I welcome the Minister of State to the House. Time limits have been agreed. I call the Leader of the House to move the motion.
Developments in the EC/EU — 41st to 44th Reports: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the following reports:
Developments in the European Communities — 41st and 42nd Reports,
Developments in the European Union — 43rd and 44th Reports.
I welcome the Minister of State on his first ever occasion in this House. He did not have the benefit of graduating from this House; nonetheless, he is extremely welcome. There will be 30 minutes per spokesperson from each group and 20 minutes per speaker thereafter.
It is a great honour for me to have this opportunity to address this House for the first time as a Minister. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his kind words. It is more correct to say that I have not yet graduated to the Seanad; it might come my way in time.
I welcome this opportunity to address the Seanad on developments in the European Union as it faces a particularly challenging period. The six monthly reports which the Government, under section 5 of the European Communities Act, makes to the Houses of the Oireachtas provide a useful account of recent developments in the Union.
I am pleased to say that for the first time in several years these reports are up to date. The Government's aim is that these reports should be available within three months of the end of each reporting period. The period covered by the reports before the House today is July 1992 to June 1994, and it is intended that the report covering the last six months of 1994 will be published next month.
Before going into detail on the substance of recent developments, I should first like to draw your attention to a recent change in the format of the six monthly reports. The presentation of the reports has been overhauled to make them more user friendly and accessible. An attempt has been made to ensure that the material included in the reports is concise, jargon free and more analytical. The revision of the format, which was largely untouched since the reports first appeared in 1973, will help to ensure that information supplied to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the public in relation to developments in the European Union is transparent, comprehensive and relevant.
The period covered by the reports under debate today was one of the most significant in the history of the European Union. It followed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ending of the Cold War which transformed the political landscape of the whole continent of Europe. Since 1989, the Union has been adapting to the new situations, coping with the new challenges and seeking to define its future role.
I should like to mention some key themes which are reflected in the reports and which will influence the development of the Union in the years to the end of the century. These themes might broadly be divided into the internal evolution of the Union and the challenges and opportunities which confront the Union externally.
Internally, the focus of the Union's work has included, and will continue to include, the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty and the process leading up to the 1996 intergovernmental conference which will review the Treaty's provisions, the preparations for the third stage of economic and monetary union and the continuing efforts to deal with unemployment and securing of the competitive base of the Union.
Externally, the Union's immediate concerns remain the development of its relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe and the Mediterranean basin, and the development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy on the basis of the Treaty on European Union.
Within the Union, the past two years have, in part, been dominated by the political debate over the Maastricht Treaty and its ratification. This debate was instructive as well as difficult and the lessons learned will be taken into account as the Union prepares once again to undertake a review of the treaties at the intergovernmental conference in 1996, preparation for which I have been given particular responsibilities.
Governments now have a better appreciation of the absolute political necessity of retaining the support and understanding of their electorates for the development of European integration. There is also now a greater understanding of the need to bring the institutions of the Union closer to the citizen and to ensure that decisions taken at EU level, which affect the daily lives of all our citizens, enjoy widespread public support.
In his first public statements as the new President of the Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer has placed great emphasis on ensuring that the citizens of the Union have faith in and support the development of integration. I greatly welcome the importance he attaches to such issues as openness, transparency and the need for participation, as they are concerns which, I believe, are shared by the Irish people. Indeed, this Government has attached a high priority to transparency at both national and European levels.
The Maastricht Treaty, although much maligned and misunderstood by some, represents a very important milestone on the road to European integration. Nobody would claim that it is an elegant or easily comprehended document. Its language is dense and the political compromises involved in obtaining agreement on its construction are complex. President Havel has referred to it as a machine without a spirit. However, at the same time, the Treaty, while itself perhaps lacking in spirit, is a mechanism which enables the vision of European Union to live and accurately reflects the reality of the current political situation in Europe.
Europe is inevitably a complex business. The differing views of the Governments of the member states about the future course of European integration, the complex historical relationships between the members of the Union and their differing political and legal traditions are not easily accommodated in a single Treaty. It was, perhaps, inevitable that a Treaty as ambitious as Maastricht should result in a complex document. The Treaty is now in force and Governments are working to ensure that it is fully implemented. Although the Treaty is in operation for less than 18 months, we are already preparing for an intergovernmental conference in 1996, which will review its provisions. Our citizens may wonder why we should be so eager to embark on yet another round of European constitutional building following the politically difficult Maastricht ratification process.
When the Maastricht Treaty was signed, the European Union was still adjusting to the new political reality following the end of the Cold War. The authors of the Treaty explicitly provided for the holding of a review conference in 1996 to deal with a variety of issues which some Governments believed were not fully resolved in the Maastricht negotiations. These issues included the common foreign and security policy, the powers of the European Parliament and the structure of the Treaty. In providing for a 1996 review of the Treaty, I suspect the authors did not appreciate the full importance which would become attached to the 1996 negotiations.
Since the signing of the Treaty, events on the continent have moved more rapidly than any Government expected. The Union has concluded association agreements, called the Europe agreements, with several central and east European states. These agreements recognise the ambition of these countries to become members of the Union. The Copenhagen European Council in June 1993 took a number of important decisions. It recognised that the associated countries that so desire shall become members of the Union as soon as they are able to assume the obligations of membership. The council also provided for the establishment of a structured dialogue between the Union and the countries of central and eastern Europe on a broad range of political and economic issues. The Essen European Council in December 1994 developed the framework for this dialogue which is intended to be wide ranging and ambitious.
The Union now politically accepts that the further enlargement to the east is inevitable, as well as desirable. Much work will, however, have to take place, both within the Union and the applicant states, before accession of the countries becomes a reality. I wish to place some emphasis on the fact that the evolution of the European Union has come about as a result of what happened on the European continent in the first half of this century. In the second half of the century, there has been peace, largely because of the European Union and its forerunners.
When we think about the Union in terms of prosperity we must also remember we cannot have prosperity without peace. As we look at the new emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe, we must recall the objectives of the Union and we in turn must be sure to keep the spirit of the founders of the Union alive and well.
The 1996 intergovernmental conference, which had been intended in some areas at least as a wrapping up exercise to address some unresolved issues in the Treaty, is now seen as the arena where the institutional adaptations to the Union required for a future enlargement will be examined. It is the prospect of a future enlargement of the Union which might increase its size to between 20 and 30 States which adds to the significance of a new round of Treaty negotiations in 1996.
The agenda of the intergovernmental conference is now also likely to include such issues as the weighting of votes in the Council, the size and future role of the Commission and the powers of the European Parliament. There may also be proposals about the overall organisation of European integration, which in the view of some might include a multispeed approach, variable geometry or an inner core, to use the jargon. Such proposals are prompted by the view that a Union of 20 or more member states with different levels of economic development and different views of the future of European integration may only make progress if those member states in a political and economic position to advance are permitted to move ahead towards a common objective.
Although the formal opening of the negotiations on this Treaty review are a year away, preparations at the Union level for the 1996 intergovernmental conference will begin in earnest over the coming months. The European Council meeting at Corfu in June 1994 agreed to establish a reflection group of personal representatives of Foreign Ministers and the President of the Commission to prepare the agenda of the intergovernmental conference. The reflection group, which will also include two representatives of the European Parliament, will begin meeting in June 1995 under a Spanish chairperson.
The European Council also invited the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament to establish separate reports on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union. These reports will serve as inputs to the work of the reflection group. The preparation of the Council's report on the operation of the Treaty will be finalised under the current French Presidency. It is obvious, therefore, that the timetable for the intergovernmental conference has been established and that preparations at European Union level are already under way.
I might note at this point that as Ireland will hold the Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 1996 we will have the task of chairing the intergovernmental conference during this crucial period. Given the complexity of the intergovernmental conference's agenda and the political sensitivity of its discussions, chairing the intergovernmental conference will be one of our major Presidency priorities. Preparations on the development of our policy position in relation to the inter governmental conference are under way.
I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that there are both internal and external challenges facing the Union. While the intergovernmental conference is obviously an internal challenge, its discussions will be heavily influenced by the external challenge of enlargement. The Union must first agree on the internal institutional reforms necessary to safeguard its continuing effectiveness and efficiency if it is to embrace successfully a further round of enlargements.
The working methods of the Union were devised for a community of six. They are stretched in a Union of 15 and could become even more cumbersome in a Union of over 20. Obviously any negotiations about the reform of the institutions of the Union and their working methods could have serious implications for smaller member states such as Ireland. We will contribute to the discussions at the intergovernmental conference constructively and positively based on our long experience as a small member state committed to European integration.
