if we vote "Yes" we can make the EU work for Ireland and for Europe in the rules agreed in the Nice treaty. We have nothing to fear from these changes; we have nothing to lose and much to gain. We have made a fair and balanced deal with other member states to protect our national position in key areas such as taxation, voting weights, equality between members as regards commissioners and protection of the rights of member states that are not involved in enhanced co-operation. The protection of our military neutrality has been made clear. In this referendum, the Government is offering the people the ability to make absolutely certain that only they can decide if Ireland is to join a European defence programme at any time.

As we face this momentous decision, I urge people to inform themselves by listening to the debate and by reading the information. I urge women, particularly, to think of the progress that has been made and the help we will continue to get from our membership of the European Union. I ask the electorate to reflect on where it wants Ireland to go after 30 years of membership. I call on voters to trust their instincts for an open, confident and caring Ireland and to vote "Yes".

Tá áthas orm seans a fháil labhairt sa díospóireacht seo ar an Dara Céim den Bhille Um an Séú Leasú is Fiche ar an mBunreacht, 2002. Tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go mbeidh an Stát ábalta conradh Nice a dhaingniú i dtreo is gur féidir líon na stát san Aontas Eorpach a mhéadú go luath. Tá sé iontach tábhachtach go gcaitheann saoránaigh a vóta sa reifreann seo. Tá súil agam go nglacfaidh muintir na hÉireann le conradh Nice an uair seo le tromlach mór. Déanfaidh sé maitheas dúinn mar bhallstát den AE má labharfaidh an tír le guth láidir aontaithe ag glacadh leis an gconradh; ní amháin go ndéanfaidh sé maitheas do mhuintir na hÉireann ach déanfaidh sé maitheas do na stáit atá ag iarraidh theacht isteach san AE. D'éirigh go maith linn san AE agus is féidir linn an seans céanna a thabhairt do thíortha eile.

This is an important debate dealing with legislation that will allow the people to revisit the ratification of the Nice treaty, which they rejected by way of referendum last year. It is most important that there is a high turnout in the forthcoming referendum, that as many citizens as possible make a statement on this treaty which has wide implications, not alone for the future of this State but the future of the applicant countries and the European Union. It is incumbent on all EU citizens to inform themselves as comprehensively as possible on the Nice treaty and its contents.

It has been the trend that Irish people have cast their votes on EU treaties in line with the views of the politicians they support. This was clearly not the position in the previous referendum. There was a widespread view that the implications of the treaty needed to be more fully explained. The major responsibility falls on the Government but it is also the duty of all politicians to inform themselves and the electorate of the true facts surrounding the treaty.

The debate must also take an overview of the strategic interests of this member state, the EU and the applicant countries. Votes should not be cast in the context of narrow sectional interests. Some people on the "No" side hold the view that if a "No" vote is carried on this occasion, things will carry on as before. That will not be the case. Neither should the referendum on the Nice treaty be used as a vehicle to punish the Government for the deceit that was a feature of its general election campaign. There will be an opportunity to do that in the local and European elections in 2004 and in the forthcoming general election, whenever it takes place. In this referendum we are being asked to make a statement on the national interest. Strong feelings which may exist about issues unrelated to the treaty should be put aside.

While subsidiarity has been for a long time a buzz word of the European Union, there is a communication gap between the institutions of the Union and its citizens. This is an unhealthy situation and, if not rectified, will seriously inhibit progress. The institutions of the European Union have an urgent responsibility in this regard. The European Union Bill produced by the Labour Party provides the basis for much greater democratic accountability for Ministers attending the Council of Ministers.

As a result of enlargement and inward migration from central and eastern European countries, a perceived threat to employment and pay and conditions has arisen as an issue. It is regrettable this issue has been introduced by the "No" side. It is reassuring that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is satisfied that there is no significant threat to employment or pay and conditions. Mr. David Begg, General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, is on record as saying it is unlikely that large numbers would move to Ireland from central or eastern Europe. He went on to say that research has shown that Germany would be the prime destination for 37% and Austria for 24% of would-be emigrants. The popular potential destinations for Poles and Hungarians are the United States, Canada and Australia. Mr. Begg also pointed out that surveys showed that short and medium term labour migration would be more common than permanent emigration. Two thirds of all potential emigrants declared that they did not want to leave their country on a permanent basis. Congress is on public record as saying that Ireland needs a coherent immigration policy that would match the number of people coming here with the economy's capacity to support them. David Begg stated that fears about immigration could not be brushed aside but the important question of a coherent immigration policy should not be confused with negligible migration from accession countries. It should not be, he warned, used as a weapon in the Nice treaty debate.

In August 2001 I was a member of a parliamentary delegation led by the then Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Pattison, to Slovakia. We spent a good deal of our time explaining that in spite of the rejection of the referendum to ratify the Nice treaty, the Irish people were not opposed to enlargement of the European Union. In turn the Slovakians impressed upon us the great efforts they were making to be ready for membership of the EU. There are similarities between Slovakia now and Ireland of 30 years ago. Slovakia, like the other applicant countries, has much to gain from EU membership, but so too does the European Union.

There is no doubt that enlargement will happen if Ireland rejects the treaty for a second time. The European Union will find another way. If this is the case, however, how will the applicant countries look at us and how will the other member states react? There would be a loss of goodwill towards Ireland that would take a long time to get over.

During the summer of 1972, I spent weeks campaigning for a "No" vote in the referendum on EU entry. A great fear on the left at the time was the danger to the future of our traditional industries. I was on the losing side but unfortunately those fears were realised in significant part. In spite of that, however, I have long been convinced that membership of the European Union has contributed to social and economic development that would have been impossible had Ireland remained in isolation. I do not accept that voting for the ratification of the Nice treaty is damaging to the national interest.

The greatest monument to the European Union is that since its inception there has not been a war within its borders, in contrast to the two major wars that took place in Europe in the course of the first 45 years of the last century. There is, however, terrorist activity, organised crime, violence and a worrying level of fascism within the borders of the European Union. For all that, the potential to deal with crime on a co-operative, cross-border basis, through the EU, presents the best possibility of success. Those of us on the left must focus on enlargement of the Union and press for policies that provide for sustainable development.

Ireland should make a strong, confident statement taking into account the fact that we have been successful within the EU. That success will continue and now we have the opportunity to provide for potential member states to benefit in the way we have done. There are many red herrings in this debate and people have strong views on issues that are not directly relevant but, in terms of enlargement, there is only one honourable and proper way to go.

I am glad of the opportunity to address the House on the legislation to enable the holding of the referendum on the Nice treaty which will come before the people shortly.

