Noel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)

No debate on the EU reform treaty would be possible without examining where we have come from, where we are now and where we are going. Most commentators would agree that Ireland has benefited from its engagement with the European Union but I am not sure the Irish electorate, or those campaigning for a "No" vote in the forthcoming referendum, are aware of how different the Ireland of 2008 is from the small, inward-looking country that joined the EEC in 1973.

The European Coal and Steel Community was first established in 1952 to help economic growth and cement peace between France and Germany, countries that were enemies historically. It worked extremely well and iron production increased fourfold in the 1950s. When coal production declined, the European Coal and Steel Community made provision to retain hundreds of thousands of miners affected. It was the systems of social management such as early retirement, mobility grants and training that greatly helped in times of economic crisis. At the same time in Ireland thousands of people were forced to leave their families, wives and children, to seek work across the water. I remember my father leaving Cork for England in the 1950s to seek work on the building line. Many fathers of Cork families and single men had to leave on the Inishfallen from the quays of the historic River Lee to seek work in London and other parts of the UK, Fords in particular. With a family of six young children he simply had no option but to go to England for work. There were mouths to feed and there was no work in this country. I recall growing up in poverty — not having enough to eat and having to wear second-hand or used clothes — for a major part of the 1950s. More than half of those who left school in the early 1950s had emigrated by 1961. In truth our economy had completely stagnated. It was clear by the end of the 1950s that Ireland was not sharing in the post-war economic boom in Europe.

The reorientation of our economy under Seán Lemass from that period onwards through the dismantling of tariffs to the creation of incentives for forward investment, were key in moving Ireland and our economy forward. The move away from agricultural dependence to a much more diverse modern economy paved the way for our membership of the European Economic Community.

Ireland's membership of the European Union ensured we kept our focus outwards. Prior to membership two thirds of our foreign trade was with the UK. This is no longer the case. We have moved out of Britain's shadow and found our own place on the world stage, alongside and equal to that of our European neighbours. The sense of achievement and confidence that has accompanied true economic independence cannot be underestimated. Ireland has moved from the periphery to the heart of the European Union.

How far we have come in the past 35 years is evident from the following statistics. In 1973 our GDP at current market prices per head of population equalled 60% of the average of our Community partners. In 2007 our GDP equalled 146% of the EU average. In 1973, Ireland had a trade deficit of £341.5 million. We had a huge trade surplus in 2007. Since 1973 our total trade in goods and services has increased from €1.7 billion to €88.8 billion in 2007. This has made Ireland one of the most open trading economies in the world relative to population and economic size.

Between 1973 and 2007, we paid €19.2 billion to the EU budget and received €60.17 billion from it. This means that on balance we have gained over €40 billion through our membership, equivalent to about €15,000 per person. These funds have been invested into every aspect of Irish life, from infrastructure projects, creating employment, supporting the peace process, cleaning up the environment to tourism.

The Single Market established in 1993 has played a key role in our economic transformation. It has provided a market of about 450 million consumers from which to trade goods and services. It has also made this country, with a young and educated population, an attractive location for foreign and direct investment. A Eurobarometer report highlighted that 82% of Irish consumers view the Single Market positively. Furthermore, Ireland tops the EU with 78% believing the Single Market has had a positive impact on the quality of goods and services. This, I believe, shows that people here are aware of the benefits of EU membership.

It is the job of those advocating a "Yes" vote in the forthcoming referendum this summer to ensure the Irish electorate continues to make this connection. The continued success of the economy is closely aligned with our membership of the EU. This is recognised by IBEC and the American Chamber of Commerce. Before the Single Market was introduced one can imagine the difficulties experienced with VAT at the point of entry etc. Since the introduction of the euro it is so much easier to do business in Europe where there are no tariffs on different goods and there is free movement of goods. I have experience of that in our own business.