The policy programme of the Government of Renewal points out that in the next century Ireland will develop a deeper and more complex relationship with Europe, no longer primarily as beneficiaries of funding. It is with this prospect in mind that we are developing our approach to the intergovernmental conference.
An inevitable focus of successive Irish Governments in the European Union has been the achievement of economic and social cohesion. We have successfully sought to ensure that the disparities in economic development between the different states in the Union were progressively reduced. In the negotiations of the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty Ireland took a leading role in the discussions on the cohesion chapter which now provides the Treaty basis for the Community's policies in this area.
The achievement of economic and social cohesion in the European Union is recognised as a pillar of European construction and will remain of crucial importance to us. It is not a gift; it is a right. It is part of the balance of equity which ensures that the Union serves the interests of all.
In addressing the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference we need to think in very broad terms about the development of European integration, the institutions upon which such integration is founded and the future course of the European Union. As a long standing member of the Union we must contribute to the political and intellectual debate about the type of Union which will enter the next millennium.
While the negotiations at the 1996 intergovernmental conference will be a major item on the Union's internal agenda they are by no means the only internal challenge. The Maastricht Treaty sets out in great detail the three stage process for the achievement of economic and monetary union. We are now in the second stage of this process. The European Union, quite possibly at the European Council in Dublin in December 1996, will have to decide whether the move to the third and final stage of union should take place in 1997. If a decision is not taken to move ahead to European Monetary Union in 1997, those member states meeting the entry criteria will automatically enter the third stage in 1999.
The past two years saw a deep recession accompanied by currency turmoil and a sharp increase in unemployment across the Union. However, the Union's rapid emergence from recession and its continued determination to overcome its structural obstacles to the creation of employment have restored confidence in the European Monetary Union project.
The Government, in its Programme for Renewal, explicitly accepts the public debt philosophy and targets set out in the Maastricht Treaty. Indeed, only two member states, Ireland and Luxembourg, were accepted by the Commission under the excessive debt procedure as meeting the Treaty's fiscal criteria in 1994. As we approach the Treaty deadlines for decision making in relation to European Monetary Union I look forward to greater public awareness of the challenges and opportunities which lie ahead of us.
The Union has recently experienced a deep economic recession. The scale of the job losses suffered during this downturn in the economic cycle was horrendous and unacceptable. The fight against unemployment has become the Union's priority, has been the focus of debate at successive European Councils and is listed as the first priority of the French Presidency. The Commission's White Paper on Growth. Competitiveness and Employment forms the basis of the Union's approach to dealing with the key issues of unemployment and competitiveness.
While many of the instruments which must be used in the fight against unemployment lie in the hands of national governments rather than the Union, a coherent Union approach to the issue is essential. At a political level we are aware that people across the Union expect the governments represented at the Council of Ministers to work together to overcome the debilitating and corrosive effects of unemployment. There is a clear appreciation that the Union as a whole must tackle the issue which cannot be solved by member states acting individually.
The Union is not responsible for the unemployment problem — on the contrary. However, to some extent the public's faith in the Union has become linked to its efforts to deal with unemployment and growth. A Union which is seen to be ineffectual in such a key area which so closely affects the daily lives of our citizens would be harshly judged. At the same time, of course, the governments of the member states must not abdicate their responsibilities in economic policy or seek to blame the Union, as there may be a tendency to do, for their domestic economic difficulties.
The policy of the Union in this area reflects the consensus of the member states on how to proceed. The White Paper emphasises the need for training, for investment in infrastructure and key technologies, for appropriate deregulation and for the creation of a domestic and social climate which is favourable rather than inimical to job creation.
Much of the White Paper is written in the perspective of the enormous challenge which the Union faces from the rapidly industrialising economies of the developing world. The global transformation of trade has already had an impact on the economies of the Union and will assume even greater importance in the years to come. Ireland, as a small open economy highly dependent on both exports and a high level of foreign investment, is greatly exposed to the globalisation of trade and the rapid exchanges which are taking place. We share the White Paper's strong emphasis on the need for the Union to take action to secure its competitive base.
The implementation of the White Paper's recommendations at both Union and national level is the key priority for the Union. Without a firm economic foundation the future development of the Union will not have earned the necessary support from its citizens.
The Union now also confronts a series of major foreign policy challenges arising from the new political and security situation in Europe, the situation in former Yugoslavia, the development of relations with Russia and instability and the challenge to human rights in many regions of the world. With the coming into effect of the Maastricht Treaty on 1 November 1993, the new common foreign and security policy replaced European political co-operation. The CFSP extends and develops EPC in several respects, in particular by setting out objectives for the European Union in the international area, by providing for more systematic co-operation between the member states and developing the concept of joint action.
The objectives of the CFSP include the preservation of peace, the promotion of democracy and respect for human rights. These are issues which have traditionally been central to Irish foreign policy and participation in the CFSP enables us to pursue these objectives more effectively at international level. The first year or so of the CFSP has seen a record of solid achievements. Six joint actions have been adopted and the Union is pursuing a concerted policy in relation to the main foreign policy issues such as former Yugoslavia and the Middle East.
Some disappointment has been expressed nevertheless about the impact of the Maastricht Treaty procedures on the effectiveness of the EU's foreign policy. It was inevitable, however, that time would be required to develop and acquire experience of the Maastricht Treaty in the foreign area. Where the Union has been the target of particular criticism, as with former Yugoslavia, it has to be appreciated that the Union is not acting in isolation. The complex nature of internal conflict such as that in former Yugoslavia has challenged all international organisations and states which have been involved in the search for a solution. The EU has contributed significantly to such progress as has been made, particularly in regard to humanitarian efforts.
Ireland is an active and constructive participant in the CFSP. We have contributed to the implementation of several of the joint actions with personnel and financially. I would mention, in particular, the sending of observers to the elections in Russia and South Africa and the financial contribution towards the costs of the EU administration of Mostar. We welcome the progress which has been made on developing procedures for improving the functioning of the CFSP. Ireland is keen to ensure that the Union follows a forward looking pro-active foreign policy with the greatest possible coherence between action taken by the Union and the member states.
Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU on 1 January this year. We warmly welcome the contribution which they will make to the CFSP. They will bring particular expertise and skills in relation to certain policy areas, such as central and eastern Europe, Russia and Bosnia.
As part of the pre-accession strategy for the associated states of central and eastern Europe, arrangements have been made to facilitate an increase in the level and quality of political dialogue with these countries. These primarily involve regular and intensive dialogue at both ministerial and official level and the opportunity for the central and eastern European countries to associate themselves with EU statements, démarches and joint actions.
The Government is committed to the publication of a White Paper on foreign policy this year. To prepare for the White Paper a series of public seminars on different aspects of Irish foreign policy are being held at different venues around the country. The purpose of these seminars is to give people an opportunity to express their views on the key foreign policy issues confronting Ireland. If we are to receive full public support for the conduct of our foreign policy it is essential that we are fully aware of the views of ordinary citizens and that they should develop a sense of ownership of our foreign policy.
I participated at a seminar on the European Union on Saturday, 28 January, at the University of Limerick. The discussions ranged over many of the key issues confronting the Union, including the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference, future enlargement and economic and monetary union. I was very impressed by the level of public interest, understanding and concern about these issues and the level of participation in the debate.
Among the many interesting points which were raised at the seminar. I noted the strong public interest in the need for greater participation in matters relating to the European Union. The distance between decision making in Brussels and the citizen is obviously greater than it should be. The Government is determined to ensure that that distance is bridged.
The debate today is a further opportunity to discuss the issues confronting the Union and to obtain the particularly important input of Members of the Seanad. In the coming months as work on the White Paper advances, the Government is committed to developing the public discussion on European affairs. The decisions we as a nation have to take in the coming years are of enormous importance to everyone in this country and indeed to future generations. I, therefore, welcome this debate on developments in the European Union.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I join with other Members in congratulating the Minister on his appointment and I welcome him to the Seanad.
I, too, welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for his outline on developments in the EU during the period in question. However, I wonder if we should be discussing developments in the EU during that period because it appears to me and to many others that there have been more negative aspects than developments. Going back to the beginning of the ECSC, Churchill said: "I love France and Belgium but we must not allow ourselves to be pulled down to that level." Some countries in Europe believe they are being pulled down to the level of others and a difference of opinion is emerging between leaders of EU members states in this regard.