I cannot let pass the statements made by the Tánaiste in the opening stages of whose speech we saw revisionist history. When talking about the successes of the European Union it is remarkable that any Tánaiste could produce a script which neglects to mention probably the greatest European that this country has ever produced, Garret Fitzgerald. It is sad that she should address the matter in that way going on to say, "We messed up our economy in a big way in the 1980s." If I recall rightly, Deputy Harney came into this House under a certain flag in 1977, sweeping in under the great proposals and propaganda that were to brush aside taxes on cars and all sorts of things. Even neutral economists have said it was there that the problems of our economy started. I do not accept that absolutely because there is a lot more to it with, for example, demographic trends contributing to what happened. For the Tánaiste to glibly say that all our problems started in the 1980s – and she was part of it – is revisionism gone mad.

She did not blame it all on Fine Gael.

I am glad Deputy Parlon recognises that some things were wrong and when he gets a chance to address the House perhaps he will produce a better historical account of what happened.

I will be calling for a "Yes" vote in this referendum. It is important that Ireland ratifies the Nice treaty and I hope the people will come out in their droves this time and back further progress within Europe. The EU movement has been a tremendous success. Over the past 30 years while Ireland has been a member we have seen major changes. Our role as peacekeepers has extended, our prosperity has improved and there have been dramatic changes in employment and unemployment while the UK market upon which we used to be so dependent, now represents just a fraction of our total exports. That has made for tremendous differences.

The euro is now being used by 12 countries which is tremendous from the point of view of doing business. I remember reading a report of a fictionalised journey around Europe by someone who imagined starting the trip with £100 and going to each of the European capitals starting from Dublin where they changed the money into lire before going on to Rome. At the end of the imaginary trip when the money was converted back into punts there was £6 left, without having spent anything in any of the capitals, the money having been lost through foreign exchange charges. That was a huge burden on doing business within Europe which the introduction of the euro has changed. It is very good for business. Business people trading abroad have to fix prices between six and ten months in advance and the euro has been a stabilising factor in those exchanges, which has made a significant difference. It has solidified many jobs which is worthwhile in itself.

Deputy Parlon, from his previous incarnation, will be aware of the impact the EU has had on the environment, particularly on the farming community. In some ways farmers would say it has been negative, but overall, in the context of caring for our environment, the EU has had a colossal impact for the better. I heard people talking about special areas of conservation where there were difficulties, but those difficulties were created by the Government which allowed such huge areas to be included and failed to negotiate on our behalf. Let us not blame the Europeans for things that are not their responsibility.

At a public meeting called to complain about the difficulties with kerbside petrol pumps, which were to be abandoned, I remember a former Deputy blaming Europe. They are still going to be abandoned incidentally. Europe had nothing to do with it; it was an initiative taken for good health and safety reasons by the Government. It is the Government of the day that negotiates what happens in Europe and what is agreed to, so let us blame it if it does not do the job.

The way forward is that when major negotiations, such as those for the Nice treaty, are going on, there should be far more input from this House prior to the event. What happens now is that the Minister goes off, negotiates and comes back with a fait accompli. There should be a lot more discussion with interested parties and I hope the revamped European committee of this House will have a far greater input and say into what happens whereby we can reassure the people that things can improve.

Another great myth is that we are going to be gobbled up by Europe and that our language and culture will be destroyed and lost forever. At what stage in our history have the Irish language and culture been as strong as they are now? More gaelscoileanna have been opened in the last ten years than in all the time before, while we have seen the growth of Scór and other competitions which have done a lot for culture and heritage. That has nothing to do with suppression by Europe, in fact there are European funds to support such initiatives which have been very good for us.

The previous speaker mentioned being in Slovenia and meeting people there. I was in Poland four or five years ago and I met many people who were extremely anxious to have access to Europe as quickly as possible. They saw tremendous benefits for themselves and their people in the opening up of European markets to their output. When you look at their farming methods it is obvious that there will be great improvements in what they can do when that happens, which I welcome. It is only fair that we should facilitate giving them a leg up. I was more recently in Cyprus which is a troubled country with a firm divide between the Greeks and the Turks. Many people in Cyprus, particularly in the Irish community, feel let down by Ireland.

I am tempted to say that the Government should call for a "No" vote because it is making such a mess of things and its hypocrisy regarding health charges and increased taxation is turning people off. I spoke with a teacher the other day who is absolutely pro-European and a historian who said he will be voting "No" on this occasion despite voting "Yes" the last time because nothing has happened with regard to benchmarking and supervision in schools. The Government has made no effort to resolve those issues.

In Johannesburg the Taoiseach advocated greater overseas aid and asked other countries to follow Ireland's example in this area, yet he had recently cut the overseas aid budget by €32 million. That is hypocrisy of the highest order. It is disgusting and will rebound on the Government.

The aid budget is still €100 million more than last year.

Despite the terrible behaviour of the Government, I ask the people to somehow find it in their hearts to come out and vote "Yes" to ensure Ireland passes the Nice treaty referendum on this occasion.

With the permission of the House, I wish to share my time with Deputy Eoin Ryan and Deputy Brendan Smith. In advocating with all the passion I can muster a "Yes" vote in the forthcoming referendum, it is unnecessary to reiterate the compelling arguments made in the House for a "Yes" vote by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, on 4 September 2002 and the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, on 10 September 2002. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said of the treaty: "If ratified, it will help to transform Europe's economic and political landscape to the advantage of us all." The Taoiseach yesterday set out in great detail the economic benefits and financial transfers that have accrued to Ireland. The Minister for Foreign Affairs also correctly reminded us: "Since the collapse of communism at the end of the 1980s, the democracies of central and eastern Europe have placed their accession to the European Union as their highest priority."

The partition of Europe by an iron curtain after the Second World War completely distorted the true nature of Europe. The reality is that Prague, Budapest and Warsaw are at the very heart of Europe not just in a physical sense, but also in the true historical sense. The era of Walesa, Gorbachev and Havel saw that curtain torn down. The Treaty of Nice is very important because it consigns that curtain to the bin of history.

Those Members of the House proposing a "No" vote completely omitted to refer to the desire of the applicant states of central and eastern Europe to join the European Union. If, as the "No" advocates would have us believe, the Treaty of Nice is bad for Europe, why would these countries be so anxious to join the EU? It is presumptuous, if not insulting, to suggest the governments of these countries would advise their peoples to sign up to a bad deal.