As Paul Rellis, President of the American Chamber of Commerce, said in February 2008:

Our choice is between being a business friendly open economy at the heart of Europe and being a "semi detached" irrelevant outpost on the western seaboard. Our choice is between ongoing prosperity and slow decline. Our choice is of course between Yes and No on the EU Reform Treaty.

Continuing, he said, that "Our membership of the EU has been a key attraction for US multinational companies locating in Ireland". There are almost 600 US companies in Ireland, employing over 100,000 people directly. Ireland, as the only other English speaking country in the eurozone, continues to attract inward investment from leading multinationals despite challenging economic circumstances worldwide. If we are no longer seen as being at the heart of Europe then our attractiveness will undoubtedly diminish.

We must not forget when debating the future of Europe that it is this Union which has helped build an unbroken peace in Europe for 50 years. It has helped guide Greece, Portugal and Spain on the road from authoritarian to democratic rule. It is the Union which has contributed to the peaceful transition of ten central and eastern European countries from communism to democracy.

Our membership of the EU has not only been instrumental in our economic transformation it has also brought with it enormous social advantages. It is our engagement with Europe that has resulted in better environmental standards, equal pay for equal work for women across Europe and supported tourism and the regions.

The reform treaty is an important achievement for the Union. It responds to the needs of today's European Union with its increased membership now numbering 27 countries. It will equip the Union to meet the emerging challenges of the 21st century. It is concerned with delivering tangible benefits to the people of Ireland.

The reform treaty draws much of its content from the European constitution agreed in 2004 under Ireland's EU Presidency. While the essential substance and balance of the European constitution is preserved, the new treaty takes the form of a series of amendments to the existing EU treaties as opposed to the single consolidating text of the constitution.

The reform treaty contains a number of institutional provisions which will make the structure more effective and give it a stronger voice on the world stage. The creation of the new full-time President of the European Council to co-ordinate and spearhead the Council's work will facilitate a concerted European response to global issues, such as energy, security, climate change and immigration. The new system of double-majority voting will give proportionate weight to population while protecting the interests of small and medium sized member states. This is particularly good news for Ireland.

There has been scaremongering that ratification of the treaty would result in the introduction of tax harmonisation and threaten our favourable corporation tax rates. However, taxation and defence are sensitive national issues and as such, unanimity is preserved for all decisions in these areas.

It was under Jack Lynch's leadership that this country joined the European Union. Fianna Fáil has campaigned for a "Yes" vote in every European referendum since and we will be campaigning vigorously for a "Yes" vote in the next few months as the reform treaty referendum approaches. We believe the European Union is good for Ireland and Ireland is good for it. We have held this view for 35 years and will continue to do so.

Mr. Paul Rellis, president of the American Chamber of Commerce, Ireland articulated the situation better than I can when he stated: "An Ireland at the heart of an EU with reformed, strengthened and more accountable institutions is infinitely preferable to becoming a semi-detached obstacle to common progress across a continent". A "Yes" vote is for prosperity, a "No" vote is for decline. I regret that the party which has taken a "No" position is misguided in the issues it is raising.

Deputy Aylward referred to the farming community's concerns, including the World Trade Organisation talks. I fear that if a favourable solution is not found, the farming community vote could be affected. As a small open economy, Ireland has much to gain from the rule-based multilateral trading system provided by the WTO. The current round of negotiations presents both challenges and opportunities for all of the major economic sectors in Ireland, in particular the services, agriculture and manufacturing sectors. Agriculture continues to make an important contribution, economically and socially, to Irish society. The outcome of negotiations on the new WTO agreement on agriculture will be crucial for us. Agriculture will have a critical role in determining the final outcome of the round. The outcome will determine the maximum levels of protection and support that will apply to the agriculture sector in the future. Given that the process of liberalisation will be significantly more advanced, the negotiations represent a real challenge to the future of EU and Irish agriculture.

