Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill. This legislation is only one element in a larger debate that we must have. One of the problems with debates about the European Union is that anybody who queries the current arrangements and their weaknesses or points to developments that may not be in the interests of Europe, Ireland or citizens is immediately labelled a eurosceptic.

Europe is much different from the United States where most people identify with America, mobility is much greater and easier and there are no language differences. People on the west coast, for example, who were born in the east do not feel they have left their home patch. If one examines the pattern of migration from this country, one finds that the largest number of migrants move to our nearest neighbour, with the majority of the remainder emigrating to Canada, Australia and, when it is open, the United States. The different character of Europe and America means the construction of Europe must be different from the construction of the federal state that makes up the United States. Similarly, Germany is a federal state in which the regional states or Länder enjoy significant powers and citizens share a common language and culture.

There will always be a debate about the power exercised by EU member states through the Council of Minsters versus the power of the European Parliament. I note the presence of Deputy Creighton who has experience of attending Council meetings. In my limited experience of taking part in Council meetings as the Minister of State with responsibility for rural development and, subsequently, the Minister for Social Protection, it was rare for Ministers to vote. Irrespective of whether they represented a large or small country, Ministers' views were generally taken on board and they were largely treated equally. While this is possible when 28 people are sitting around a table, it is difficult to envisage how 11 Members of the European Parliament - 14 in total from this island - who belong to four different groups will be able to influence decisions as powers transfer from the Council to the Parliament. We do not have a sufficient number of members to ensure Ireland is represented on all parliamentary committees. Many MEPs specialise in certain areas, for example, agriculture, consumer affairs or the environment, in a way that Members of the Oireachtas do not. By narrowing their interest base in the European Parliament, they seek to have an input and make an impression.

As the European Union grows, the issue of the balance between the Council of Ministers and Parliament will come to the fore. I have never been convinced that transferring powers from the former to the latter has been in the interests of European citizens because many member states have only a small number of representatives in Parliament. I understand a rule was introduced prescribing that the minimum number of MEPs for each member state will be six. This means very small states such as Malta have a high number of representatives in the European Parliament on a per capita basis. Other small states, including Ireland, should also have been allocated a bonus, as it were, in terms of numbers in Parliament. The most recent cut in the number of MEPs from 12 to 11 is a significant reduction. It is interesting that this issue was not discussed in the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Why did such a discussion not take place? When decisions were being taken on this matter last June, why did the Taoiseach not insist that countries of the size of Ireland retain greater weight in respect of MEP numbers?

The future of the European Union is based entirely on member states and their citizens believing that their voice and concerns will be heard. This will be difficult to achieve when their representation is being consistently reduced. During the first elections to the European Parliament political dialogue and discourse reflected a view that MEPs were important and influential. They were able to serve their constituencies in a reasonably thorough manner, were known individually by those whom they represented and were able to visit the various parts of their constituencies.

When we had a three-seat Connaught-Ulster constituency there was a feeling of attachment to and knowledge of MEPs that has not been so apparent in recent times. We are now to have three new constituencies, Dublin and what I define as Leath Cuinn and Leath Moga. Long before Ireland was divided into provinces it was divided by Leath Cuinn and Leath Moga, which is effectively, what is being done now again. It is funny how history repeats itself.

In terms of the divisions, it is hard to see how anybody, having spent five days in Brussels, could physically service the Cooley Peninsula to Belmullet and from South Kildare to Mizen Head or retain any reasonable contact with the people he or she represents. This is becoming a big issue and will become an even bigger issue into the future. In regard to the question of who is the queue for membership of the European Union, I understand there are many countries who want to join. With the Parliament now fixed in terms of membership, as the Union grows the number of seats will decrease. As such, this is not necessarily the final cut in seat numbers.

The balance of power issue within the European Union needs to be debated, without slogans and bricks being thrown at people who question issues in regard to Europe. I believe that if we had been more questioning, not about the concept of international co-operation which nobody can argue with, but about the construction of various elements of change in the European Union we might have saved ourselves many problems. When people ask me about the origins of the collapse in the economy, I point to the decision to enter the euro, which decision had unanimous support across the political spectrum in this country. Nobody thought about what would happen if the centre was in recession, the periphery was in growth, cheap money was available and all barriers to the movement of money were removed resulting in it being available at low interest rates. Truth be told what happened was akin to a child being given a giant tub of ice-cream and left alone. As everybody knows the child would eat too much and get a tummy ache. There is nothing wrong with ice cream or the fair movement of money. However, success without control and a lack of consideration of what might happen results in the types of issues that have arisen, which Europe with its banking union, etc., is now trying to resolve. Europe will not admit the mistake, it will only seek to resolve it. The next time change is proposed we need to look at the unintended consequences more carefully.

See this speech in context