We are discussing these developments at a time of chaos. Despite the ending of the Cold War, smaller conflicts have developed throughout the world which have an horrific impact on these areas. We are also discussing these developments at a time when the leadership in the United States has been weakened — a leadership which does not seem to know where it is going. It would appear that China does not know whether to go back to the old Maoist way of thinking or to develop into a modern, technological state. This has not been helped by the aging leadership in China. Japan also faces leadership problems as incidents of corruption in government arise almost on a daily basis, not to mention on a cyclical one.
President Mitterrand of France is soon to leave office and it is believed that Mr. Balladur will be the next President. Economists have said Mr. Balladur "has all the charisma of an inter office memo." It has been suggested that that might also be said of John Major. Italy has also faced scandals and problems in relation to Mr. Berlusconi, the former Italian Prime Minister. Indeed, there have been problems throughout Europe; it does not seem to know where it wants to go.
Europe faces a number of challenges. The most important is how to absorb the large number of countries which want to join the EU. In recent months three countries successfully acceded to the EU. It was easy for the EU to allow this to happen because these countries are highly developed economically and technologically. There was no cost involved to the EU in allowing them to join because they would be net contributors. Problems, however, arise when countries which are not as economically developed want to join the EU.
The reunification of Germany and the inclusion of former eastern European states in an economic union with the rest of western Europe have posed problems for the EU. While there are major advantages in developing links with former eastern European countries, we also face challenges which must be dealt with sensitively. Firms in Ireland are losing out because of cheaper labour in eastern Europe. Many jobs will be transferred from western Europe, including Ireland, to eastern Europe as long as wage rates there remain low. It is now easy to move capital from one country or from one continent to another if that is what the market demands in terms of labour costs and machinery.
Europe has not confronted the issue of unemployment. Over the past ten years unemployment has increased throughout Europe. If there is to be any basis for economic union, the EU must address unemployment. We are told this country is doing well on a macro-economic level, but there is no point telling that to people who are out of work. While jobs are available for our young people, to whom we refer as the best educated in Europe, they are not available in Ireland. Although there is an upward swing in the economy at present, jobs are not being created.
Unfortunately over the past ten years our best graduates have emigrated and are working in companies which are doing well. They probably will not come back or, if they do, they will have a good reason for doing so. In many cases, they will have to be given adequate payment for their work. There is no doubt most of them would come back if their salaries were commensurate with what they are getting abroad and if the tax rates were not so high because many of them probably have not yet married. This means that they would be taxed at a higher rate than if they were resident in most other countries.
The weaknesses of the leadership in Europe are there and because of that, I am afraid the European Union will not succeed as we would like in the next number of years. If it did succeed, one would expect all our people would benefit from it.
The French once again seem to want to bring variable geometry into the equation by creating a three-tier Europe. That three-tier Europe would even accommodate the British, despite its opt out clauses. It has been said that Britain opts out of any of the difficult decisions. If this variable geometry is brought into place, possibly creating a three-tier Europe, the first tier would be led by the French and the Germans, with Britain possibly being dragged along; the second tier would consist of the reasonably well developed countries while the smaller countries and those which would not, in the opinion of Germany and France, be able to maintain themselves in this fast lane, would make up the third tier. However, it has been proved that Ireland is one of the few countries which, on macro-economic terms, would be able to cope in the fast lane.
Has the European Union provided us with a single free market for goods? There is possibly a single free market for food, but there is still a huge divergence between the VAT rates in the various countries. From an Irish point of view, we are non-competitive in many areas because of our transport problems, VAT, higher insurance and various other costs. Until these costs are taken into account, one cannot say that we are on a level playing field with the other countries.
The Irish people, in a recent survey, apparently did suggest that we would agree to a single currency; we are one of the few nations that would. The only possible advantage would be that we could deal in our goods and services in a single currency across borders without having to pay banks and currency dealers a percentage every time we shifted goods. While there would be a diminution of sovereignty, in a sense, by agreeing to a single currency, nevertheless, there are advantages that should be taken into account. Is there a guarantee of democracy throughout the European Union? There is a sense of democracy, but the whole of Europe is not truly democratic, any more than it was before the advent of the EU.
Europe is staggering around trying to find some means of helping when emergencies occur outside the Union. We do not have a joint foreign policy on aid, NATO and the United Nations. As a result, the Union staggers from one problem to another. If fire brigade action has to be taken, such as helping the people in Chechnya for example, it is impossible to do it. I do not think we will ever see a single joint foreign policy developing. We will be fighting about it after 1996 and into the next century. It is not possible for an amalgam of what will be 20 nations to have a joint foreign policy, nor would I wish it to be so. The idea of a joint foreign policy implies a federal state, which does not lie too easy on my conscience or in my psyche. There must be independence in the area of foreign policy. If there is not a certain amount of independence, one will get a consensus view at EU level on foreign policy issues. Generally speaking, a consensus means that the people who are most anxious to get something done in a certain area will have their position downgraded, there will be a slight upgrading of the position on the opposite side and we will get nowhere. Consensus does not help the person one is trying to help.
When eastern European countries in the former USSR wanted to become separate nations, they suggested that the UN allow them declare themselves as separate entities. The Ingushetian people decided to stay in the CIS and the Chechens decided they would not. The world did not allow the Chechens to stay outside the CIS. It is stated that there was a democratic vote taken in the Russian Parliament, that this was agreed to by the CIS and that Chechnya would not be allowed to separate. Of course, the Chechen people are now feeling the brunt of that decision, which was not a democratic one because the Chechens had decided they wanted to opt out. If countries which were part of former Yugoslavia can opt out under international rules, why were the people of Chechnya not allowed to do the same?
While the Government has sent messages to the Russians telling them to stop the massacres there, we should ask ourselves why these people were not allowed the freedom to set up their own independent state. It should be obvious to anybody why certain bigger states do not want separation especially when the main gas and oil pipelines are laid across that country — from central Russia into western Europe. There is also oil in that region. When one considers the economic benefits which flow from the supply of oil and gas, I am afraid fair play does not come into the equation.
In Europe, over the past 18 months in particular, we have been talking about peace in the Middle East. Much play was made on the Declaration of Principles signed between Israel and the Palestinians. There is no doubt that the people who signed those documents were honest in recognising the differences between them and the major problems confronting the Israelis and the Palestinians. However, neither would have signed the Declaration of Principles if it were not for the fact that the European Union, America, Japan and the northern states which are not part of the European Union promised huge inputs of money into the Middle East peace process. To date, the amount of money transferred from the western world to the peace process is negligible and, as a result, we are seeing a horrific upsurge in violence in that area.
We must absolutely and without reservation say that the bombing of the buses last week in Israel, the shooting of the Palestinian policemen in Gaza and the violence against the Palestinians who were peacefully protesting against settlers, are but the start of problems which will continue unless the western world comes up with the money it promised to provide for the peace process. The pledges in the 1994-2000 economic plan amounted to $14 billion. As far as I know, up to last September when I was in Gaza, only $7.5 million had been paid. A police force and an administration was to be set up. The western world and the European Union has reneged on its promises and, as a result, the conflict is on a much larger scale than it was before the signing of the Declaration of Principles.
If one looks at what the EU has done to provide aid for developing countries in northern Africa, one would ask if the problems in Algeria would be as severe if economic aid was provided or if the French, in particular, had allowed the last Algerian election to take place peacefully and the almost democratically elected Muslim led group to take power rather than imposing a military solution. There is no doubt that France has a major part to play in that area and that if it had allowed the democratically elected Government to take office, the Islamic extremists in Algeria would not be as strong as they are now and the violence that is now taking place in Algeria would be much less.
We in Ireland must look at our attitude to the Western European Union, its objectives, its relationship with NATO and the former eastern European States. The general objectives of the Union are the preservation of democracy and the protection of democratic values against the threats of collectivities, States and criminal organisations who apply violence to achieve unjust and illegal goals.
To try to eliminate the threats posed to Europe by ethnic and economic tension, fundamentalism in north Africa and our lack of following through with the promises we make in international fora — I am speaking about Europe as a whole — we have supposedly a United Nations which up to now was reasonably able to deal with problems. After a certain length of time, a peace-keeping group could be sent to an area but there has been a change in the UN in the past number of years. It is now talking about peace enforcement. They were very poor at peace-keeping but they are worse at peace enforcement. Unless the UN develops a cohesive policy, the pretence that its forces are peace-keepers or peace enforcers will have to change.