In his speech to the Dáil on 4 September 2002, Deputy Gormley stated: "The Nice debate ought to be about the future direction of Europe." I and many others agree that there needs to be considerable debate about the future direction of Europe. There is a very large question to be addressed as to how far we should pool our sovereignty to secure common objectives. However, as Deputy Gormley knows well, this is not what the Nice treaty is about. I have no doubt that the European convention chaired by the former French President, Valerie Giscard d'Estaing, will bring forward ideas and proposals to initiate such a debate on the future of Europe. It would be a travesty, however, if countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and others had to await its outcome given that it may last many more years and its conclusions are uncertain. These countries require and are entitled to be at the very heart of Europe.

Deputy Ó Caoláin of Sinn Féin is still wider of the mark. He stated: "The Treaty of Nice is not about enlargement." I doubt the 12 applicant countries would agree with that statement. He also stated: "It reduces the democratic power of the people in each state because it reduces the sovereignty of the nation state." This statement sounds like 19th century nationalism. The point the Deputy entirely misses is that the Irish people have, in a series of European referenda, agreed to limit our sovereignty to advance a common purpose in Europe. He may not be aware that where there is a conflict between the Irish Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, and European law on matters relevant to the European Union, European law prevails. While this is a reduction in sovereignty, it is one the Irish people have willingly accepted as a means to advance a common aim. Deputy Ó Caoláin further stated that the treaty "must be revisited and renegotiated". This is political naiveté or jingoism at its best.

The political reality is that the Treaty of Nice was a very difficult treaty to negotiate. It involved long, difficult and complex negotiations and compromises between the existing member states. Were the treaty to be unravelled, one might never get the genie into the bottle again. Perhaps this is what Sinn Féin really wants.

It is time for both the Green Party and Sinn Féin to come clean on the Nice treaty. Both parties say they are in favour of enlargement, but in reality they are prepared to derail an agreed enlargement process for their own ends. They say it is bad for Ireland and Europe, yet this is a treaty to which many of the countries in the historical heart of Europe are eager to subscribe. They should come clean and stop playing political games with the future of Europe. This is not the time for any political party or individual to seek to advance their own domestic agenda at the expense of the Irish people or the people of Europe.

The Nice treaty is about ensuring that the enlargement of the European Union can take place in a structured and streamlined manner. Decision making procedures in Europe have to be changed to accommodate a European Union comprising up to 27 member states. There are currently 15 members of the European Union and it is likely that ten further applicant countries seeking to join will conclude their accession negotiations with the Union before the end of the year.

When the European Economic Community was founded in 1957, decision making procedures were put in place for a founding community of only six member states. These decision making structures need to be modernised to guarantee the European Union can operate effectively into the future. If the old structures remain in place, legislative logjams will arise. This is the reason reform of the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament is now being addressed. As the Minster for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, stated last week in the House, the Nice treaty "is a fair, reasonable and balanced deal" which protects the interests of smaller member states. In the context of the reform of the European Commission, Ireland and the other small member states did particularly well.

From 2004 onwards the five larger member states, namely, France, Germany, Britain, Spain and Italy, will lose their right to nominate a second member of the European Commission. In real terms, this means Ireland has the same rights of representation on the European Commission as the larger member states. Even after the European Union grows in size beyond 27 member states, Ireland's position on the European Commission will be distributed on the basis of strict equality and rotation between larger and smaller member states.

The European Commission is an important institution as it controls the operation of the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Transport Policy and competition matters. Those opposing the Nice treaty are trying to put around the line that we are losing our right to nominate a member of the European Commission. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only people losing a commissionership are the five larger member states and thereafter a system of equality will operate. This is certainly a good deal from the perspective of Ireland and the smaller member states.

Majority voting in a range of economic and social matters has been in operation in Europe for some time. Under the Amsterdam treaty, the European Parliament received the power of co-decision in environmental, transport, consumer protection and public health issues as well as on employment matters and social affairs.

On the environmental issue, time and again the Green Party returns from Europe and reminds us of various legislation and decisions made in Europe to protect our environment, yet it opposes Europe during every single referendum campaign. I do not want to get into the policy of Sinn Féin which is one of complete political opportunism. The party does not even believe what it says.

We believe it.

I know that from people in that party. Given that the Green Party makes good use of the European Union to protect our environment, how can it consistently oppose the EU at every turn? Its approach has no political credibility after a while.

We oppose the way in which Europe is developing.

The Green Party rightly reminds us about the environment. Many good environmental projects now in place here are funded by Europe, yet the party continues to oppose Europe at every opportunity. I do not understand what kind of Europe the party wants. Whatever the Government or the major political parties back, you always want something else, another kind of Europe, but you never outline what that is.

The Deputy should address his remarks through the Chair.

The Nice treaty has nothing to do with taxation, with who raises or lowers taxes in Europe. That is the sole preserve of each Government, which is as it should be. When negotiations on the Nice treaty took place two years ago in France, there was little appetite among the EU leaders to take away any powers regarding taxation from member state Governments. Who is in the best position to deal with taxation issues? The answer is clearly our national Government and local authorities. I firmly believe this will continue to be the case indefinitely because it is right.

Another line put out by those who oppose the Nice treaty is that a vote for it will result in a possible loss of foreign direct investment to countries in eastern and central Europe. I point out to the opponents of the treaty that Ireland currently competes with countries such as France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Britain for foreign direct investment into Europe and we do extremely well.

You lost 4,000 jobs last year.

If the Deputy had his way there would be no direct investment and no jobs because he opposes everything.

That is more patronising arrogance.

It is ironic that the Greens talk about job losses.

This issue is not only a question for the rest of Europe who have ratified the provision of the Nice treaty, it is Ireland's turn to address this issue. It is in our national interest to support the provision of the Nice treaty because it will guarantee that enlargement of the European Union can proceed. Enlargement of the EU offers real opportunities for Irish business. As an exporting country we should embrace the new challenges and opportunities that have been presented to us. It is important that the Nice treaty referendum is carried out in a calm and reasoned manner, that people know exactly what they are voting for and that the issues are not obscured by the Opposition.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution in support of the Bill. The Nice treaty and European Union enlargement are in the interests of the Union. They are in the interests of the candidate countries and in our interests. I welcome the Government's decision to put a second referendum to the people.

Some speakers referred to the low turnout in last year's referendum. The highest turnout for a referendum here was in 1937 when the draft Constitution was put to the people by Eamon de Valera and his Government. The next highest turnout, 70% of the voting public, was for the referendum on joining the European Union in 1971. It is regrettable that the turnout at the last referendum on the Nice treaty was as low as 34%. I hope an informed debate will ensure a much higher turnout and participation by the electorate in the forthcoming referendum. The only glimmer of hope I got from the last referendum was that 53% of voters in County Cavan voted in favour of the treaty. Apart from two Dublin constituencies I think it was the only country where the majority voted in favour of the treaty. I hope that vote will be replicated on this occasion.

