Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

His tone was boastful. He suggested such property ownership should be a badge of pride. However, the failure to re-invest in Ireland will be to our disadvantage in the long term while we take advantage of countries embarking on their own economic journey.

There is no fundamental disagreement in widening the EU and accepting more members. There are difficulties in figuring out how that can be done via proper governance structures. If 25 or 50 people are around the table, how do we agree on decisions? The fact that all members are there is not a matter for dissension in this House, nor should it be. The problem is about what the EU wants to represent and the degree to which it wants to have the vestiges of a nation state. There are principles of subsidiarity and talk of decentralisation — however debased that has become in Irish politics in recent times — but the reality is that the majority of legal instruments are not produced in this Chamber but in the European Parliament and through the European Commission.

We have already decided that there are areas in which this policy is useful. As a member of the Green Party, I believe that most environmental decisions can only be made at a European level. However, there are other areas in which we must ask questions. There are EU pressures on key elements of economic policy. Many of the larger members of the EU are pushing for the idea of tax harmonisation. The services directive undermines the value of workers in member states, although we wait to see how the European Parliament will deal with it.

In spite of the fact that most of these legal instruments have been decided outside this Chamber, we must acknowledge our failure to question and amend such instruments in the Oireachtas. The sheer scale of the directives, coming from Brussels makes it virtually impossible for any degree of proper scrutiny to occur. The Government needs to use this period of reflection to accept that this scrutiny process must be drastically reformed. The number of instruments that must be introduced and the timeframe involved in scrutinising them must be defined. An opportunity must exist to opt in and out of these instruments if they are not central issues.

The example of the US has often been used in this debate. While it is not directly applicable — I argued earlier that we should not compare the EU to the US — the US federal system allows for a body of laws by the individual states and laws of the nation. We should do something similar for many European laws. There should be a level of legislation which would apply across all member states, another level — like certain directives — which member states could join over a given period, as well as a level of legislation which member states could choose to opt in or out. Unfortunately, such an area has not been properly addressed.

It is apposite that we discuss this Bill today. A delegation from the Bulgarian Parliament is visiting the Oireachtas today. Its representatives will have a meeting with members of the Committee of Public Accounts this afternoon and I welcome them to Dáil Éireann. I hope the experience will have a long-term benefit to our countries. This Bill will not be opposed by the Green Party. We still await clear indications from the European Commission on whether the accession of Bulgaria and Romania will take place in 2007. If there are remaining grey areas, we await an indication of what they are and how they will be addressed. Aside from that, I look forward to both Romania and Bulgaria becoming a part of the European Union.

See this speech in context