I am not suggesting that in every specific area UN peace-keeping efforts have been of no value. The UNIFIL operation has been of value in southern Lebanon and I am delighted that Irish battalions through the years have played their part there. If the UN had the guts to clear southern Lebanon of the Israeli led criminal groups, there would be no need for UNIFIL. According to UN Resolutions the Israelis should have been gone from there since 1984.
The criterion of membership of the EU — this is what people at the centre are now saying — is that countries must bring themselves up to the standards of the existing members and they will then be considered for membership. When we asked to join we were given time and aid to develop certain areas of our economy. We were given aid to help bring us to a reasonable standard so that we could compete in Europe. The rules now seem to be changing and the EU is telling applicant countries to reach our standards and they will then be allowed join. That is completely against the raison d'être of a European Union. The EU must play a bigger part in attempting to negotiate between warring parties in problem areas close to or within Europe, such as Italy, Slovenia, Greece and Turkey. There are various internal and external crises which could be resolved if there was the will in the EU but this does not seem to be there. As long as this is so problems will continue to exist.
There are other major items not being confronted by the Union. I am being very negative but in the time allowed I might as well be negative and let somebody else be positive. If I started to outline the good things, I might forget some of the bad things which are happening, and it is better to talk about them.
The Senator is always an optimist.
One has to be a pessimist to become an optimist. We have major problems in Europe in terms of emigration and I am afraid they will not go away. They are causing horrendous tensions in the bigger cities of western Europe. The inward swing of people from Africa and eastern Europe is caused by the difference in the standards of living in Africa and eastern European and in the West.
There is talk about harmonisation of laws relating to emigrants and immigrants. They should look at the way immigrants are treated in cities like Paris and Brussels, in the major German cities and in Holland. It is a growing problem. The open borders to the east present another problem that has to be confronted because of the huge amount of drugs that are coming in. The open border theory is grand, but when it comes down to policing or eliminating the major drug problem we have, we will have to examine carefully how we can deal with the open border principle. In Europe we will have to take a stronger attitude on environmental issues as a result of the reunification of Germany on the one hand and the development of the economies of Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the east. Such economies are not up to the required environmental standards and it will take a long time before they can be brought into harmony with standards in the West. In general western environmental standards are reasonable but they are not as good as they should be.
For democracy to succeed throughout Europe there must be a harmonisation of living conditions not alone in terms of the amount of money people earn but also in terms of environmental protection. There is a downturn in the great expectations people had about what the European Union would bring to us and to everybody else within Europe. We are failing because of lack of real leadership in the centre of Europe, and the danger is that while the Union will not split apart fully, there could be a tiered Europe. The dangers of such a Europe for us in Ireland would be more harmful than for most of the other states on the European continent.
I thank the Minister for having an early debate on what is happening in Europe and I am glad, as he said, that developments in the European Union are going to be consumer friendly. But I am afraid that this pamphlet is not consumer friendly — they have changed the colour but kept the printing style the same and without a précis. It is good for a library but not much good for a working politician and is definitely not what I would consider to be an upgrading of PR or presentation technology. You just do not change the colour and use the same print style. Some technical words have to be used in any document from the Government Publications Office but the language could be made more user friendly. I hope the Minister will examine how this can be done.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I welcome the Minister of State. Deputy Carey, to the House and congratulate him on his appointment. He started off his career in this House and it is nice to see him back here as a Minister.
Thank you very much.
The Minister of State for European Affairs, Deputy Gay Mitchell, opened the debate in the House earlier. While he is not present now. I would like to wish Deputy Mitchell every success in his new appointment. I am confident that he will approach the important tasks facing him with great vigour, energy and considerable ability. I also welcome the Minister for Western Development, Deputy Donal Carey. I knew Deputy Carey prior to his entry into politics when we were students at University College, Dublin, a long time ago. Many people received their university education at Earlsfort Terrace. I also got some of mine around Stamer Street, Ranelagh and Rathmines along with Deputy Carey.
Most of it late at night.
That is where some of our education was obtained. I wish him every success in what is a very important Ministry and the first of its kind. The affairs of the European Union will have an important part to play in his brief.
We are debating the reports for the period from July 1992 to July 1994. To some extent I accept Senator Lanigan's point that one has to go right through some of these reports to obtain different facts and summaries. In his address the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, said he intended to update, improve and modernise the information, making it more accessible. If he succeeds in that it will be important for everybody. The civil servants who prepare such documents should appreciate that facts should be presented in a readily available manner. This would give elected representatives an opportunity to analyse the points outlined so that they can make decisions. It would also benefit the media in furnishing information to the general public in a readable way. It is essential that the public can understand whatever documents, facts or figures are presented.
To date we have not succeeded in making the European Union consumer friendly for the general public. Of the various referenda that have taken place on entry into Europe, Ireland's has probably seen the largest majority of any country. In other countries where referenda have since taken place voting results have been close and in some instances the results have been so narrow as to cause concern. One country actually rejected the application for EU membership made by the Government. That demonstrates the necessity for people to be able to feel that they know what is happening in Europe. A majority of people here are, at present, in favour of European integration, but that majority is certainly not increasing.
There have been a number of warning signs and the general public are at least asking questions about Europe. There is no point in having people lull themselves into a false sense of security. It is important to bear in mind that many people are asking questions. A considerable number of people are dissatisfied with Europe and we have to ensure that this trend is not allowed to continue.
The 1996 intergovernmental conference is intended to review the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty and their implementation. It is important that this intergovernmental conference goes ahead and that there will at least be an opportunity to see what progress has been made under the Maastricht Treaty. This will allow people and Governments an opportunity to go through the benefits which resulted from the Maastricht Treaty.
On the outcome of whatever discussions take place at the Intergovernmental Conference, a decision will be made regarding enlargement and allowing other countries from central and eastern Europe to join. My party have always been absolutely committed to European Union. The party was absolutely committed under former Deputy Liam Cosgrave, then Leader of the Opposition, when this matter first arose. Since Seán Lemass was Taoiseach through to the present day we have been supportive of entry into the European Union. We continue to be actively and positively interested in the European Union and integration. However, if after the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference we allow in countries from eastern and central European, we as a nation will have to be careful in any decisions we make about further enlargement.
It is obvious that there are bureaucratic and organisational considerations. The existence of 15 member states already appears to be quite cumbersome. Allowing in additional countries will cause great problems for the Community. I want to go a stage further. We have an important interest in further enlargement because one of the main reasons Ireland joined the European Union was our agricultural exports. In the event of further enlargement of the European Union and the admission of states from central and eastern European, we will find that many of these states will be in competition with us.
These states will also seek some of the funding we obtain for our agricultural produce and community. With the scarcity of resources, there is a real danger that our farming community will suffer because of the admission of new countries. The Irish economy depends to a considerable extent on our export of agricultural produce. If there is to be a reduction or dilution in Structural Funds and a diminution in agricultural assistance and aid, our economy will be damaged considerably.
It is also important to bear in mind that we are an island off the coast of Europe. Our peripheral nature means we have to place before our fellow member states the facts of the situation and the necessity that we protect our vital national interest, which could be seriously affected and damaged in the event of other member states being allowed in. That is not to say that I am against the admission of new member states. Why should it be 15? Why not 17 or 14? However, we have to be careful in whatever negotiations take place in the future regarding the admission of new members.
There are a number of other important issues. At both local and national level, I encounter considerable criticism of the implementation of rules, regulations and decisions taken in Europe. A considerable amount of criticism has been levelled at the area of the preparation of food, including bread, cakes, confectionery, biscuits, jam, meat.
Our health boards, local authorities and various Government Departments have been implementing rules and regulations which result in the imposition of what can only be described as a bureaucratic heap of red tape on people who are trying to conduct their business, make a living for themselves, their wives and families and provide a service for their community. Through red tape of one type or another many small businesses, family businesses and small industries have been closed down.
I have seen this particularly affect bakers. Small family bakeries have come in for considerable scrutiny from local authorities and health boards. Small family butcher shops have been similarly affected. I know of one butcher who had to make three different changes in his shop following hygiene regulations and so on. After carrying out works as directed he was again asked to change his premises. The person is since deceased, but the stress and strain from the local authority caused him a considerable amount of problems.