It is disappointing that there was a low turnout by the electorate for the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement in May 1998. That was the first opportunity for voters in the Thirty-two Countries to vote on the same issue on the same day, but in the Republic only 56.26% of the electorate turned out to vote. That is disappointing, particularly for me coming from Ulster.

Let us hold a similar referendum again.

Hold it at the weekend. The day a referendum is held can be used as an excuse by some people not to vote. A referendum could be held any day of the week, but that would not encourage the large percentage of the electorate who do not to vote to vote.

The European Union traces its origins to the signing by six countries of the Treaty of Paris in 1951, which established the European Coal and Steel Community. It took until 1973 for the first enlargement of the Community when Ireland, Britain and Denmark joined. Further expansions in 1981, 1986 and 1995 brought the Union to its current total of 15 member states. It can be argued that none of the previous enlargements matches the importance of the enlargement now in prospect, as 12 countries are in accession negotiations. Current indications are that ten new states may have concluded negotiations by the end of this year and entry in 2004 is a real possibility for them.

The importance of this enlargement, however, is not in its scale. Fundamentally, it represents a historic moment for Europe, uniting the Continent peacefully for the first time on the basis of democracy and respect for fundamental human rights and the rule of law. Why are these countries so eager to join the European Union? Why have they made the sacrifices required in terms of economic restructuring and why are they prepared to abide by the disciplines of the Single Market and the single currency? The applicant states see in the European Union a political and economic opportunity to improve the quality of life of their citizens without sacrificing their independence.

Sovereignty is not about saying "No". Rather it is about maximising our influence, creating better conditions for our employment prospects and trade and contributing to the international fight against international crime. The more isolated a country becomes the less genuine influence it can assert over its destiny. Outside the European Union, would Ireland have any control over matters such as duties on exports, investment opportunities for businesses, exchange rates or other international affairs? This is why the applicant states, which in general are the same size as our country, see the European Union as their best hope of protecting and guaranteeing real independence.

I do not wish to suggest that the European Union is perfect. That is far from the case. It is easy to spot the flaws of the Union, but most institutions, local, national or international, have such failings. Politics is about achieving change and reform where required and preserving what works well. This is as true in Europe as it is in Ireland.

I mentioned the origins and forthcoming enlargement of the Union. It was widely recognised before the Amsterdam treaty that reforms and changes were required to prepare a Union originally designed for six members to accommodate up to 27 member states. Some of these changes were agreed at Amsterdam, but it was generally recognised that further specific modifications would be required before further enlargement. The negotiation of the Nice treaty returned to these issues, which are generally described as those left over from Amsterdam. A balanced agreement, acceptable to all, was eventually agreed. The Nice treaty is of far more limited scope than the Amsterdam or Maastricht treaties, although the changes made are crucial in ensuring enlargement can proceed.

Anti-Nice campaigners, particularly during the last referendum, focused on many red herrings, either making the false argument that Nice is not required for enlargement or saying that Nice compromises neutrality, even though it makes no change whatsoever on that front. Those who speak about the democratic deficit fail to acknowledge that if such a deficit exists, it is primarily located in this country and is our responsibility to overcome. Opponents speak of a loss of power or influence without indicating how a small country like Ireland could exert influence outside the European Union. I am pleased about the new arrangements made in the Oireachtas to ensure legislation is discussed in detail at the committee on European affairs and within this House and that there will also be briefings in advance of Council of Ministers meetings.

While failure by this country to ratify the Nice treaty would be a problem for the European Union, ultimately it would be a more serious problem for this country. Many speakers focused rightly on the advantages that have accrued to this country since our accession in 1973. Earlier this morning the Tánaiste spoke about the lack of development in this country and the difficulties for our agricultural industry in obtaining markets. The Minister for Agriculture in the 1960s, Mr. Paddy Smith, was my predecessor in the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan. During his time in the House he served for a period with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. As a youngster I remember him speaking about the absolute frustration at Oireachtas level in regard to the lack of markets and export outlets for our agricultural products. Prior to 1973 the only place to which we could export our agricultural produce was Britain. What strength or negotiating capacity had any Minister going to Downing Street or Whitehall when he knew that if the British refused to take our produce there was nowhere else to go with it?

That the situation has changed dramatically is because of the initiative and foresight of the people who decided that we should seek membership of the EEC. That membership has been extremely beneficial for this country. Previous speakers have outlined the advances in farming and the role of agribusiness in the development of rural Ireland and in the creation of jobs throughout the country. Are we to believe that we would have markets for any of these products outside the EU? The reality is that we would not. We do not want to revert to the day when we were dependent on one country for our exports. I would have thought that those who profess themselves interested in Irish independence and sovereignty would be wary of ever having to be dependent on one neighbour for the export of our produce to create jobs at home.

The Nice treaty needs to be ratified to ensure that the European Union can be enlarged. Let us show the generosity other countries showed to us when we were allowed to gain membership of the EEC. Let the citizens of those countries who have been deprived of fundamental human rights and a proper standard of living get the opportunity to improve their lot by joining the EU.

I wish to share time with Deputies Pat Breen and Gerard Murphy. Throughout this so-called debate we have had to beg and borrow time. This debate on the Nice treaty is a farce. My Green Party colleagues are grateful for the snippets we have been allocated by the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party. Thanks to a Government decision that flies in the face of democracy, the "Yes" side has been mainly talking to itself. As a result very few people outside this House are listening. One does not pay much attention to a soliloquy, but one might have become engaged in interesting and informative debate. That has not happened. The Government and most of the pro-Nice treaty Opposition contributors have failed to muster even a half-interesting or detailed contribution. We have not had a single argument in favour of the treaty, based on the treaty itself.

We were summing it up.

There has been much talk of the historic advantages of European membership, with which I agree. However, it has mainly been talk about our alleged disengagement from the heart of the European Union. Mark my words, if there is any fallout from the rejection of this treaty again it will lie in the hands of this incompetent Government that has failed to respond adequately to the rising cost of labour vis-à-vis eastern European and Asian economies and has failed to provide the significant indigenous research and development investment required to compete at an added value level, something akin to that in a similar sized country such as Finland.

