Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome our visitors, all of whom are experts in this particular field. Their contributions over the years are unequalled. I am conscious of the need for us not to interfere in an election process in a neighbouring jurisdiction. We need always to be very careful not to do that. When one considers the implications of this issue, it can be equated to a bad hangover in that in the event of following a certain route, one inevitably ends up with a hangover. It would be much better if in the first instance we did not have to go that route and obviate the need for any remedial action.

My questions are similar to those raised numerous times with other delegates over recent weeks. Do Europeans really realise what is involved? Does Ireland and do all other members states, including the UK, recognise the magnitude of the task at hand and the implications of the UK following that route? Do we in Ireland recognise the full implications of what it entails for us, Britain, Northern Ireland and the European Union? Do we fully recognise the implications for the European Union as an entity, which as Mr. Halligan said has grown immeasurably over the past 70 years, and in the right direction? Where are we as Europeans now headed? Do we realise where we might go if we continue in this direction? Is this a first stage in a gradual chipping away from the European entity? Does it mean that a particular country might leave today and another might leave tomorrow, all based on good, domestic political reasons that can be justified? Is it inevitable that the European Union will disintegrate? To my mind, it is.

Many times we have discussed, including with Baroness Quin and Mr. Halligan, that there is no movement in the United States for any state to cede from that union. I have often wondered why that is the case. During my lifetime, and perhaps that of many here in this room today, that union has grown.

It has grown for very good reasons - power, strength, cohesion, unity and avoidance of conflict. These were and still are very good reasons. The European Union is based on the premise of eliminating war, food shortages and doing all the things that would be good in a society. Do we realise where we might find ourselves in ten or 15 years time? Given the unrest at present and the undercurrent that we have not seen for many years, one can realistically draw a comparison with what happened in the 1930s following the roaring 1920s. Many people were disappointed by the way society was going and looked for somebody to blame. In the United States President Roosevelt gave guidance. Based on past experience European leaders have shown themselves, when left to their own devices, to be extremely divisive and extremely anxious to achieve improvements for themselves vis-à-visothers. I do not think that can lead anywhere except to disaster.

I believe in the single currency and that participation in the eurozone should have been an objective for the entire European Union. There is no argument whatsoever that will ever convince me that having a single currency across the Europea Union is not better than having a multiplicity of currencies. I hold the United States up as an example.

In the event that other European Union member states have a tendency toward eurosceptism or anti-Europe sentiments, where would it lead them? What example would they follow? Would they follow the same path and would it then not be inevitable that the European Union, as we have come to know it, would disappear? I had the privilege, as I am sure some of my colleagues had, of meeting some of the founding fathers of the modern Europe. When I think of their aspirations, the basis on which they moved forward and the way they put old animosities behind them in the interests of unity and the exceptionally brave actions they took in the political climate, they pushed ahead for very good reasons. Will all of this work be put at nil in proceeding in the direction in which the United Kingdom is now headed?