I have visited a number of cities, including London, Paris and Rome. I have seen food, including meat and vegetables, sold openly on the streets and nobody taking any action, and rightly so. I looked at the products on sale and thought they were well presented, clean and hygienic. However, if there is to be one law for people conducting business in Ireland, there should be a similar law for everybody else.
Those regulations are doing much damage to the image of Europe. Laws have to be couched in a manner which complies with commonsense. Some of the regulations and the manner in which they have been enforced defy commonsense. I have seen many butcher's shops, small shops and people in business close down. It is not good enough and it is not right. Similar regulations are not being applied across Europe. Regulations should be applied in a fair manner everywhere. It is important to place that on record.
Governments more or less say that all the good things coming from Europe are wonderful and that the benefits were obtained through their hard work. However, when anything bad happens, they blame Europe. Laws should reflect a nation's culture and identity and they should not be brought in from Europe if they do not comply with the identity and culture of the people. I discussed at length and opposed the Road Traffic Act, 1993, because many of its terms were wrong. However, the Government at the time thought it was complying with European regulations and law, but in my opinion it was not. While we strictly implement European laws, rules and regulations other countries do not. We should be more sensible in our approach to the implementation of laws. We have our own culture and independence but we are still proud to be members of the European Union. When people come to visit Ireland and meet the Irish people, we should ensure that they recognise our identity and culture which allows us to be distinctive. We should not allow ourselves to be consumed into a European stew where everyone is the same. We must retain our own identity.
The jobs situation continues to be a serious matter for everyone. We need to question why so many important traditional industries are closing, including the textiles and motor industries. Many social schemes are assisted by Europe and are of considerable benefit to our country, but we need to examine why so many established industries have closed and how the remainder can be kept open and made viable. That is not to say that we should push money into industries which are unable to survive, but we must ensure that every effort is made to keep industries, which could be viable, open, during periods of recession and competition. Something must be done to prevent these closures. It must be remembered that there are many black spots in our cities.
The Minister of State with responsibility for western development. Deputy Carey, has been appointed to look after the western seaboard and I wish him well in that onerous and challenging task. I come from County Offaly and we face the same challenges as the Minister faces on the western seaboard. South, south-west, west and mid-Offaly suffer from emigration, depopulation, large scale unemployment and low incomes. A number of our industries, including the ESB and Bord na Móna, are experiencing many difficulties as a result of competition and considerable debts. I ask the Minister to see if he can extend his brief to cover parts of Offaly and other areas along the Shannon, that will probably be the cut-off point. I am not making a parochial point but he might be able to assist other areas east of the Shannon.
The level of depopulation in parts of the west has been alarming. We have not seen such large numbers of people leaving since the Famine. Villages and towns in parts of France and Italy have ceased to exist as a result of depopulation. There is a great challenge facing the European Commission, the European Parliament and the structures of the European Union when one sees the total depopulation of these areas. We must make an effort so to make these communities viable and address this problem. Many cities are overcrowded, yet there are serious problems of depopulation in the country. We must try to strike a balance. The reports we are discussing this evening do not fully address or suggest answers to these problems.
This afternoon I said we should have a proper debate on Chechnya. We discussed the former Yugoslavia at different times, but the European Union has not succeeded in finding positive solutions to the problems in these European countries. As regards Chechnya, it is sad to see a country being invaded and its people attacked, mutilated and killed, while others stand by and do not take action or provide assistance. Might should not be allowed to walk over innocent people. This is a test to see if the European Union intends to take action. If the European Union had stated that it would make more positive efforts than lodging protests and imposing embargoes, it might have made President Yeltsin and other members of the Russian Government stop and think before they took action. More clear and concise policy decisions should be made by the European Union when it is confronted with such problems.
The Minister and Senator Lanigan covered a wide range of issues in their speeches. This is an important debate on four reports. I wish the new Government well in its task and in the intergovernmental conference in the second half of 1996.
I understand Senator Quinn wants to share his time with Senator Lee. Is that agreed? Agreed. I will remind the Senator when his time is up.
I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for western development. Deputy Carey, to the House because I know he will use the opportunity to hear other views on Europe during his term. I wish him well in his endeavour.
I want to tell a story to relax the proceedings. Almost two years ago I was at a conference on the far side of the Atlantic. One of the speakers in the small group, not unlike this House, was the former British Prime Minister, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, who gave her views in a forthright manner as she tends to do. She spoke about her views on Europe, among other things. When she had finished she asked us for our views. I told her I disagreed with her on Europe. I asked her to suppose that in the 1770s in Philadelphia, when Madison, Jefferson and others drew up the US Constitution, they had decided to have 13 individual states, each with its own passport, immigration laws and currency. I asked her if that had happened whether we would have unity and a strong nation in the USA, as we have today.
I thought I had done a marvellous job and asked the right question, but Lady Thatcher did not take kindly to it. She said the position was not the same because the people of the United States had gone there of their own free will, instilled with enthusiasm, effort and drive in an ambition to create that nation, not like the bureaucrats of Europe who sat in Brussels dreaming up red tape for the rest of us.
The discussion went on and I felt slightly squashed. However, the man beside me was Mr. Vernon Jordan, a tall man — rather taller than the man beside me now. Senator Lee — and probably the most prominent black lawyer in the United States. At that time he was chairman of the Clinton administration transition committee. Mr. Jordan stood to his feet and, speaking in a strong voice, told Lady Thatcher not everyone came to America of his own free will.
I tell the story because it is a reminder to us of the different views on Europe. Lady Thatcher and the British have one view, which not everyone shares. In America a strong unified force emerged but it did not come easily; it came from long debates, many changes and a number of amendments to the US Constitution. Although the focus of this debate is recent developments in the EU, I will use those developments to talk about future developments. In particular I will discuss the challenges we face next year from the Intergovernmental Conference to re-assess and revise the Maastricht Treaty. Next year may seem a long time away but we have no time to lose if we are to avoid the cardinal mistake made at the time of Maastricht, which nearly sank the project. That was the virtual absence of discussion in the member states in advance of the treaty negotiations and the total lack of consultation with the broad mass of citizens of Europe.
We should remind ourselves of the trouble this approach caused. The negotiations on the treaty were handed over to people who thought they only had to please themselves. As they went about their horse-trading they clearly gave no thought to how the finished product would look — whether it would hold together in a cohesive way, whether it would be readily understood by the citizens of Europe, whether there was enough in the treaty to create growing enthusiasm for the European ideal. All negotiations result in compromise, but most negotiators who have a constituency to whom they report realise they must be able to sell such a compromise to their constituents. The Maastricht negotiators did not realise they were ultimately responsible to an increasingly discerning constituency throughout Europe. They produced a compromise which proved extremely difficult to sell.
In presentational terms we ended up with legalism gone mad. Those of us who read the treaty, who persevered diligently until the end, were even more confused after our reading than before — at least I was. We were asked to understand and judge not a self-contained treaty setting out a new order but a hodge-podge of amendments to the Treaty of Rome. Its structure was anything but user-friendly, to use a computer term, and the language used was obscurantist, foggy, ambiguous, vague and quite difficult to grasp.
At the best of times this would have caused difficulties itself, but they were added to by the fact that the people of Europe were not being consulted in advance. Most of them knew nothing about what was happening until the final negotiations, when the end of the process was revealed and Maastricht emerged fully-fledged into the public consciousness, the people having played no part in its evolution.
This was the central reason for the problems which beset the Maastricht Treaty — the lack of involvement by European citizens and the lack of any consultation or discussion in advance where ratification by referendum was required. The electorate were presented with a pig in a poke; in effect, the people were asked to rubber stamp a highly complex and often contentious proposal in its entirety.
We all know what happened. The Danes rejected it, at least the first time; the French only passed it by a fraction of 1 per cent; and ratification was equally difficult in several national parliaments. In our case we passed the treaty with a comfortable majority. Just under 70 per cent of the Irish people voted yes. However, it would be foolish to expect a similar response on the next occasion. The stakes are getting higher all the time and the advantages of EU membership for Ireland are more in the balance as time goes on. Despite the high vote for approval many people feel they were railroaded into the treaty and will look far more critically at the proposals the next time.
In Ireland, just as across Europe as a whole, we must take a different approach to the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference. We must start discussing the matter now and familiarise people with the options up for discussion. We do not have to hammer out a detailed negotiating position in advance — that would simply not be practical — but the negotiating positions of Ireland and of other countries should emerge against a background of a good public awareness of the many complex issues involved.