It is the Government side that is scaremongering, not the "No" side. They are the ones sowing the seeds of disengagement. They are accusing Irish voters of being at worst selfish or at best misled or even stupid, yet they have rightly been accused by the pro-Nice treaty Opposition parties of not properly arguing Ireland's corner at the Nice Summit. These same parties think nothing of campaigning now for the very same flawed package – but that is another story. So far in this debate the "Yes" side speeches have been hugely repetitive, patronising, arrogant and sometimes wholly untrue. Look at the role model we have been given – a Taoiseach who five years ago promised a referendum on Partnership for Peace but has so far failed to deliver the goods, possibly because his mind has been on other things such as the national stadium farce. The Government did not deliver the goods at the Nice Summit and now is promising Armageddon if the Irish people do not submit to its bullying.

As my Green Party colleagues said earlier in their contributions – in the scandalously short time they were allowed – the treaty is flawed from every angle: Article 133 on the facilitation of the global corporate agenda; Article 214 on the right to choose our own commissioner; Article 17 which incorporates the military provisions of the Western European Union into the EU; Article 25 which establishes the political and security committee which will direct military intervention, up to and including the aggressive waging of war and which envisages a role for NATO. I could go on.

My colleagues have commented on qualified majority voting and enhanced co-operation and some of the areas where we will not have a veto anymore and where the Government could have argued our corner differently. In these so-called difficult negotiations it is a Government's responsibility to argue the case on behalf of its people; it did not do so. The people are now being asked to decide if they would like the treaty as a whole. If they do not like it they have to vote against it because they cannot pick things out of it. They did it the last time and they will do it the next time.

The biggest red herring of the entire campaign is that a rejection of the Nice treaty will somehow prevent enlargement. The Green Party supports enlargement and would not be fighting this flawed treaty if enlargement was prevented. The Nice treaty's so-called protocol on enlargement has little to do with EU enlargement and a lot more to do with shifting the balance of power between the 15 member states. If one sticks closely to the wording of the Nice treaty on the matter, many of the enlargement issues are not even in the treaty itself but in annexes and declarations. The actual institutional conditions for EU membership for applicant countries are not even part of the treaty. The Nice treaty's protocol on enlargement relates only to the removal of the system of one commissioner per country once there are 27 member states. It actually abolishes the protocol on enlargement in the Amsterdam treaty which allows five new countries to join the EU without the institutional changes taking place and, as I pointed out earlier, with other changes more can join.

It is worth looking at the Amsterdam treaty's protocol on enlargement on this issue. If I had €50 for every time a Member of this House on the pro-treaty side asked which five countries I would let in, I would be a millionaire. It is possible for more than five countries to join. I will not go into the detail now because of the limited time available. Article 1 states:

At the date of entry into force of the first enlargement of the Union. the Commission shall comprise one national of each of the Member States, provided that, by that date, the weighting of the votes in the Council has been modified.

That is all it says. If agreement can be reached on trade-offs between the loss of a second commissioner to the larger states for a gain in increased voting strength, then each state will have only one commissioner. It does not state anywhere that it has to be done. It just says that provided by that date, if the trade-off has been agreed, then it will be done. Article 2 states:

At least one year before the membership of the European Union exceeds twenty, a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened to carry out a comprehensive review.

Was the Nice Summit not a comprehensive review, whether the Nice treaty is accepted or not? The Treaty of Amsterdam does not stop more than five additional states joining the EU – the article provides for a "comprehensive review" and no more. Romano Prodi said there is no problem in having up to 20 members, after which one just has to add a clause of accession. Hopefully there will be a new review for the constitutional debate on the convention process of the envisaged new treaty in 2004. More time would have been required for me to go into the real nitty gritty of the treaty.

I reiterate the Green Party's position in regard to the enlargement of the EU and our rejection of the notion that the Nice treaty opposes enlargement. We support EU enlargement and continue to support the decision of the Irish people to reject the Nice treaty. It is bad for democracy and bad for the future of the EU which is going in a certain direction with which we disagree. This treaty is facilitating that change of direction. We hope that the Irish people will once again disagree with it.

I am delighted to have the time to speak on this subject. Fine Gael has taken the lead in getting the "Yes" campaign off the ground in the forthcoming Nice referendum with the slogan: "Europe, yes, let's talk about it". It is a self-explanatory slogan and one that the Government did not adopt in the last campaign. The Irish electorate was taken for granted and, on 7 June 2001, it voted "No" in the Nice referendum by 53.87% to 46.13%. The turnout of 34.8% was the lowest for an EU referendum in Ireland.

Let us talk about Europe. The "No" campaign argued, and continues to argue, that Ireland will lose money, power and influence and violate its military neutrality if the Treaty of Nice is ratified. It is a well-known fact that Ireland has been a major beneficiary from the EU. However, any future reduction in Structural and Cohesion Funds will have nothing to do with enlargement or the Nice treaty. It is a direct consequence of the success of the Irish Celtic tiger economy, which resulted in Ireland having the highest GDP per capita in the EU.

In essence, the treaty is about enlargement. It adjusts and amends Europe's decision-making institutions, rules and procedures in anticipation of enlargement by up to ten countries. Member states have negotiated the Nice treaty to provide for the future growth of the EU and almost all of them have now ratified it. A decision by Ireland not to ratify it will be seen as a withdrawal by Ireland from the European consensus. Since we are relatively small and so trade-dependent, more than any other member state our economic prospects are tied to an intimate and central involvement in the EU.

Leading international companies are currently investing in excess of €5 billion in new facilities in Ireland. We have every prospect of augmenting this level of investment within the next few years as long as we are seen to be outward looking, competitive and willing to take on every challenge that faces us. Our attractions will quickly wane if we are seen to be turning our back on the future of Europe.

Last week in my own constituency, 400 job losses were announced at Tellabs in Shannon. Do we want to continue down this road? Decisions made in Brussels can have a profound influence on the environment for the future in investment and Ireland must be centrally involved in policy making if it is to influence thinking in this way.

Ireland has received €35 billion from Brussels since 1973 or nearly €10,000 for every citizen in the country. Irish exports, upon which hundreds of thousands of jobs depend, have increased from €1 billion in 1973 to a staggering €93 billion today.

Our interest rates and mortgage rates are at a record low. An enlarged EU will attract additional investment and increase the export opportunities for industry in Ireland. We should not forget that when we joined the EEC, our GDP was 58% of the EEC average, today it stands at 120%. Having availed of the benefits of membership, how can one justify pulling the ladder up behind us and denying other countries the same opportunities? We have a moral obligation to help the countries of central and eastern Europe successfully complete the transition to free market economies enjoying fundamental human, political and economic rights.

