Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)

As I have frequently stated, Fine Gael is a strong supporter of the proposed constitution for the European Union. The proposed constitution simplifies the operations of the EU institutions and the decision making processes within which the Union functions. It incorporates a charter of fundamental rights for all citizens and gives national parliaments a new role in the scrutiny of decisions at European level. The document is good for Ireland and good for Europe. It has been decided that we should have an EU-wide period of reflection following the results of the referendums in France and the Netherlands, which have made it impossible for the proposed constitution to be ratified by all 25 member states within the timeframe originally envisaged. It should be borne in mind that reflection only gets us so far, however.

I strongly believe that Ireland's membership of the European Union has profoundly benefited our people in economic and social terms. Irish people have the right to travel, work, study and reside in other EU member states. The EU has challenged endemic inequalities in our legislation and in how we do things here. It has championed the case for environmental protection. Irish companies enjoy substantial economic benefits as a result of this country's membership of the EU because they can trade freely with 24 other European countries, thereby accessing a potential market of close to 500 million people. The EU is the largest political, economic and social bloc in the world. People recognise that there have been real and tangible improvements in their quality of life in the three decades since Ireland became a member of the EU. Recent research undertaken by the European Commission showed that Irish people are discerning and can recognise a good thing when they see it. Nine out of every ten Irish people feel Ireland has benefited from EU membership. Three quarters of the population believe that EU membership is a good thing.

I have mentioned these statistics to put another important statistic in context. I refer to the European Commission's finding that half of all people in Ireland have no opinion on the proposed European Union constitution. We need to consider, in light of that statistic, what is at the root of the fundamental disconnect between the EU and the proposed EU constitution. If 90% of people believe that Ireland has benefited from EU membership, why do many of them have no opinion on the proposed constitution, which is an important document? It is clear that more than reflection is needed in respect of the proposed constitution — something constructive has to come from this period to address the gulf between EU citizens and the proposed constitution. I recently read an opinion piece on this issue written by a representative of the Institute of International Affairs in Rome. The writer argued that the EU's failure to put forward a credible argument for why the proposed constitution is needed is at the heart of the current difficulties.

The European Union needs direction and clarity of purpose and aim. It needs to engage in a two-way process of communication with citizens. Not only should it listen to the real concerns of its citizens about the EU, but it should explain the Union's role and responsibilities. The European Commission should make a strong and concerted effort to inform the public of its role, to explain how it operates and to send officials to public meetings in member states to speak on issues of importance and concern to citizens of the EU. Such an effort to strengthen the Union's democratic engagement with its citizens would be warmly welcomed in all member states. The national Governments of EU member states need to engage openly and honestly with their electorates about developments at EU level. Rather than approaching issues half-heartedly, we need to interact fully with the EU in many areas. The National Forum on Europe, which is examining its role in the context of the current period of reflection, must come out from behind the castle walls and go to the people to listen to their views. There is little point in hiring hotels and inviting people to listen to speeches. A more dynamic form of interaction, which allows for real debate and a real exchange of views, must be prioritised. I am not just saying that here — I have said it at meetings of the forum's steering committee. It is too often the case that the forum's activities are remote from the people. We need to break down the psychological barrier that has been put in place as a consequence of the decision to pursue the forum's activities behind the castle's walls.

I would like to speak about the issues of concern to people in Ireland today. Having listened to such people in recent years, I know that many of them are worried about the possible loss of jobs to the new accession states and the instability it will cause. They have observed the drift of jobs from their own areas to the eastern parts of the European Union, which is having a negative effect on their opinions of the EU and the process of enlargement. Many people concerned about the pace of EU enlargement believe it may be appropriate, now that the Union has expanded to 25 member states, to take time to assess the effect of enlargement on present structures. They also believe there are question marks over the ability of the EU to absorb further member states. The next EU enlargement may take place in just over a year, when it is scheduled that Bulgaria and Romania will join the Union. Accession talks are in progress with Croatia and Turkey. The opening of talks with Croatia has raised expectations across the Balkan region about future EU membership. Ukraine and Georgia will also seek EU membership at some future time. Such countries may have a valid political argument in favour of their membership of the Union, but I remind the House that many people are worried that too rapid an expansion will weaken the EU. Rapid EU enlargement may be part of the agenda of some member states which do not wish to see a strong and vibrant EU. Such countries believe that rapid enlargement will lead to the weakening of the EU as an economic unit. It is certain that the United States subscribes to this concept.

The riots in French cities and towns in recent weeks have struck a chord with many people in Ireland who equate the riots with immigration problems. They wrongly link such problems with the possible accession of Turkey to the European Union. Having had the privilege of visiting Ankara and Istanbul in recent times, I am convinced that Turkey can play a vital role in the EU at a future stage. As the political process is not always in tune with the thought process of the electorate, however, we must enter into a strong dialogue with the electorate. We should listen to the opinions and fears of the people, rather than lecturing them on how wonderful the EU is. If we are to address the electorate's concerns, we should put forward our view of the EU and Ireland's place within it. We should articulate what Ireland wants from the Lisbon Agenda and how it will get it. We need to explain why enlargement is a good thing and outline the opportunities it has brought to Ireland. We should explain why police and judicial co-operation, for example, is important for all EU citizens. We need to show that the EU has a role on the international stage and a responsibility that runs in tandem with that. Fine Gael has clearly stated its position on EU developments in security and defence. It has put on the record its ideas on how the EU and Ireland should move forward in this regard. While there can be no doubt about Fine Gael's position, the approach of the Government in making policy decisions in this important area by stealth serves to build the electorate's suspicion and resentment of the European Union. The people want open and honest debate on this and other EU issues. We have to call things as we see them.

The last time he spoke on European Union matters in the House, the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Kenny, was deeply critical of the United Kingdom's attempts to link a new deal on the UK rebate with a further scaling back of the Common Agricultural Policy. This deadlock has continued in recent days, as the UK Presidency has continued to try to link any deal on the UK rebate with farm subsidy concessions. The Common Agricultural Policy has undergone radical reform over the past 15 years. Spending on agriculture as a proportion of the EU budget has fallen over that time. Any further modifications must be a matter of negotiation, rather than unilateral attack from any single member state. By linking reform on one single issue to the wider question of agricultural subsidy, the UK Presidency has undermined European relationships and may pass this problem on to the next Presidency of the EU in 2006.

Today, many eyes are focused on the role of the EU at the World Trade Organisation. I am concerned, however, that the European Commission has made too many concessions, which would have a negative effect on farmers' livelihoods, the rural community and rural economy. The revised European Commission proposal put forward at the end of last month proposes a 70% cut in domestic supports, including funding for intervention, along with the complete phasing out of export refunds over a seven to ten year period. In addition, the Commission has also put forward proposals to reduce tariffs on food imports by between 30% and 60%. Specifically the Commission has tabled a 50% cut on imports of milk products and a 60% cut on imports of beef.

However, the return proposal from the United States is of little value. Its planned cuts in supports for agriculture, to be introduced in the 2007 US Farm Bill, are unlikely to take place. In reality, will the US Congress accept cuts in US farm subsidies on the eve of an election in the United States?

See this speech in context