Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)

Some of them are saying that, because 27 countries are involved, our small country with 4 million people will be smothered. They forget that one of the smallest countries of all joined in the original six. What did European Union participation do for Luxembourg, for instance? It went in with the big boys at the time, including Italy, France and Germany, and it prospered. Luxembourg did no more or less than we did. It is to the eternal credit of all Governments and to the permanent Civil Service, which represents us in Europe, that we have punched above our weight over the years. In fairness to everybody concerned, we should take note of that.

In 1973 we joined the EEC with two other countries, bringing the total to nine. It was a quantum leap for Ireland to become part of that huge trading bloc and, on a personal note, I thought we had commercial and political muscle that would beat the world. That is the way it looked, particularly from the viewpoint of youth organisations. I am sure our elders knew there were serious limitations on what even nine countries could do, but we thought the Community would be a major player on the world market. To a certain degree it was.

We now have a Union comprising 27 countries with a population of 500 million, which is our potential customer market. However, the combined population of China and India is four times that of the EU. As the House is aware, we are already facing fierce competition from some of those countries in markets for our goods and services. What will it be like in ten years when such countries become more sophisticated? Of course, the world will not stand still for them either and they will not always have low-wage economies. Eventually their problems will become like our current ones. However, unless we operate in a trading bloc as big as the EU, plus the might of America, we will still be dwarfed by what is happening in China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as the countries of the Pacific Rim. They will not stand still so it is against that background that we must ensure for future generations, not alone here but elsewhere in Europe, that we have a commercial trading and political bloc that is up to speed. It must use all the available technology to produce commodities that will provide our people with jobs and a decent living. That is the bottom line.

It has been said that one of the awful aspects of the Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon treaties is that no one can understand them. They are so big that they are beyond everybody's comprehension. The "no" campaigners are saying on the radio that nobody has read the Lisbon treaty or could read it. The only treaty I read in detail was the Treaty of Rome, which is much smaller than the Lisbon treaty. One would need staff to read all the overarching and interconnected treaties involved. It would be a massive job, but that is no reason to vote "No". We are well used to difficult bureaucratic problems in this country, as is every democracy. For example, how many people read the conditions on the back of a simple ESB bill that comes into every house several times a year? It would take a while to do so. The same principle applies to anyone who buys a car or becomes involved in hire purchase. Very few people read the conditions that apply because it could take hours.

One may talk about the bureaucratic monster in Brussels but many people find it difficult enough to deal with their local authority, not to mention our own Government Departments. The "No" campaigners are being allowed to go too far on that line. People often say it is a long way from Galway to Brussels, but it would be untrue to say that Brussels is the only difficult bureaucracy. Most people find they do not have the time to study all the reading material that comes their way.

Ordinary citizens should consider what they have seen happening in the EU since we joined in 1973. In the early years tremendous progress was made on the Common Agricultural Policy. As Deputy Collins and others said, we have been able to get inward investment by virtue of our EU membership. We have done well out of it, although we should have done better in other respects. Leaving party politics out of this, the bottom line is that we have a fine generation of young educated people. In the last ten or 15 years they have proved that they can stand up with the best in the world. Can anyone tell me that any decision we take in June will somehow or another lessen the opportunity for those young people to deal in this market of 500 million potential consumers? We will not sell Irish products to them all but there will be opportunities there. The Minister of State, Deputy McGuinness, is au fait with this matter. It is an opportunity we should not miss. When I canvass votes, some people ask what is in it for them. There is an awful lot in it for us, although we may be taking for granted what the EU has done for Ireland.

The main mission statement of the Lisbon treaty states: "The Union was founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities". It goes on to state: "These rights are common to the member states in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women prevail." That is contained in Article 1(3) of the reform treaty. Would it not be an unusual person who found something wrong with that mission statement? If we had that mission statement and it was the norm in all European democracies in periods of our history such as the First World War and the Second World War, would we have had the terrible tragedies of our time? One of the great achievements of the European Union, long forgotten by a generation, was ensuring peace in our time because of its articles of association. That is something no generation should be allowed to forget.

Deputy Treacy and I have direct knowledge of, and involvement with, matters such as the Common Agricultural Policy. It did not get a good name and there were problems with it but it is a European model to ensure farmers in Europe have the opportunity to produce good quality food at reasonable prices, ensuring a constant supply of food. Given that there are so many who go to bed hungry every night, it is difficult to understand why we would dismantle that policy. It is under attack but can anyone imagine the problems if we did not have this model?

Like every other bureaucracy or administration, I find no fault with the change in administration mentioned in the House in the past few days. I can appreciate that an administration charged with looking after six countries in 1957 is out of date in 2008 when it must look after 27 countries and 500 million people. When we came into this House, the Acting Chairman, Deputy Brady, and I saw that there were fewer people employed in Leinster House because the demands were not as great as they are now. It is the same with the European Union. I cannot understand why anyone objects to streamlining that aspect.

I never liked losing the Irish Commissioner but I can see the point of it. The way it is now done, with two thirds of 27 countries having a Commissioner on a rota basis, means that Ireland has the same clout as every other country. That is of major importance and Ireland is at no disadvantage because of this. This reminds me of Luxembourg which was a small country in the presence of large countries. Ireland is a small country in the presence of large and small countries and I have no doubt we will take our place with distinction, as we have always done.

I am not happy with the way Peter Mandelson has handled the WTO talks. I know this is not directly related to the treaty but there is a connection. Every political party produces manifestos before an election and must present itself in the best light. From an EU view, I would have thought it would put the best possible case before the Irish electorate. Ireland is where it is all happening next June for all of Europe. If more brainpower was put into this, the decision on the future of agriculture taken by the Commission would be what was negotiated at the WTO talks, and no further. I have met no one who wants anything other than maintainence of our negotiating stance. I do not have time to address what should happen but there is no point in 27 Heads of State, foreign Ministers and agriculture Ministers making a decision and taking a negotiating stand on the WTO talks and then appointing the Commissioner, Mr. Peter Mandelson, who says that if we must get a decision, he may be prepared to shift his stance above and beyond what was agreed at European level.

In the next few weeks it will be made abundantly clear to him and his Cabinet that the only stand that can be taken is the one that has been agreed. We lost much from it. I, as someone with a background in farming, lost much from it. If we do not go beyond our negotiating stand, it is possible, with greater efficiency, that Irish farmers will take their place among the best in the world. With the change in recent times to higher prices for farm produce, at least we can see that there is an opportunity for farmers to earn a decent living from the land. Would it not be remarkable if, approaching a most important referendum, the European Commissioner was the cause of losing it? Everyone should vote "Yes" and everyone should have the opportunity to do so. They should not be tied with one hand behind their back. For the benefit or Ireland, particularly its young people, a "Yes" vote is the thing for it. I hope the people see it that way.

See this speech in context