Many of the citizens of these countries already feel, because of the long drawn out process that is involved, that the EU does not really want them. At the recent Seville Summit the Czech Prime Minister, Mr. Milos Zeman, said Ireland would be a selfish nation if it did not ratify the Nice treaty on this occasion. Our failure to do so in the past has provoked similar viewpoints within the EU. These uncertainties only play into the hands of reactionary political forces in their respective countries.

With regard to the European Parliament, the Nice treaty extends the upper limit on the number of MEPs to 732 compared to the present number, which stands at 623. Ireland's present quota of 15 MEPs will fall to 12. If enlargement negotiations proceed successfully, this new allocation of seats will take place for the first time in the 2004 elections. However, the reduction in seat allocations will only be implemented to ensure that the limit of 732 seats is not breached and it will still leave Ireland with over twice as many MEPs per voter as Britain, Germany, France and Italy.

Enlargement is also in our economic interest. It will bring another 100 million consumers into the Single Market, an ideal opportunity for our already successful exporters. It will also remove the threat of political instability on our borders. We could easily have had a repeat of what happened in the former Republic of Yugoslavia in other parts of eastern Europe. If this had occurred, EU member states would have had to invest substantial moneys in defence and policing their borders. The consequences of such a scenario would have impacted negatively on the EU economy as a whole.

Furthermore, a successful enlargement will be a fulfilment of the vision of the founding fathers of the EU. Just as the EU in its present form symbolises an end to the bitter legacy of two world wars – France and Germany fought against each other and are now allies – a new enlarged Europe will bring an end to the legacy of the Cold War and ensure peace and stability.

Ireland will not lose money due to enlargement. The present strength of the Irish economy places us at the top of the EU league and, as such, we qualify for less funding. Ireland's power and influence will remain strong in the Council, the Commission and the Parliament and in excess of what one would expect given its population. By ratifying the Nice treaty the Irish people will be supporting the creation of an even larger European Union at peace with itself and contributing to global peace.

The European Union is a remarkable achievement by any standard and yet there is no real standard by which we can judge it. It is unique in having grown from two countries to 15 and is now planning its most significant enlargement to date.

The accession of Greece in 1981 and Spain and Portugal in 1986 became possible only with the restoration of parliamentary democracy in these countries after long periods of dictatorship. The principle that European co-operation is founded on the rule of law and protection of fundamental rights was formally expressed in a joint declaration of the European Parliament and the Commission in 1977. It was later affirmed in the Treaty on European Union.

Membership for these countries was seen as contributing in no small way to reinforcing their new democracies. Many of the 12 applicant countries are confident their membership, if allowed by the Irish people, will equally reinforce their new and fragile democracies.

When Spain, Portugal arid Greece joined the original institutional arrangements were still able to cope, but with the inclusion of Austria, Finland and Sweden some cracks began to appear. It became clear at this stage that some institutional change would be necessary if expansion beyond western Europe was to happen.

The Nice treaty is about facilitating this expansion to include 12 countries in central and eastern Europe. They wish to return to Europe and, as members of an enlarged Union, consolidate their transformation to democratic government. The Polish and Lithuanian Governments have stated on many occasions that they see joining the EU as consolidating their democracies. Many other governments of central and eastern Europe constantly tell us that joining the European Union will consolidate the progress they have already made and ensure they continue on the democratic path. The European experience over 50 years reinforces these convictions. There is half a century of peaceful co-operation between former enemies and a successful incorporation of new members like Greece, Spain and Portugal wishing to reinforce their restored democracies. On the other hand recent events in the Balkans have shown how instability of borders and ethnic cleansing can destabilise the entire region in the European Union.

There is only one issue – a change in institutional arrangements that will allow EU expansion and still favour a coalition of smaller countries against bigger states. I am confident that if the Irish people voted solely on the provisions of the Nice treaty, there would be an overwhelming vote in its favour.

Those opposed to the treaty continue to muddy the waters. Even the performance of this Government before, during and after the recent general election should not be allowed to distort the Nice issue. The passing of the Nice treaty is of fundamental importance to Ireland. By passing it we show ourselves and the world that we have not turned into the selfish and inward looking nation that some of the anti-Nice campaigners portray us as. I am convinced that we remain a nation willing to share our good fortune and extend a hand of friendship to the applicant countries which see their future as fellow members of the European Union. It is hard to understand the reason the opponents of the Nice treaty want to prevent or slow down access by other states. The benefits for us have been enormous, as they will be for the new members.

Europe stands for stability and security, sustainable development and prosperity, justice and social inclusion, all built on a democratic system. The European Union has delivered for us and will deliver for the new members also. We now have recognition of educational and skills qualifications; an effective competition policy and the application of regulations and standards and consumer protection. The Single European Act gave treaty status to environmental policy, based on principles of prevention, rectification and pollution responsibility. Directives apply to areas such as air and water pollution, waste disposal, noise and the transportation of dangerous substances.

In the area of justice and social inclusion we now have the European Social Fund and European labour laws. Directives on mergers, employee consultations, as well as wide ranging health and safety regulations, setting minimum standards, are now in place. We have equal opportunities and equal pay for equal work; equality of access to employment; equality in social security and maternity benefits and leave during pregnancy. We also have prohibition of discrimination in the area of crime prevention. We are combating drug trafficking and fraud, and have judicial co-operation in civil and criminal matters with customs and police co-operation.

These directives and co-operation agreements have greatly enhanced our quality of life and the more central and eastern European countries which join and adhere to these standards the more secure will be our future. Nobody can doubt the impact the European Union has on our economic well-being. We now have an economy capable of competing with the best, an economy capable of producing more and more products for which we must find customers. With expansion, massive new markets will open in central and eastern Europe giving us the opportunity to grow, find good jobs for our young people and generally improve our standard of living.

I am advocating a "Yes" vote in the forthcoming referendum. Our strength, post the Nice treaty, may be collaboration with some of the smaller countries wishing to join us now. We can work together to ensure the rights of smaller countries within the European Union are upheld. A "No" vote would be disastrous for us, but it would be an even greater disaster for those countries now wishing to join the European Union.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as this is my first time to speak in this Chamber, I thank the electorate of Galway East for electing me to Dáil Eireann. The Callanan name returns to this House after 20 years when my late uncle served here. I am proud to carry on his great work.

In the coming months the people will make a decision that will affect, not just this country, but Europe as a whole. There are currently ten countries on the threshold of the European Union asking us, the Irish people, to allow them to become members of a Union from which we have benefited since 1973. All sectors have gained from our membership of the European Union, agriculture having gained most.