It is no secret that Ireland is not happy with the current direction of the WTO negotiations. There is concern about the potential impact on Irish and EU agriculture of various proposals in the discussions. It is crucial that the European agrifood sector is not sacrificed for the sake of a WTO deal. This is the position consistently taken by the Government and which has been and will continue to be strongly reflected at a variety of EU and WTO meetings. The Ministers for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Enterprise, Trade and Employment have consistently pressed the Commission to strive for a balanced agreement that will not be at the expense of EU and Irish agriculture. The Government's intention is to continue this process. I was delighted to hear the new leader designate, Deputy Cowen, refer to this today. That the Taoiseach will discuss it with the President of the European Commission in the next few days is significant.

Intensive discussions are still taking place in Geneva on the most recent agriculture and non-agriculture texts. There are still many technical and political issues to be resolved, not alone on the agriculture dossier, but also on the related issues of non-agricultural market access, services, rules and trade facilitation. At this point we can only speculate on the content of a final WTO deal, or whether such a deal will be concluded. It would, therefore, be inappropriate and unwise from a negotiating standpoint to indicate what position the Government will take on any possible final deal, the terms of which we do not yet know.

There has seen significant reform of agriculture within the European Union in recent years. Agenda 2000 which continued the process of reform launched by the then Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, in 1992, provided for further cuts in institutional price guarantees, with compensation for farmers through direct payments. Further progress was made in the radical reform in the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy agreed in June 2003. The decision to decouple payments was a major step in fulfilling the target of substantially reducing trade distorting domestic supports. Decoupled payments which, by their nature, are not linked in any way to production are considered to be non-trade distorting by the WTO and qualify for the so-called green box category of payments. It is most important that this should remain the case.

The move away from coupled payments and the gradual reduction in the more conventional market support measures such as intervention have reduced substantially our levels of trade distorting supports, thereby enabling the European Union to face into the negotiations from a position of strength. The Hong Kong ministerial conference in December 2005 provided a further stepping stone towards the conclusion of the round, with agreement on a number of issues, in particular key development matters. Since then, however, the negotiations have stumbled along, with a series of missed deadlines and the full suspension of negotiations in the summer of 2006. Although they fully resumed in early 2007, further efforts to conclude the round have, to date, failed. It is no secret that since the Hong Kong ministerial conference there has been great concern at the direction of the world trade negotiations and the negotiating strategy adopted by the Commission and Commissioner Mandelson. It is also no secret that the farming community sees Mr. Mandelson as selling out agriculture in Europe. He must be stopped.

There has been an insistence by the negotiating partners that they will not engage in meaningful negotiations on other issues until substantive progress has been made in respect of agriculture. This is wrong; it is not acceptable that concessions in agriculture should be a precondition for movement elsewhere. Agriculture is vitally important to the livelihoods of millions of farm families in developed and developing countries and they should not be sacrificed for the sake of an overall WTO agreement. There is great concern that the Commission has been adopting an unnecessarily concessionary approach to the negotiations. It negotiates in the WTO talks on behalf of the member states on the basis of a mandate agreed by the Council of Ministers. The mandate is designed to defend the CAP as it has evolved under successive reform programmes, including Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review, both of which were agreed with a view to positioning the European Union in the WTO negotiations. Essentially, the Council mandate aims to protect the European model of agriculture as an economic sector and as a basis for sustainable development based on the multi-functional nature of agriculture and the part it plays in the economy, the environment and society in general.

The latest developments in the negotiations have not done anything to allay concerns. The suggestion is that the European Union should provide further concessions on a range of agricultural issues, particularly the level of tariff reductions, the treatment of sensitive products and the related tariff quota expansion, yet at the same time the text on market access for industrial goods does not provide the foreseen additional market opportunities for EU goods. However, no deal is better than the one currently on the table. I am concerned that people want a deal for the sake of a legacy. Legacies have no place in the deal and should not even be considered. A deal is about what is good economically for the countries which subscribe to the WTO. That is where the concentration of energy should occur and what the deal should be all about. I hope Mr. Mandelson's officials will read the contributions of this Deputy and others in respect of the Irish farming sector.

See this speech in context