From that point of view I was delighted with the contribution of the Minister of State, Deputy Mitchell. I welcome him into his new position. I was interested to hear the number of seminars he plans to hold and I was encouraged by the attendance at the seminar in Limerick last month. It is this type of discussion and interest that we should encourage. If we do not involve the people of Europe in advance the project is doomed to failure.
That in itself would be a major tragedy for Europe in general and Ireland especially. Europe must continue to grow and develop and can only do that by constantly evolving its institutions. Each step in that evolution can be a small one, provided it is a step forward. If there is no progress — or, even worse, if there is a stepping back from earlier commitments to progress — the European ideal will stagnate and perhaps even crumble.
It has been a problem for Europe from the beginning that what was the EC and is now the EU has always been too remote from those it serves. We are now beginning to experience the consequences of that. There is a widespread backlash against too much centralisation and bureaucracy and a lack of genuine democratic involvement in the decision making processes of the EU.
It was interesting to hear Senator Enright talk about the difficulties experienced by butchers and bakers — he did not refer to candlestick makers. I know many of those difficulties. For instance, a proposal was made about minced beef or ground meat which was necessary in southern Europe but not in the northern part. It was almost passed until an explanation was given of why there was no such problem in the northern countries. When a proposal was made regarding the refrigeration of eggs, which was very necessary apparently in Italy and Spain but which was not necessary in northern Europe, the people in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry listened with attentive ears before they went to negotiate. In many cases we have achieved solutions because the members of the Irish Civil Service have the ability to listen to the citizens of Ireland before they go to negotiate.
However, these concerns must be addressed. They should not be addressed by giving in to the backward looking factions across Europe who want to roll back what has been achieved already. We hear those voices continuously in the British Parliament at present. That is not the way for the future. Equally, however, the day has passed when people's support for changes in Europe can be taken for granted. The day is past when that support can be whipped up after the event during the few weeks before a referendum.
These concerns can be addressed. They can be addressed if the people are treated as adults by involving them in open discussions, as the Minister proposes to do through these seminars. I hope they represent only the tip of the iceberg with regard to the discussion the Minister intends to encourage. The discussions should be about the problems and other issues. We must pay real attention rather than lip service to people's needs and wants from Europe, their aspirations about Europe and their expectations from Europe. There is a massive job to be done and very little time in which to do it.
Perhaps we as a small nation cannot have a huge influence on what happens across Europe but we have considerable influence on what happens in this country. I urge the Government to treat this as a matter of urgency. I am delighted to see that it appears to be doing so. Above all, I urge the Government to suppress any temptation towards complacency as a result of the large yes vote in the last referendum. Next time things could be very different.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Tá súil agam to bhfeicimid go minic é sa Teach seo amach anseo.
I agree with the approach adopted by Senator Quinn and the approach adopted in the paper. There is an admonition that we must begin rethinking our approach towards Europe in order to develop what one could call a deeper and more complex relationship, no longer primarily as beneficiaries of funding. It is a sign of hope about the maturity of our foreign policy that we are beginning to think some distance ahead about the implications of the inevitable decline in the degree of subsidisation from Europe we have enjoyed under various headings, such as Structural Funds and the Common Agricultural Policy. I welcome the general approach adopted in this regard. A two way educational process — Government to people, people to Government — is desirable and necessary. I therefore welcome the series of seminars being launched by the Government.
I will go back to the beginning of the Minister's statement and try to follow its main point, which I presume will lend an impeccable logic to my structure. He is right to say that there is a big improvement in the most recent report and, indeed, in its construction. When we last debated one of these reports — I think it was October, 1993 — many of us lamented the singularly unhelpful nature of the report. There is an improvement in this report and that is to be welcomed. I hope it will be sustained and developed further because there is still scope for sharpening the transparency of some of the analyses.
A major issue confronting us in the EU is the enlargement problem. It offers both a challenge and an opportunity to Ireland. A natural response is to say that the possible new entrants from eastern Europe threaten our subsidies and therefore we will either oppose them openly or, as is more consonant with our national style, warmly welcome them and then drag our heels as effectively as we can in preventing them actually achieving the terms which are necessary for them. That would be a mistake on several grounds.
I am an unashamed European in many respects and I welcome the adhesion of the countries and cultures of east and central Europe to the existing European Union. I would welcome it even if they were not bringing short term material benefits to the European Union, as they probably will not. However, they are developing much more rapidly than one would deduce from static figures of per capita GNP or whatnot, which in my view are grossly underestimated, certainly on the basis of personal observation. I realise that is not a scientific criterion but I put far more weight on it than I do on tables of per capita income calculated in a highly arbitrary way and failing to do full justice to the nature of these economies. These eastern European economies have far more potential for rapid growth than some economies which entered the EU in an earlier period. Even if they had not such potential, I would still welcome their membership.
We should welcome it for a number of reasons. First, we should welcome it if we are genuine Europeans and, secondly, because the axis of Europe in general and even of the European Union is moving eastwards anyway. Berlin, which is a central European city — it is certainly not a western European city in the classic sense — will become the capital of the Bundesrepublik in a few years time. Dresden, which at about this time in 1945 was barbarically razed to the ground, is rising from its ruins once more. Prague is again joining the mainstream of European history. Vienna, which was paralysed for 50 years because of the artificial border to the east, is again resuming its place as one of the great cities of Europe. Budapest, I am glad to say, is resuming its rightful place. If I were being melodramatic I would say that the hoofbeats of history are sounding once more through central Europe.
We should be part of the welcome for that development. Regardless of whether we are, it will happen. We will not be able to stop it even if we wanted to. It may happen more slowly if we create difficult terms for the entry of the eastern central European countries to the EU, but I am convinced it will happen. Our negotiating position, therefore, should be to welcome wholeheartedly and without reservation the applications of these countries. Of course, we can legitimately claim compensation if there is disproportionate damage caused to our interests compared with the interests of other member states. That goes without saying. We would be entitled to demand that and ought to demand it. However, we should not do so in a grudging way. We should convey the impression that we warmly welcome the adhesion of these states as soon as possible.
There is a further calculation of self-interest. At least three of these states are small states. Even Poland psychologically is a small state, although it has a population roughly equal to that of Spain. It is striking how much admiration — perhaps slightly exaggerated admiration — these states have for Ireland, which is seen as a successful and effective member of the European Union. The extent to which Budapest, Prague, Bratislava — when it discovers where we are — and Warsaw look to the Irish performance in the EU as a small state is quite striking. There is potential for — a union of hearts would be putting it a little melodramatically — effective co-operation between us and them as small states within the European Union. Even from the point of view of our potential long term interest we should look on the eastern European states as an opportunity as well as a challenge politically and economically. It is up to us in large measure whether it becomes an opportunity. How we conceptualise it will determine to a considerable extent whether it becomes so. It is up to us to appreciate that opportunity and to grasp it as best we can.
It is important that we are very clear in our position and that we do not sidle along being pulled one way and the other by whatever interest group has the ear of a Minister at a particular time. I would like to see the Government and the Irish State give a lead on this issue and not allow itself to become the puppet of whatever the dominant interest group may be at a given moment. In this context national interest supercedes sectoral interest and a clear distinction can be drawn between them.
I wish to deal with one or two other aspects of this issue. I welcome the seminars. I welcome the commitment to contribute to the political and intellectual debate about the type of Union which will enter the next millenium. While we can rightly say in this paper that we are a long standing member of the EU, the countries which are not members at present can also rightly claim, and I will not go into millennia of history, to be equally long standing members of European civilisation and European culture, and that from the point of view of Europe, as distinct from the EU, they have a legitimate claim to being regarded as integral members of this civilisation.
I do not get as excited about Maastricht criteria and Maastricht targets as some people do from time to time. Many of these targets, such as the 60 per cent on the debt/GNP ratio, are arbitrary. I believe in disciplined public finances, but whether the target is 70 per cent or 50 per cent at any given time is a matter of opinion. There is nothing sacrosanct about any given statistic. A great deal depends on circumstances, and circumstances are always changing. While we should be working towards these targets in a general way, we should not imprison ourselves within the thought processes out of which these targets emerged. Let us, therefore, not get too worried if we are not moving at the speed which others believe we ought to move from time to time.
I am also sceptical about the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. Much of that White Paper is at least as aspirational as our own effusions on unemployment and solving unemployment in this country. I am open to correction on this, but much of the English version appears to have been translated from the French, because the rhetoric is peculiarly suited to the retundities of the French language rather than the English.