The European Union has been the engine for growth for Irish agriculture and the agri-business sector over the last three decades. Irish agriculture has not just benefited financially, the European Union has also enabled it to modernise. The benefits of EU membership to Irish agriculture and the food industry have been enormous, amounting to almost €30 billion since we joined. Without the European Union Irish farmers would be significantly worse off economically and socially. However, small farmers in the west have not done so well owing to the way EU money is distributed. If one has a small number of animals, one gets the same rate of payment per head as farmers with a larger number resulting in small farm incomes remaining very low. This system must be adjusted in favour of small farmers.

The increase in the volume of paperwork involved for farmers has also become a nightmare. This must change. The Department of Agriculture and Food must become farmer friendly and departmental inspectors must work with farmers to ensure they receive their full entitlements.

The addition of a large number of small member states under this treaty can be to our advantage. We have much in common with the applicant countries and can develop this common ground into new and valuable alliances for the future, especially on matters relating to agriculture. Eight of the applicant countries—

I regret intervening during the Deputy's maiden speech, but I must call the Minister of State.

I will conclude. I call on all agricultural organisations to come out strongly for a "Yes" vote to ensure the future of Irish agriculture.

I now call the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche.

I wish to raise a point of order. Last Tuesday we were told that all Members would have an opportunity to contribute to this debate. I have not yet had that opportunity.

That is not a point of order.

I see this as an opportunity by the Government to hoodwink Members of this House in the same way that it hoodwinked voters in the run-up to the last election in terms of health issues and hospital closures.

The Deputy is being disorderly, he is not raising a point of order.

It is unacceptable to treat the voters of this State in that way and it is equally unacceptable to treat Members in that way.

The Deputy should allow the Minister of State to reply. The Deputy should resume his seat as he is being disorderly.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I do not mean to diminish the integrity of your position in any way, but I have to say the Government has—

The Deputy raised this matter by way of point of order. The Chair has pointed out that it is not a point of order. The Deputy should resume his seat.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to what has been a wide-ranging and-—

On a further point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle—

If Deputy Morgan continues to intervene I will have to ask him to leave the House.

A commitment was given at the Whips meeting in July that all Members would be given an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

If the Deputy continues to be disorderly, I will have to ask him to leave the House. Will he, please, resume his seat?

Will the Minister of State allow Deputy Morgan to make his contribution?

Deputy Morgan is being quite disorderly. He should resume his seat.

I have not had an opportunity to speak.

The Deputy is being disorderly. Will he, please, resume his seat?

I have no intention of being disorderly.

The Deputy is being disorderly. The Chair has pointed out a number of times to him that he is being disorderly.

I want an opportunity to represent the voice of my constituency. The majority of voters in the constituency I represent voted to reject this treaty. I am seeking an opportunity to voice their views and will not be silenced by the Government.

The Deputy should resume his seat.

On a point of order—

Deputy Morgan must leave the House first.

I will do so.

Deputy Morgan withdrew from the Chamber.

The Deputy is co-operating with the Chair. I wish to raise a point. We were given an assurance that this debate would be open and accessible to all Deputies. Two of my colleagues, Deputies Morgan and Crowe, have not yet had the opportunity to participate.

The Minister of State must be called at 12.15 p.m. That has already been agreed.

Speakers from the "No" side were given 108 minutes out of a total of 22 hours and 30 minutes in this so-called debate.

The Deputy is being disorderly. If he has a point to make, he should make it elsewhere.

Only 8% of the overall speaking time has been granted to the "No" side. This is a disgrace.

The Deputy should not continue to interrupt. It is disorderly to do so.

I am sorry I must raise a point of order, but I do so in the light of the fact that my colleague has not been given an opportunity to contribute to the debate. We will leave at this juncture because this amounts to a charade. I am leaving in protest at this farce and in solidarity with my colleagues. I am leaving the Chamber, but we reserve our right to participate in the votes.

Deputy Ó Caoláin withdrew from the Chamber.

What we have witnessed is a deliberate attempt to prevent a full response to this debate. I apologise to Deputies whose points I will not get to deal with. It is a shame we heard so little about the Nice treaty in the debate.

I am talking about the treaty.

The truth is that if the debate focused on the facts, people would see that there is absolutely nothing in the treaty that should cause them concern or difficulty. Many of those advocating a "No" vote have, therefore, to cast around for spurious arguments to distract the people from this essential truth. Now, as in the previous referendum, many of those on the "No" side have tried, in the absence of strong arguments, to foment and create confusion. Having sown the seeds of doubt they will then urge those who do not know how to vote to vote "No". I urge those who do not know to ask for advice. They should get the facts and realise there is nothing to be concerned about.

I challenge all participants in this debate to end the histrionics, barnstorming and the hyperbole. Let us all agree to stick to the facts and deal with the issues. The people deserve no less. Our people have shown time and again that they are committed to playing a full part in Europe and have been wise in all the decisions they made on Europe.

Like rejecting this treaty the last time.

They did not listen to the naysayers back in 1973, or when the Single European Act was voted on. This nation has prospered and done well because we have had the confidence to stand on our own two feet.

The people do not believe that the European Union is perfect in every respect. We can all point to areas where improvements can be made. Yet the people are sensible enough to recognise that there is no reason to turn their faces against something because it is not perfect. The Union has been a vital factor in making Ireland the country it is today – confident, outward looking and successful. It has provided the context in which our national independence and sovereignty has been brought to its fullest flowering. We have heard throughout this debate from speakers from all parts of this House that Ireland and its people have thrived and prospered as members of the European Union. We could not have achieved what we have without the framework of the Union, nor without the enormous support – particularly financial support – and encouragement it offered.

Nobody is suggesting that, in reaching a decision on how to vote on Nice, we should be unduly influenced by the fact that we have received a net contribution of over €34 billion from the EU. It is, however, a fact worth recognising. Ireland relies on exporting what it produces. It has benefited enormously from the creation of the Single Market, to which the Green Party objected. We have risen to the challenge of dealing with a market of 380 million consumers and we will rise to the new challenge. Many Deputies referred to the high level of foreign direct investment, particularly that of US companies, and the impact a "No" vote will have on that.

A "No" vote is not cost free. Let us listen to what the people who know rather more on this issue than Deputy Boyle does. In July the Economist Intelligence Unit report on Ireland concluded that in voting "No" the Irish people "risk a lot". The assessment points out:

One in six Irish jobs depends directly or indirectly on foreign firms. If the Irish shoot down Nice, rightly or wrongly, it will be interpreted abroad as a move away from Europe. Investors will sniff uncertainty. More uncertainty means less investment and less investment today means fewer jobs tomorrow.

