Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

None of the contributors to this debate has argued against the accession of either Romania or Bulgaria to the European Union, nor would they argue against the future accession of other countries on the European Continent to the European Union. However, this debate offers us the opportunity to discuss how the accession process has been handled and how future accessions are likely to be handled. We ought to be more precise about the definitions of the Continent of Europe and the organisation that is the European Union.

This week has seen the birth of a new nation, Montenegro, a country of similar size to Ireland but with a population of only 650,000. There is a possibility of other areas of the Balkan region becoming independent in the future, Kosovo being a case in point. Certain nations are considered regions of larger nation states, such as the Basque country and Catalonia. In our near neighbour, the status of Scotland and Wales may be subject to change in the future. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the European Union within the course of this century may become an organisation of 50 states, which is before we discuss where we define the borders of Europe.

The most contentious of the future accessions is that of Turkey, which has a small part of its territory in Europe but is largely in Asia. Some tentative inquiries have been made about countries in north Africa because of their former colonial relationship with some of the main members of the European Union. Some countries in Asia Minor and the Middle East, such as Israel and Lebanon, if it becomes more settled, may want to be considered as part of this process.

This is before we consider the part of Europe outside the Balkans that has not even got onto the first step of the ladder, including the former republics of the Soviet Union like Ukraine, Belarus — which would be very low on the list given its situation — and the countries of the Caucasus such as Armenia and Georgia, which have been going through their own trials and tribulations as they try to become more democratic nations. The failure to define the geography of the European Union has led us down a number of blind alleys. The Government of the day needs to be more forceful in asking questions at EU level because there is potential for a large number of countries to become member states. How, when and under what circumstances they become members need to be handled carefully.

It took 17 years for the first countries to accede to the Union after it was established and Ireland was among them. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, a number of accessions took place until the Union numbered 15 members. It was then decided to pursue the big bang approach to accession, resulting in ten countries being admitted under the Irish Presidency two years ago. One wonders whether this was done for proper strategic or structural reasons or whether the motive was more political. Many of the countries had turned to communism following the Second World War and they needed to align with more democratic societies in western Europe. However, it is curious that the first port of call for these countries as they changed politically was NATO rather than the EU. The need for a security-based state was more pressing than the need for a democratic society. Perhaps, given their history, that was understandable.

Given that trend, Ireland should play a more positive role in defining the EU and what it should become. We have been led unnecessarily through a succession of treaties which define the EU as this part of the world's approach to the US. The EU cannot and should not be that. It is a collection of nation states whose citizens identify first with them as they affect their own lives. This important principle gets lost in the wider debate about the Union.

My party has been constantly derided as eurosceptic, but we have constantly argued that is not the case. We have always favoured a different and better Union. The treaties passed since the implementation of the Single European Act in the 1980s have followed a trend towards a monolith, which has positioned the institutions of the Union further away from the people they are meant to represent. Unfortunately, our argument has not been permitted to be heard in Irish political discourse because it is considered to be heresy. It has been to the detriment of our system that we have not had a more wide-ranging debate on the nature of the Union and what it could and should be.

Those who have sought to support the status quo and unquestioningly support the Union and its institutions have done the State and its people a disservice because they have always sought to make arguments about the future in terms of whether one is in or out, but it is not such a black and white scenario. As the Union evolves and history is rewritten and made, people in every member state should be involved. That has not happened, which means unnecessary fears have been created, especially in the oldest member states. It is no accident that the constitutional treaty was rejected emphatically in France and the Netherlands and, sadly, that the rejection was based on people's fears of being exposed to economic and cultural threats from the citizens of other states. It is sad that, 60 years after the Second World War, such fears are being expressed.

Ireland should play a more positive role in this regard. The best way to do that is by having an open debate, asking the necessary questions and putting forward alternative models. The Government has been too acquiescent in accepting a drift towards the monolith approach of the Union. Given that the constitutional treaty is dead and buried and cannot be resuscitated because the French and the Dutch will not vote for it, we must devise a different and better model. In doing so, more countries will accede to the Union, including Bulgaria and Romania who are expected to join next. Both countries should be warmly welcomed, although their economic development must catch up with the European average, but that can be achieved in the short term.

It is also important that we should make our experience known to the countries who joined in 2004 and to those who intend to accede in the coming years. It is not a given that these countries will catch up economically and it will not happen as quickly as people might have been led to believe. During the first 15 years of its membership of the Union, Ireland experienced difficult economic circumstances which resulted in increased inflation and unemployment rates. The advent of the European Single Market resulted in significant benefits for the State as foreign direct investment increased and foreign companies were encouraged to establish businesses here, resulting in increased exports.

Ironically, the enlargement of the Union could be a threat to our economic prosperity, despite how wealth is distributed internally. Foreign direct investment is most likely to be attracted to central Europe, which has a significant population and offers reduced transport costs, as countries in the region offer the same advantages we claim to offer in education and taxation. When the accession of other countries is debated, we should always review our position within the Union and how we will be affected.

The Union is seeking to address concerns about whether Bulgaria and Romania are likely to meet the entry criteria laid down for them by the end of the year. We must reflect on concerns among our citizens about social progress in these countries. With regard to Romania, there are concerns about the treatment of the Roma, the mentally ill and abandoned children. These important issues must be addressed before accession occurs. My concern regarding Bulgaria is that Irish people are taking advantage of the economic circumstances in the country, which could retard its economic development. As I travel around the country, I regularly see signs advertising the sale of property in Bulgaria at various exhibitions. It is a rich irony, given our history that auctioneers are selling the notion of buying up these countries by lot and creating an army of absentee landlords. I had hoped the Government would have offered better moral leadership in this area.

The Taoiseach has boasted that 100,000 Irish people own property in many accession countries.

See this speech in context