Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their contributions and welcome the broad consensus on the legislation. To paraphrase Senator Leyden, one of the first lessons one learns in economics is that trade and economic interaction deliver mutual gains. This lesson remains very much at the heart of the European Union. Great benefits are realised from trading across borders and the free movement of goods and people and this has been a pillar of the European Union.

As Senator Bacik noted, there is a deeper significance to this legislation. Croatia has been in the cauldron of many of the great divisions that have afflicted the western world. The country is located on the boundary between the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, the Orthodox and Catholic religions and Islam and Christianity. Virtually every divide in Europe has criss-crossed the countries that made up the former Yugoslavia. Croatia now follows Slovenia into the European Union.

Acceptance of the acquisand the opportunity of a peace dividend, which will repair the wounds of a continent and in particular a country riven over many years of conflict, is an important context within which to see this.

As stated by Senator Mary White, the acquisis not only about labour rights but about political union. The visit by the President, Michael D. Higgins, to Croatia last week showed the connections there that need to be built upon. In terms of this provision, in European terms Croatia is a small labour market. It has not had close connections of any great scale with the Irish labour market. In terms of the argument about floods of people coming here, it is clear from the analysis that this will not happen.

As stated by Senator Bradford, it is important that as a small country for whom migration has been an opportunity and lifeline, and which has in part made up this country over many years, we show generosity towards new members. The goodwill which we are seeking to show towards another small country wishing to join the European Union is an important statement in terms of our political and diplomatic relations. Some 13 member states of the 18 who have declared thus far have signalled that they will be giving full rights. As such, most other member states are taking a similar line to Ireland.

I will try to address the specific points raised. Senator Healy Eames asked why we took a different position in respect of Romania and Bulgaria. That decision was taken more than five years ago and not by the current Government. I presume in weighing up its decision the then Government took account of the relative size of those countries. The combined population of Romania and Bulgaria represented a labour market of 13.5 million as compared to a labour market of 1.8 million in Croatia. As such, there may have been more arguments around the potential for disruption and so on. Last year, we removed the remaining restrictions on Romania and Bulgaria such that they now have full access to the Irish labour market at this point.

Senators Healy Eames and Mary White also asked about the significance of the two year period. The manner in which the new treaty has been structured provides for different phases of entitlement. In the first two years, there is a right of restriction and in the following years different provisions prevail. Having different sections for two years and for a specified period thereafter is reflective of provisions within the original treaty of accession. It is treated differently in different sections of the Bill to reflect the different provisions in the parent accession treaty. We can deal with that further on Committee Stage.

I thank Senators Clune, Mary White, Bacik, Healy Eames, Noone, Leyden, Bradford and Cullinane for their contributions, which have been very useful and reflect the goodwill most people would show towards Croatia's decision to accede to membership of the European Union. Senator Cullinane raised issues that went beyond discussions on this particular treaty. The European Union is not a perfect body. No one would say it is. However, the concept behind it, of 27 member states - soon to be 28 - being willing to share sovereignty to achieve things together that they cannot achieve on their own is an important bulwark against the type of divisions and wars witnessed in the past. It has the potential for good. One can criticise the manner in which the Union has handled this crisis but on reflection of the crisis during the past three years it is evident that Europe has evolved. Things that seemed to be impossible at the start of the crisis are now being freely done. It is bolstering people's opportunities. I do not pretend it is a perfect model. It never will be. A model based on unanimity among 28 member states will in terms of make-up always be part camel rather than horse. It has been a great help to Ireland. It is hoped it will be a similar help to Croatia as it moves to join.

A number of Senators raised the issue of the impact on representation in the European Parliament. I have taken note of the points made and will pass them on to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, within whose remit this issue comes, although the boundaries will be set by the Commission. Senator Bradford asked whether we should be moving away from PR for the selection of MEPs. The UK, which is the bastion of the first past the post system, opted to go for PR for the selection of its European candidates in order to ensure it achieved a more balanced representation. There are others who believe ours is a good system of selection for the European Parliament. Nonetheless, I take the Senator's point.

I again thank Senators for their courtesy and interest in this issue and for their unanimous support for it, which of itself is not something that happens every day.