It may be that Deputy Boyle knows more than they do, but I doubt it.

Which is why the Government should have argued for the people's vote at the last summit.

Let us look at what the chief executive officer of the IDA has had the courage to put on the record in spite of the efforts to censor him. Last Friday week in the Irish Examiner he said: “The vote on the Nice treaty will be widely seen by investors and potential investors as indicating the degree of our engagement in the EU, whether we are participating at the heart of its future development or whether we are marginalised”. I know there are people who, for their own reasons, wish that we would be marginalised, but I am surprised that Deputy Boyle is one of them.

Because of Deputy Boyle's misleading contribution in this House I want to look at what the business community in the Munster region has had to say. In the Irish Examiner of 30 August, the Cork Chamber of Commerce said a “Yes” vote would be good for Europe, good for Ireland and good for Cork. Deputy Boyle clearly disagrees.

Our Chamber of Commerce must have an incinerator.

John Cashell, president of the Cork Chamber of Commerce and a man who knows rather more about business than Deputy Boyle said:

The stance Ireland adopts on the Nice referendum will impact significantly . in two key areas essential to employment and growth – foreign direct investment and exports. Any uncertainty regarding our involvement in Europe will impact significantly on both.

The Minister knows foreign direct investment is already affected – over 4,000 jobs were lost in 2001.

In the same edition of the Irish Examiner, Humphrey Murphy of Global Stainless Steel said “EU enlargement will provide major opportunities across all industry sectors. Failure to ratify Nice will isolate us to the edge of western Europe”. Brian Molally, the general manager of Janssen Pharmaceutical Limited was quoted as saying:

This company originally established in Ireland because, apart from financial-operational reasons, we saw Ireland's membership of the EU community as being extremely valuable to our world wide operations in Europe. Further development-expansion followed, taking into consideration Ireland's continuing commitment to participate to the fullest degree at the heart of EU affairs.

Who is arguing that we should not participate?

The Deputy is. He is proposing a course of action which is playing with fire. The Deputy does not have the experience in the creation of jobs that these people do.

This is a further example of arrogance.

Deputy Boyle's contribution on the issue of jobs was entirely negative. He is playing with fire and putting at risk the future livelihoods of students currently in education. The Deputy has no right to do that.

The Minister knows that we are already in that situation.

The Deputy is trying to censor debate yet again.

The Minister has no right to lecture me.

Tim Crean, president and chief operating officer of SIFCO said:

Europe accounts for 70% of the business of SIFCO in Ireland . . . The transnational co-operation within the EU has facilitated many contributing and sustaining business initiatives. Uncertainty or confusion on Ireland's position within the EU would be an inhibiting factor in attracting business and investment.

The Minister should clarify that we are still in the Union.

It goes on and on. Our farming leaders are also clear. John Dillon said "[It is] inescapably in Ireland's interest to ratify the Nice treaty and retain our influence at the centre of the EU decision making process". David Begg in making an extraordinary contribution at the Magill Summer School in July said:

Most foreign direct investment is here because of access to Europe. People argue about whether that would be affected if we achieve "pariah" status. Maybe it will and maybe it will not – but as the representative of the workers in the factories funded by that investment, I am not willing to risk voting "No".

Deputy Boyle is clearly willing to risk voting "No".

It is about democracy.

The funding we have received from our EU partners has kept people on the land, sustained rural communities and enabled us to make investment in education and infrastructure necessary for a vibrant and dynamic economy to sustain itself.

Is the Minister saying that it has sustained rural communities?

The national development plan, which will play a vital role in creating a basis for our continued prosperity is dependent, to a very large degree, on our relationship with Europe. Practically no area of Irish life has been untouched by our membership of the European Union and the people know that its impact has been overwhelmingly positive. We have heard speakers address the benefits it has brought to business, farming, education, women and our security and prosperity as a people. Our partners in Europe, in assisting us, were motivated by the same spirit which should move the Irish people now. They demonstrated a sincere and generous wish to share peace and stability with fellow Europeans and recognised that, as neighbours, we have a shared interest in looking after and securing each other's welfare. That is not just philanthropy, it is enlightened self-interest. The enlargement of the European Union is about spreading the benefits further and creating opportunities for us all. As the leader of the Labour Party put it so succinctly, "the Treaty of Nice is about one thing, facilitating enlargement – no more, no less".

I wish to return to the Cork Chamber of Commerce comments, obviously dismissed by Deputy Boyle. It is good for all of the towns, cities and counties of Ireland, it is good for Europe. The Deputy's proposals are bad.

The Deputy is a hypocrite.

One fact we must face is that there is no plan B.

There is a plan B.

The development of the EU now depends on the Irish people. It must be obvious to anyone who has given the matter any fleeting consideration that structures designed 50 years ago for a union of six member states must be modified to ensure that it is equipped to deal in the future with a community of 27 states. I regret that telling the truth on these issues stings the Deputies.

The last time there was a plan B.

They are playing with fire and they know it. They have sought to close down every debate and have not indicated any economic benefit that will flow from voting "No". The reality is that nobody benefits from a "No" vote and we will all benefit and progress from a "Yes" vote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Ós rud é go bhfuil sé leathuair tar éis meán lae, ní foláir dom an cheist seo a leanas a chur de réir Ordú ón Dáil: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

As it is now 12.30 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of 10 September: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 113; Níl, 14.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Browne, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Callanan, Joe.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Cowley, Jerry.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Tony.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ellis, John.
  • English, Damien.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harkin, Marian.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McCormack, Padraic.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Murphy, Gerard.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Connor, Charlie.
  • O'Donovan, Denis.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Flynn, Noel.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Malley, Fiona.
  • O'Malley, Tim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Parlon, Tom.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Perry, John.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Sexton, Mae.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilkinson, Ollie.
  • Wright, G. V.

Níl

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Gogarty, Paul. Gormley, John.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and S. Power; Níl, Deputies Boyle and Ó Snodaigh.
Question declared carried.
Níl–continued

Gregory, Tony.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.McGrath, Finian.

Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.Ryan, Eamon.Sargent, Trevor.

Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.

On a point of order, the votes for and against the motion have been recorded but abstentions have not been recorded. Abstention by Members of the House should also be recorded.

That has not been the practice. The Deputy had an opportunity on Second Stage to state his position but at this stage it does not arise. We are now moving on to Committee Stage.

Barr
Roinn