I wish the White Paper well. There are some good things in it but it is not going to make the slightest difference in the short term. If unemployment falls in Europe over the next couple of years, and we all hope it does, it will be the result of the internal workings of the international economy as currently constituted, and not of specific measures adopted from the White Paper. It may make a difference, and it probably will not do any harm, in the medium term, but to argue that there is clear appreciation that the Union as a whole must tackle the issue which cannot be solved by member states acting individually is unsustainable on the basis of evidence.
Unemployment varies greatly between EU member states and among other European states. It is not a function of the Union qua Union and, as regards the argument that states cannot solve the problem acting individually, they cannot solve the problem but they are certainly not going to be any less capable of solving it than the Union as a whole is capable of solving it for the foreseeable future. Perhaps in due course mechanisms will emerge, maybe policies will be devised, maybe great minds will find ways of coping with these challenges all over the Union. However, for the foreseeable future — to the end of this century — the Union qua Union will not make very much difference to the solution of unemployment problems in its various member states. That is not to denigrate it; it is just to ask ourselves to be realistic.
I do not see why voters or Europeans should blame the Union if unemployment fails to fall in individual member states as distinct from blaming their own national Governments, in so far as national Governments have any influence on the matter, but then as national Governments claim that they have, even if they have not, they deserve to be blamed. Do not ask too much from the Union in this respect.
I have one criticism of this paper. The section on foreign policy, the section on former Yugoslavia and the section on Russia succumb to being too bland by half. There is a horrendous situation there and there may be very little we can do about it. However, citing as a record of solid achievements the types of documents that have emerged — even humanitarian aid, welcome and deserving of applause though it is — ignores the fact that it is not the complex nature of internal conflict, such as that in the former Yugoslavia, which has challenged all international organisations and so on but that member states, or any states who do not feel themselves directly threatened by a problem, are going to be very reluctant to commit resources which may mean committing the lives of their citizens to the solution of that problem, whether it is an internal problem or an external problem elsewhere.
While these resolutions go in the right direction, there should be a franker acknowledgement of the inadequacy of the EU response from a European perspective, because they can be legitimately hoist on the petard of their own rhetoric about Europe in a way that Americans or others cannot. If they are serious about the rhetoric they should have been doing something more, and if they are not serious they should keep their mouths shut in the light of the horrors that have been experienced, are being experienced and will continue to be experienced in those areas.
Regarding the argument which Senator Quinn so eloquently advanced that the distance between decision making in Brussels and the citizen is greater than it should be, of course it is, and while the Brussels bureaucracy is small in number, many members of that bureaucracy have a distinctly dirigiste attitude towards how Europe ought to develop, and we ought to be confronting that dirigiste attitude whenever and wherever we can.
However, one might say the same to some extent of decision making in Dublin, in that the distance between the citizen is greater than it should be except that in our dear country it is mediated by the human qualities of our civil servants. I include the citizens of Dublin, and not just the citizens in the west of Ireland who have prepared for Deputy Carey, because two miles from Government Buildings can be a long way from decision making. Hopefully, we would practise what we preach within our own State as well as in the EU. If subsidiarity is to make sense it should do so within countries as well as between national capitals and Brussels.
Laws should reflect national cultures and national values as far as is remotely possible with harmonisation within the EU. Harmonisation ought not to necessarily mean standardisation, except in those relatively limited areas where it is in fact very difficult to distinguish the two.
We have been considering our political and national cultures, but there is nothing about culture in the narrower sense in this paper. Perhaps this is a remit by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, but in foreign affairs documents there should be some reference, especially when we are concerned with membership of the EU and the European ideal, to the potential Irish contribution, in a cultural sense, and not have them compartmentalised.
I welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for his fine address; although he has left the House I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Carey. There is one point in the Minister's address which stands out:
There is also now a greater understanding of the need to bring the institutions of the Union closer to the citizen and to ensure that decisions taken at the level of the Union which affect the daily lives of all our citizens enjoy widespread public support.
If the EU is to be a success it must be based on that sentence.
We are dealing with four reports, on the Developments in the European Communities and the EU, Nos. 41 to 44. Many events occurred during the time covered by the reports — July 1992 to June 1994. The signing of the Maastricht Treaty would have had a big effect, although it occurred in February 1992. However, an important event took place during the term of the first report. On 11 and 12 December 1992, the European Council met in Edinburgh from which emerged the Delors II package. This was the framework for the Structural Funds and Cohesion Funds that are, and will be coming into effect up to the end of the century.
Another event which took place was the European political co-operation, especially with eastern Europe; there were also direct links with the Middle East, with Africa south of the Sahara, with Asia and with Central and South American countries. This involved opening up European influence throughout the world. The major aspect of the second report is that Denmark finally accepted the Treaty of European Union. There was difficulty in the beginning but they finally accepted it. The 44th report deals with the negotiations with Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway. During this period, Austria joined the EU; we will leave what happened with the other countries until another day. The major aspect of the 43rd report is that on 1 November 1993 the Treaty of European Union was accepted. European history was made during the period covered by these four reports.
The final report deals with the meeting in Corfu on 24 and 25 June where a reflection group was set up to prepare for the intergovernmental conference in 1996. This conference will be of extreme importance because it is a continuation of what happened over the previous two years. What will be highlighted are the things which went wrong; the things which went right will be accepted.
We accepted the Maastricht Treaty in good faith, but some people are asking if we are being too good as Europeans. We follow every regulation which comes from Europe and make rules, regulations and restrictions and so on, perhaps more so than people in other parts of the EU. We saw examples of that in the past. We must ask if the Spaniards coming into our waters and violating our fishing rights are adhering to the concept of a European Union. These issues should be straightened out at the intergovernmental conference in 1996.
We are placed further out on a limb the more Europe stretches eastwards. Will we be forgotten on the western wing? We have to bear that in mind. I am not against the European Union spreading to the whole continent of Europe. However, there is a big problem because Europe has such complex cultures, boundaries, climates and people. There are cultures which go back many thousands of years, as distinct from the countries of the New World.
In comparing Europe with the United States, people often say that we will have the United States of America on one side of the Atlantic and the United States of Europe on the other side. It is not easy as that, because although there are 50 states in the USA, many of them were wide open countryside when they were conquered by Europeans. It is a totally different concept to that of Europe. American culture only goes back to the War of Independence, or a little earlier. What traditions do they have before that? They would adore to have Newgrange or the Grianán of Áille. If they had the Skellig Islands it would be built higher than the Statue of Liberty because it would be part of their national culture, which is something they do not have.
In Europe, not only is there a culture, there are cultures. We can see the problems which cultures have caused in places such as Yugoslavia. A very wide, varied and complex situation could develop over the years as the EU stretches eastwards. The European Union will eventually stretch to Russia, which is only west of the Urals, and that will cause economic, cultural and linguistic problems.
I am sorry that the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, has left because I was speaking about Ireland's peripherality. In his new role as Minister of State with responsibility for the islands, we will be tackling him — as you will. Sir — about the islands off the coast of Kerry and west Cork. He is not just a Minister for north of the Shannon, he will also have to come a little bit south. It is a pity that he has left because I would have reminded him of that.
Acting Chairman
I will support the Senator on that.
Very good. With regard to monetary union, it was remarked some years ago that if a person left Dublin with £100, visited the 12 capitals and exchanged the money in each city, on their return to Dublin they would have less than half the money left because of charges. That is a tremendous disadvantage for business. I do not know what effect three other countries joining will have on that. Will it mean that one could come back with a minus quantity if any more countries join? The exchange rates and charges are a large hindrance to business and tourism.
We must stress our peripheral nature as an island at any Intergovernmental Conference. If a country such as Poland joins the EU, its people can drive across the border into Germany. We cannot do that and it is a hindrance and a huge cost. Therefore, we must prepare to make our case very strongly at this Intergovernmental Conference in 1996. The centre of the EU is regarded as Brussels, Strasbourg, Paris and London. That is the main centre of influence in Europe. Will that shift eastwards and how will that affect us in our outpost in the Atlantic?
The European traditions will have to be welded together. Norway did not join the EU, which was its entitlement. Smaller states such as Liechtenstein and San Marino will also have to be accommodated. Will Switzerland ever become a member of the EU and what would be the consequences if it did?
