Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the three interim Economic Partnership Agreements:

(i) Interim Agreement with a view to an Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the SADC EPA (Southern African Development Community Economic Partnership Agreement) States, of the other part;

(ii) Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one part, and the East African Community Partner States, on the other part; and

(iii) Interim Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States, on the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other part,

which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 12th April, 2010.

I welcome the debate on these three interim economic partnership agreements, which were approved by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday. The Dáil is the only parliament in Europe that will have engaged in extensive discussions on these agreements, which is a welcome development. The complexity of the agreements is such that they lend themselves to be discussed in committee. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs engaged in a strong and robust debate on them yesterday and reached the conclusion that they should be approved.

I wish to place on record the historical context relating to these economic partnership agreements and outline why they have been brought before the Dáil for approval. Historically, the African, Caribbean and Pacific, ACP, countries benefited from very favourable trade preferences with the European Union. However, these were deemed to violate World Trade Organisation, WTO, rules on the basis that they established an unfair discrimination among developing countries. In other words, some 77 countries in the ACP region benefited from these unilateral trade preferences but many others who were not members of the ACP grouping did not so benefit. That was an unfair and illegal form of discrimination.

In 2000, the European Union and 77 ACP States concluded an agreement known as the Cotonou Agreement. This provided for a new trade and development framework based on economic partnership agreements. These are a new type of multilateral agreement, combining both trade and wider development issues in a unified framework and containing reciprocal preferences in trade between the EU and the ACP states. On this basis, in 2001 the WTO agreed to give a waiver to the EU to continue the unilateral preferences until 31 December 2007. While that deadline has not been fully observed, it is clear that if progress was not being made in the process relating to concluding economic partnership agreements, unfair discrimination against non-ACP countries would continue. This would entitle said countries to bring a case to the WTO and this would have a seriously detrimental effect on the international trading system, particularly in the context of developing countries. That is the background to the debate.

I wish to make a fundamental point in respect of economic partnership agreements between the EU and developing nations. Regardless of whether one likes it, we live in an era of globalisation. Under our globalised trading system, all countries engage in trade with each other. The amount of goods traded across borders is larger than at any time in the past. This has benefited many nations. Unfortunately, the least developed countries have not benefited from the international trading regime that has been in existence for many years. As a result, it is my strong view that these states do not possess the tools to allow them to rise out of poverty.

While development aid is vital for developing countries, many specialists and commentators, academic and otherwise, in the development community agree that, of itself, it will never assist these countries in rising out of poverty. The only way to ultimately relieve poverty in these countries is by ensuring that they become involved in the international trading regime. This will assist them in building their trading capacity, their economies and their domestic enterprise systems. By so doing, they will take part in the international trading system and release themselves from poverty. I do not accept the contention that these agreements are being rushed through Parliament. We had a robust debate on them yesterday in committee. It is important to state that we must comply with international obligations to finalise these agreements which, by their nature, are agreements between the European Union and sovereign states. We must respect the rights of those sovereign states who wish to enter into these agreements. While a number of countries have done so, others have stated they are not ready for these agreements at this stage. We must respect the sovereign wish of those who are ready to agree and sign, which is the reason this motion is before the House.

See this speech in context