This Bill amends the European Communities Act 1972 and enables certain parts of the treaty providing for the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union to become part of the domestic law of the State, once Ireland ratifies the treaty.
The passage of the Bill, together with the passage of a motion in the Dáil approving the accession treaty, are the major steps required to enable Ireland to ratify the treaty of accession. As Senators may already be aware, accession negotiations began in 1998 with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia. In February 2000, negotiations opened with Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia. Accession negotiations were completed with ten of these countries, excluding Bulgaria and Romania, at the Copenhagen European Summit on 12 and 13 December 2002.
The accession treaty for these ten countries was signed by the Heads of State and Government in Athens on 16 April 2003. Since signature of the treaty, they have become non-voting participants in most Council and European Parliament meetings and in the Convention on the Future of Europe. Accession will take place on 1 May 2004, during the Irish Presidency, following ratification by the member states and by the acceding countries. That will be a defining moment for Europe and for Ireland's Presidency.
All member states and acceding countries have undertaken to complete ratification procedures by 30 April 2004. To come into effect, the treaty must be ratified by all of the current member states. However, should one or more of the acceding countries fail to ratify it, the treaty provides for adjustment or lapsing of provisions applicable to that country and the remaining countries can accede. To date, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Denmark have completed all ratification procedures. Each of the acceding states, excluding Cyprus, which ratified by legislative procedure, has held a referendum on accession. The Government warmly welcomes the passage of all of these referenda which were clearly supported by the public in these countries by convincing majorities, in some cases in excess of 75%. There can be no doubt that this enlargement constitutes one of the most exciting and positive developments since the foundation of the EEC in 1957. On 1 May next year, it will be Ireland's privilege, during our Presidency of the Union, to welcome the acceding states as old friends but new partners. These countries have made great efforts to qualify for membership and have earned the respect of their European brothers and sisters while taking their rightful place at the Union table.
I welcome this opportunity to debate the Bill today in the Seanad. It comes at an opportune time. Yesterday, the European Commission published its annual reports on the acceding states' readiness for membership. The main message is a positive one; great progress is being maintained and only a limited number of tasks need to be undertaken before accession. This is being described as the best ever prepared enlargement, a remarkable achievement given the sweeping transformation and preparation needed. The current process of enlarging the European Union could see it growing from its current membership of 15 and a land area of over 3.2 million km. sq, with a population of about 370 million people, to a future membership of 28 member states with an area of approximately 5 million km. sq. and an overall population of up to 550 million citizens.
Although it might seem somewhat superfluous to do so, it is worth remembering just why this enlargement is taking place. The process of taking in these countries has been described rather poetically as the "soul" of the European Union. The EU is righting a past wrong, the artificial division of Europe which lasted for too long after the Second World War is being brought to an end and this marks a return to normality. Accession will allow the countries of central and eastern Europe to turn their backs on the threat of chaos, tyranny and poverty which ended hardly a decade ago. It will underpin their achievement of transforming their societies and economies, and basing them on democratic principles and the rule of law. The cast-iron assurance they are all seeking is that there will be no going back to the dark days.
Since its foundation in 1957 with six original member states, the EU has been welcoming new members. The Union's values, as well as its success, have made it attractive to countries with different backgrounds. Any European state which meets basic political criteria is free to apply for membership.
The steps which the acceding countries took towards joining the EU began shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communist regimes in central and eastern Europe. A special meeting of the European Council was convened in Dublin on 28 April 1990 during the Irish Presidency. It discussed the unification of Germany and the momentous developments elsewhere. At this European Council, chaired by Ireland, it was decided that discussion should begin on association agreements, later to be called Europe agreements, with the emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe. These agreements included trade and economic elements, as well as provision for political dialogue. All ten Europe agreements were signed by 1996. We can take a real sense of pride in this process. The process began in Dublin and it will finish here on 1 May 2004. In the interim, of course, it was the Irish people who turned the key that allowed the process to go on by voting Yes in the Nice treaty. Having turned the key, we will open the door next year.
At the Maastricht European Council in December 1991, it was agreed that any European state whose system of government is founded on the principle of democracy could apply to become a member of the Union. In June 1993, the European Council at Copenhagen agreed that the countries with which association agreements were negotiated could in principle become members of the Union and that the future relationship with those countries could evolve on that basis. Criteria for membership of the European Union, the so-called "Copenhagen criteria", were also established. I quote:
Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
Formal applications for membership of the Union were made between 1994 and 1996 by ten central and eastern European states: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania. Turkey had applied for membership in 1987 and Cyprus and Malta applied in 1990. It will be recalled that in 1996 Malta withdrew its application, but reactivated it in 1998. In December 1997, the Luxembourg European Council decided to begin accession negotiations with the six candidate countries that were deemed by the Commission to be ready at that time. These countries were Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. In addition, the European Council highlighted the work that would have to be done by the Union itself to prepare for enlargement by improving the working of its institutions. Negotiations with this first group of countries began in March 1998.
