Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important legislation, the European Communities Bill 2006. From the introductory statement by the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Treacy, it is clear, as he said, this Bill has a national purpose. In this regard it is important to have an informed debate and to hear all sides of the House. There is an element in this Dáil and in the European Parliament which holds that those with a critical voice towards the European Union and the constitution, in particular, are anti-EU. This myth should be buried once and for all. I should like to present a different voice as regards Europe and the way forward. I also want to remind all the so-called democrats in the House that when talking about democracy in this country and the EU we must ensure that all voices are heard, in an inclusive manner. I make no apologies for taking the Tone stand which maintains that the voice of Catholic, Protestant and dissenter should always be represented, whether in Ireland or the EU. I present a dissenting voice today in this debate on the European Union.

The vast majority of elected representatives in the House fully support economic and European co-operation and the strategy of working together as neighbours and friends. Some of us have major reservations, however, about the constitution. That is not being anti-EU, but rather pro-cooperation and Irish independence. In 1985, the then President of the European Commission Jacques Delors, father of the euro currency, made a speech in which he said that by 2000, some 70% of all laws made in the EU would come from Brussels, and only 30% from national parliaments. The German figures quoted show that his prophecy was right. The Irish Republic, which the men and women of 1916 set out to establish, was to be a State that would embody "the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies", to quote the Easter Proclamation. This is what people stood for at the GPO last Easter, as the Irish Army marched down O'Connell Street. The essential prerequisite of a Republic that would cherish all the children of the nation equally was that it should be one in which the Irish people possessed the ownership of Ireland and were able to exercise unfettered control of Irish destinies. Deputies in this House say they stand for such a State, namely, an independent, sovereign democracy in which the people make the laws through the representatives they elect to an independent Parliament. Such a Republic is incompatible with having two thirds or more of its laws being made in Brussels, and this is something that both the Government and Opposition parties should face.

Having to obey laws made by others means being ruled by others. It is the opposite of a country being independent, sovereign and democratic. What role does the Irish State and its people have in making new laws? We have one member out of 25 on the EU Commission, the body of unelected officials that has the monopoly on proposing all EU law. That is effectively a 4% influence on the Brussels-based Commission. We have one member out of 25 on the EU Council of Ministers, which makes EU law on the basis of the Commission's proposals. This is another 4% influence. In practice most EU law is adopted by qualified majority of the Council of Ministers. That is the situation, so let us have a debate about democracy and the European Union.

Two thirds of Ireland's laws now come from Brussels. On 25 April 2005, the German Federal Ministry of Justice stated that between 1998 and 2004, a six-year period, 23,167 legal Acts were adopted in Germany, of which 18,917, 80%, were of EU origin. This was stated in a written answer in the Bundestag to a question from the CDU-CSU's Johanna Singhammer, MP. The same laws, originating in Brussels, will have to be applied in all member states of the EU, but the number of domestic origin will vary from state to state. As Ireland is a unitary rather than a federal State like Germany, there should be a higher proportion here of domestically generated laws, so that the Irish figure for legal Acts of EU origin should be equivalent to two thirds or thereabouts of our laws.

Laws are divided between statutory legislation and statutory instruments implementing primary legislation. The proposed EU constitution would expand the EU's law-making powers in over 60 policy areas. If it has to be ratified this means the EU would generate an even higher percentage of our legislation. Yet we have Government and Opposition Leaders in this House supporting the ratifying of the EU constitution. I repeat that it is important when discussing European Community Bills that we raise these issues. Let us look at the words "European" and "Community". We have to build a sense of community, and currently the movement is in another direction.

Take the issue of the so-called battle groups. Another hole in the tattered garment of Ireland's neutrality is the Government's decision to volunteer Irish troops for proposed EU battle groups to go into action from 2008. I believe the Minister of Defence would prefer to call them peace groups. So would we all, but let us examine the detail. The Government is changing the Defence Act to permit Irish troops to train outside the country. Up to now the Act allowed troops to be sent on peacekeeping missions established by the United Nations. Now the Act is being changed to allow Irish troops to take part in military missions with a regional group such as the EU, as long as there is some EU approval for it. This signals a shift from the United Nations to the EU military missions, with endless room for fudge and misrepresentation over whether the initiative has a UN mandate. This is very important because all these little subtle measures are being slipped in through the back door.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the European Communities Act 1972 for the purpose of allowing offences under regulations pursuant to that Act to be prosecuted on indictment and to provide the power to make statutory instruments available to Ministers under any other Act of the Oireachtas. It may, in certain circumstances, be used to implement EC law, that is provisions of the treaties governing and Acts of institutions of the European Communities. It is important we understand that this is the purpose of the legislation. Again, when talking about this legislation, we have to raise very strong, challenging questions. Take the debate on the European constitution. The European leaders have met at summits to discuss and revive the European constitution, which the people of France and Holland voted down last year. Let us be democratic and listen to people.

It is clear that the pause for reflection will be formally extended after the French presidential elections. Two strategies are in play here. One is based on maintaining the constitution without any changes, continuing with national ratifications, and then pressurising the French and the Dutch to accept the whole thing. This can be done by calling the treaty something other than a constitution, and wrapping it in whatever paper the different electorates might need. The other strategy is based on the notion that the first strategy will fail. In this case, the goal is to adopt the constitution in bits and pieces, each part without national referendums.

The European elite expect the French voters to change their mind after the presidential elections. However, the last French opinion indicates that 10% of the "yes" voters have regretted their votes, whereas only 2% of "no" voters have done the same. The Dutch polls are even worse from the point of view of the constitution's supporters. The Dutch Foreign Minister said the people will never ratify the same text again. We must face up to this fact.

The existing European treaties require unanimity. The proposed European constitution should therefore be regarded as legally dead until it may be formally amended. It is a serious matter that a co-operation based on law is in clear breach of the basic EU treaties. To continue with the ratification process is outrageously undemocratic when the French and Dutch Governments have not indicated how they will ratify the treaty. How can European presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers expect other people to follow European law when they do not respect the treaties themselves? This just typifies the arrogance and contempt for democracy in sections of the EU elite. That is a view that is held on the ground that is not heard very often in this House. When I express this view, it is often presented by most of the political parties as a minority view, but it is held by 30%-40% of the electorate.

I thank the Chair for allowing me to speak on this Bill and I am glad of the opportunity to present a different view.

See this speech in context