I wish to return to the point which the Minister of State mentioned in his speech on the Union coming closer to the citizen. We in Ireland are very conscious of our membership of the EU, but I wonder if people on the Continent, who do not benefit as much as we do, are as conscious. We get road grants, area aid grants, training grants and so on from the EU which makes us conscious of it. There are many people in Germany, the Netherlands and France who are not as conscious of the European Union as we are. We have much to gain from Europe and much to give. It is very important that we put our case at any conference or meeting of the Council or elsewhere. It is only by so doing that we can get the best for this country.
In dealing with the recent developments. I wish to begin by referring to the new Commission, which is now a 21 member executive. Among its most striking features are five women, an increase in one on the outgoing Delors Commission, and a strong social democrat slant. Two of its members are former Prime Ministers, Madame Edith Cresson of France and Mr. Santer, who stepped down in Luxembourg. Another newcomer is Mr. Neil Kinnock, the former British Labour Party Leader, who almost became Prime Minister after the 1992 election. It is much more a political body than its predecessor, making it much more difficult for critics to justify criticism about anonymous bureaucrats in Brussels. The argument which took place between Sir Leon Brittan and Mr. Santer obscured potentially significant reforms in the organisation of the Commission, starting with the strengthening of the office of the President.
In the new order Mr. Santer will assume final authority over the Commission's role in the common foreign and security policy and preparations for the creation of a single European currency. He will also play the lead role in co-ordinating the Commission's position in the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference to review the Maastricht Treaty. Mr. Santer's accumulation of power needs to be seen in light of the evolving role of the Commission, expanding from 17 to 20 members with Austria, Finland and Sweden voting in favour of EU membership in their referenda. Without a greater degree of centralisation and co-ordination, the Commission risks becoming even more unwieldy than it is already.
The second major reform introduced by Mr. Santer was the ending of the artificial barriers between the economic and political affairs in external relations. In the future responsibilities will be defined on geographical lines, allowing a more integrated approach to policy making and hopefully ending the turf battles which plagued the outgoing Delors Commission. I was particularly pleased to note that Mr. Pádraig Flynn retained his portfolio and continues with social policy. It was indeed a sorry sight to see so-called feminists attacking Mr. Flynn on the basis of his sex without having regard to his record on women's rights. They were unable to see that what they wanted most for themselves — equality of opportunity and no discrimination on the basis of sex — they were unwilling to grant to Mr. Flynn. It was an even sorrier sight to see some Irish MEPs attacking one of our own, their sole purpose being, it seems, to reduce the responsibilities of the Irish Commissioner. One has to be up very early in the morning to put one over on Mr. Flynn and it is widely rumoured in the Berlaymont that nobody rises before the Irish Commissioner.
Nearly all the developments in recent times, in common with all developments, are pushing towards a united Europe. However, uniting the two halves of Europe is by far the biggest challenge facing us at present. It is a task of historic dimensions, comparable to the foundation of the original European Community in western Europe in the 1950s. We must continually remind ourselves that in the aftermath of World War II, a group of visionaries started a drive to European unity in order to make future wars in Europe impossible. A similar grand design must now be sketched out for the whole Continent, but this time, as European Union critics have been quick to point out, the vision has been slow in coming. Most will agree that most countries of western Europe have been preoccupied of late by their own economic, social and political problems and have not wanted to look at the broader historic picture. On the contrary, the prospect of opening the doors to central and eastern Europe, particularly to its low cost exports, looks to many more like a threat than an opportunity.
Much of the criticism has been exaggerated and some of it has been wrong. It has often failed to take adequate account of the political difficulties caused by recession and high unemployment in western Europe. There is little doubt, at least in the years immediately following the collapse of the Iron Curtain, that we could have been more helpful to our neighbours as they struggled towards western style market democracies. Hopefully, that phase is now over. Over the past year or so, largely prodded by Germany, the European Union has begun to treat the political and economic integration of central and eastern Europe with broader vision and greater urgency. Something resembling a grand strategy is now finally emerging. The European Union has signed an unprecedented trade and co-operation agreement with Russia and it has promised full membership to at least six central and east European countries — Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Romania. It has agreed to start extending the Single Market to the central and east European countries and it is forging closer political bonds by bringing central and east European Governments more into decision making councils.
Since the offer of membership to the six countries at the Copenhagen Summit, the EU is now committed to a major eastward expansion. The question is no longer "whether" but "how and when", and Poland and Hungary have already submitted formal entry applications. However, before any of these ex-Communist nations can join, a number of time consuming and difficult conditions must be fulfilled, both on the eastern and western sides of the former Iron Curtain. With the best of wills, there is no way that the ex-Communist countries can be admitted into the EU much before the turn of the century. The year 2000 has become a type of informal target date, at least for the most advanced countries, although many European Governments would not want to be pinned down to it. On the eastern side, the first and fundamental requirements are that the former Communist states become functioning market economies and acquire sufficient institutional stability to guarantee democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities — to use the EU's own words.
There are basic conditions of European membership which could not be fulfilled by a totalitarian country or by dictatorships, such as those which kept Spain and Portugal out of the Union until 1986. There are also severe practical difficulties. The central and east European countries are nowhere near being able to apply European Union rules in fields such as competition policy, state aids and the environment, to name but a few, let alone economic and monetary policy; nor are they yet ready to face the competitive pressures of full EU membership. However, major changes will also be necessary on the western side. First, we must digest the entry of the new members, Austria, Finland and Sweden, and then in 1996 review our whole constitutional future. The likely expansion of the Union, from its current 12 to well over 20 members, would make it impossible to continue with rules which were essentially designed for six founder members in the 1950s. This raises the question of a two speed, or even a three or four speed Europe. We must ask ourselves if we should immediately become part of the Schengen agreement. It is a difficult question and is one of the difficulties facing us. Personally, I would not like a two speed Europe, but these things may be necessary.
Perhaps of equal difficulty is that the European Union must radically reform its Common Agricultural Policy and its system of structural development funds for the poorer regions to make way for the new central and east European members. If the CAP's price support system is extended to farmers in Poland, for example, it would almost certainly cause a production explosion, a growth of unsaleable surpluses and consequent trade conflicts, and the collapse of the EU budget. On the other hand, it is unlikely to be politically feasible to exclude Poland and other central European countries from as central an EU policy as the CAP, either altogether or for a protracted transitional period. I do not believe that any of the Governments have taken this on board, particularly the political consequences of tampering with support levels to vociferous farmers.
Richard E. Baldwin, in an exhaustive report by the London based Centre for Economic Policy Research, warns that the foremost van countries, namely the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland — usually considered the most likely to join first — would need at least a ten year transitional period after 2000 AD before benefiting from the Union's agricultural and Structural Funds. Without such an arrangement, he states, the net cost to the Union of bringing in just those four countries in the year 2000 could be a gigantic $63.6 billion a year. This is exactly equivalent to the budgetary spending of the entire 12 nation Union in 1992. I do not believe that taxpayers in western Europe are even remotely prepared for this type of impact, nor are Governments of the countries that will be major rivals of the newcomers for EU Structural Funds or those who would have to finance the new payments. This includes almost everybody.
If nothing is done to bridge the yawning financial gaps, EU integration will stall. It would be tragic if the historic and geopolitical imperatives of uniting Europe were to be lost from sight in an inward looking haggle over agriculture and budgetary reform. Strong leadership is required and this is coming at present from Germany. It is fortunate for Europe that at this point in history Germany's interest in bringing in the central and east European countries coincides with its broader European interests.
We must also examine the whole relationship of the European Union with America. In January 1814, Thomas Jefferson set out a rationale for American engagement in Europe, which still holds good today. He said: "Surely none of us wishes to see Bonaparte conquer Russia and lay thus at his feet the whole continent of Europe. This done, England would be but a breakfast. No, it cannot be to our interest that Europe should be reduced to a single monarchy." In a couple of sentences, Jefferson captures how US foreign policy towards Europe will be ultimately driven by considerations of balance of power. Europe will always be of vital interest to the US, a fact underlined by a near $3 trillion a year in goods, services and capital in bilateral trade investment. We must ask ourselves what will happen in the future. Many things could happen both in America and in Europe. For example, alternatives could appear in Europe. Either the Continent reverts to its 19th century past, fragmented by nationalism and ethnic rivalry — concepts so abhorrent to the peacemaker, Mr. John Hume — or it enters a new age in which the European Union acts both as a subordinator of the nation state and a strategic partner of the US, covering the full range of common economic, political and security interests.
I do not have time to deal with most of the other issues before us, but I would like to deal with security and foreign policy which are being brought under one roof.
Debate adjourned.