In December 1999, the Helsinki European Council decided to open negotiations with all the other candidate countries: Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia. Negotiations with these countries began in February 2000.
We should not underestimate the struggle and extraordinary hard work that has been involved in reaching the point of negotiation, and soon, membership. It has been a long, hard slog for these countries. Preparations for membership will have taken more than ten years for many of them. Their journey to membership has faced more upheavals and has been more challenging than when Ireland joined 30 years ago.
Alongside work to ensure that political oppression was replaced by a strong and certain commitment to democracy and human rights, the countries of central and eastern Europe have had to prepare their economies for participation in one of the most dynamic free markets in the world. They have had to absorb more than 80,000 pages of legislation but, more important, they have had to take difficult and painful decisions. We must acknowledge and respect that.
They have done so because, as we did in 1973, they see EU membership as offering their people the best prospect for a peaceful and prosperous future. All these changes are good for the economies and societies of these countries. They could well have happened without the prospect of EU membership, but not in the same timescale. However, they are very painful changes for any country.
EU membership will be the biggest event in their history since they gained, or regained, their independence from the former USSR. In the case of Cyprus and Malta their independence was gained in the 1960s from the United Kingdom. Since independence, they have been profoundly transformed. Most of this effort is associated with the prospect of EU membership.
The transformation of the acceding countries is due largely to their own efforts. However, the aim of EU membership has been an invaluable guiding motivation and a tangible goal. The criteria set down for membership, agreed at the Copenhagen Summit of 1993, are the concrete expression of that goal. The efforts undertaken by the countries in the political and economic fields and the ability to be EU members can be viewed in this light.
Politically, the stability achieved has been dramatic. Progress in the areas of democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and the protection of minorities have created stability in a large area of Europe in an extraordinarily short time. General elections have seen stable changes in power with free and fair elections. In some countries, the judiciary needs to be reinforced, as does the fight against corruption. Nonetheless, a huge amount has been achieved. Discrimination still exists, for example in a number of cases against the Roma, and that needs to be tackled.
The process has also been a helpful context for dealing with difficult historical relations between different countries in the region. Some of the issues have not been fully resolved, but prospective EU membership means that the countries are given the necessary motivation to resolve these problems. It is gratifying when one visits these states and understands the difficulties there from a historical perspective, to see the commitment to resolve regional issues.
Structural changes in the economies of these countries brought about a complete turnaround in their fortunes, leading to rapid growth from new healthy roots. This benefits the member states because they can run export surpluses which lead to more jobs etc. However, in order to turn their economies around, they needed to take tough and unpopular decisions. People had to pay the price by tightening their belts.
Radical improvements have to be made in the environment and, for example, a number of states have had to close down large, unviable enterprises that employed large numbers of people because the levels of aid were incompatible with the EU Single Market or for some other reason. Many of the unviable farmers will be forced to change their systems of production to meet EU standards.
What was involved in the negotiations that led to this treaty? First, the candidate countries needed to comply with the criteria established at Copenhagen Summit in 1993. Compliance with the economic criteria has had to be achieved before accession.
Each candidate country is also required to demonstrate in advance that it is able to take on the other obligations of membership. It must be able to adopt and implement the acquis communitaire upon accession; this implies the necessary administrative and judicial capacity to apply its provisions. The applicant must also be able to adhere to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
An important principle in negotiations, agreed at the Helsinki Summit of 1999, was that of "differentiation" within the negotiations, whereby countries proceed at a pace that best suits their individual ability. The pace of each negotiation depended on the degree of preparation by each applicant country and the complexity of the issues to be resolved. This allowed four out of six countries that started their negotiations at a later date to catch up with those that had started earlier.
On the Union side, the 15 member states were the parties to the accession negotiations. The Presidency of the Council of Ministers presented the negotiating positions agreed by the Council and chaired negotiating sessions. Each applicant country drew up its position on each of the 31 chapters of the EU acquis to engage in negotiations. The European Commission proposed the draft negotiating positions. The Commission was in close contact with the applicant countries to seek solutions to problems arising during the negotiations. Tribute must be paid to the Commission for this. It comes in for a great deal of stick, some of it deserved, but I was impressed by the supportive role that it played in the negotiations and the understanding it showed to the particular difficulties of the new states.
Negotiating positions were approved unanimously by the Council and the results of the negotiations were incorporated into the accession treaty. This was submitted to the Council for approval and to the European Parliament for its assent.
The major strategy for negotiations was set down in November 2000. The Commission tabled a priority schedule – a road map – for the organisation of further negotiations until June 2002 and individual annual reports on each of the candidate countries. The road map indicated target dates for the adoption of common positions by the Union on individual chapters with the most advanced candidates to reach provisional agreement when the conditions are met.
The Nice European Council endorsed this strategy and added:
together with the completion of the intergovernmental conference on institutional reform, [it] will place the Union, in accordance with the objective set by the European Council in Helsinki, in a position to welcome those new member states which are ready as from the end of 2002, in the hope that they will be able to take part in the next European Parliament elections.
The Seville European Council in June 2002 was able to conclude that ten countries were ready to conclude by the end of that year. This happened on schedule in December in Copenhagen. It happened in circumstances where we came close to stopping the clock but the job was done.
The negotiations were long and hard. No country secured everything it wanted in negotiations – we did not in our negotiations in the early 1970s. That is not the point; the European Union is an organic entity evolving and changing as its positions, procedures and regulations are honed by internal debate and discussion. It is a unique institution which advances by compromise and agreement and not by force majeure or the diktat of the strong. It is precisely because of its momentum on all fronts that the negotiations have grown more complex with each succeeding enlargement as the acquis has grown.
Ireland's approach to the negotiations involved a close monitoring of the whole enlargement process, including the accession negotiations in policy areas that directly concern us, such as agriculture, regional policy and the institutions. We also followed policy developments in other member states and the overall situation in the candidate countries.
Careful consideration was also given to the institutional readiness of the candidate countries. The Government decided to allocate over €1 million each year for four years to training and advising the administration of the candidate countries in preparations for membership, a prudent investment. The breadth of understanding of the Irish experience of those in politics and administration in the accession states is extraordinary.
At the same time Ireland promoted and supported transition compromises in areas of special needs for the candidates where vital aspects of the acquis were not threatened. Ireland also firmly believed that the already complex negotiations should not be further complicated by trying to anticipate future EU reforms such as the mid-term reform of the CAP and the new financial perspectives. We sought and achieved an easing of the burden on some of the states that are coming in.
The reason the Government took this approach in negotiations is because we believe enlargement will be of benefit to Ireland, a belief shared by all parties in this House. Ending the artificial division of Europe, which lasted for too long after the Second World War, is very much in our interest individually, nationally and collectively in Europe. Europe-wide surveys continue to show more Irish people in favour of enlargement than in most other EU countries. The referendum on the Nice treaty last year confirmed this open, positive attitude among Irish people. Several sessions of the National Forum on Europe, in which distinguished members of the Seanad took an active part, also bear this out.
Many candidate countries see Ireland as a role model, in particular the way in which we transformed our country. Ireland has much in common with these countries. Many of them have a natural empathy with us, born of our common historical experiences of oppression and poverty.
Enlargement brings a new dynamism to the Union. Each new member brings its distinctive identity and rich heritage, its own particular way of looking at the world. New friendships will develop among new and older member states. New alliances will form around common interests and values.
The addition of a large number of small member states can only be to our advantage. We are already aware of the synergy and co-operation between our countries in the deliberations on the convention. Another example of the potential for developing alliances is in agriculture. Many of the acceding countries are more dependent on agriculture than Ireland and it will be to our benefit that the agricultural interest in the Council of Ministers will be considerably strengthened.
Ireland stands to gain much from a greatly expanded marketplace with over 100 million new consumers. Assured and free access to that new market will bring substantial opportunities for this country. An essential contribution to our success story has been our presence in a highly profitable market of 380 million potential consumers. A larger market has advantages for us.
At present, only between 3% and 4% of what this country produces is exported to the candidate countries. The potential for two way trade and, as a result, improved employment prospects is significant. Irish trade with these countries has already grown six fold since 1993. Irish exports to these countries are worth over €1 billion and imports over €600 million, with the trade balance in our favour. It is clear there is great potential for trade as these countries import 40% more than they export. Exports from the EU to the candidate countries in recent years have increased five times more than vice versa.
There are huge gaps in health standards and food hygiene and much investment is needed to close the productivity gap and Europe must help those countries in these areas. I was dismayed recently when a mean spirited leaflet was circulated suggesting that now we had reaped the benefits of EU membership, we should close the door on other countries. That is not the spirit shared by the Irish people.
Enlargement itself will not pose a threat to the CAP or to existing funding receipts. Irish agriculture and food industries will be well prepared to cope with any increased competition on the domestic market. Several comprehensive studies in the EU show that the impact of enlargement alone on agricultural prices will in fact be very limited. These findings were confirmed by well recognised Irish experts who addressed the forum session on agriculture. Many of the countries are small and not at all self-sufficient. As the Minister for Agriculture and Food made clear, the opportunities for Irish agriculture are greater than the threats from the incoming countries.
As long as Ireland remains competitive and productive, we will continue our success in attracting foreign industry and developing indigenous companies. Ireland will also gain from the further investment expansion which will take place in the European marketplace when these countries join. The advantages for Ireland from the enlargement process are huge but the most important advantage is that it brings the people of Europe together and closes the door on a painful and unjust history. We should take pride in the role we have played in this process. We are seen as a model for many of these states. We all know from our contacts in Europe that there are huge opportunities for new friendship and alliances. I commend this Bill to the Seanad.