European Communities Bill
Mr. Gormley: I welcome the legislation and I hope that at some stage Bulgaria and Romania will join the European Union. In 1979 I went to Germany for the first time in order to earn money. I went there because, in the words of one Deputy, I believe Deputy Costello, Ireland was a basket case at that stage and it was possible to earn up to four times as much money in Germany. Many Irish people had the same aspiration. We went there and earned money. I subsequently put myself through college with that money. It was a very good experience.
It is interesting to look back on that period and consider how many Irish people remained in Germany. When migration patterns in Europe are analysed, it is clear that it does not resemble the United States of America, which probably relates to the greater cultural differences, language barriers etc. People in Europe emigrate for a period of time, do what they need to do and then return home. We will see that pattern with many people from the accession states, Poles, Latvians etc., coming here. We must respect them for coming here to try to better themselves - that is what it is about. I wish them all the best. I wish the Bulgarians and Romanians all the best because they are in the same situation as we were back in the 1970s.
It has always been assumed that the widening and deepening of the European Union was what the European citizen wanted. However, as we have seen from referendum results in France and the Netherlands, that is not necessarily the case. People have major concerns about the enlargement project, in particular the proposed accession of Turkey. I learnt this lesson recently when I appeared on a programme with the Turkish ambassador. I have never received so many phone calls about an issue, particularly from women who seem to be very concerned about the matter. I believe it will be a long time before Turkey will join the European Union. While in terms of diversity of the Union and building bridges with Islam, it would be good, it is a long way off and it may not be possible politically.
The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, mentioned that enlargement may not have been the major factor in the defeats in France and the Netherlands. However, it certainly was an issue. I believe the Minister of State referred to another issue, which is the perception among European citizens that they were alienated from the centre in Brussels, and that the Commission and other institutions had embraced the neo-liberal agenda.
Mr. F. McGrath: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gormley: Many states and their citizens want to see the development of the European social model. They want the European Union to be a bulwark against globalisation and not a vehicle for it. This is the crucial debate into which we are now facing. While we talk about the Lisbon Agenda, all the analysis shows that we are moving in a direction away from Berlin and towards Boston, which is not something I want to see. I believe in the charter for fundamental rights and support it. It is interesting that the Government’s White Paper states that principles are not directly justiciable but may be implemented either by the Union or by member states in their legislative or executive acts and only become significant to the courts or judicially cognisable when such acts come to be interpreted or reviewed. Examples of articles containing principles are those relating to the rights of the elderly, the integration of persons with disabilities and environmental protection.
I would like to see those social and environmental rights being justiciable but that is not what the Government wants. Major questions arise, however, because it seems there are different interpretations. For example, I recently attended a meeting with someone who would describe himself as a federalist, John Palmer, who said as far as he is concerned, it will be justiciable once the court gets its hands on it. Tony Coughlan agrees with John Palmer’s interpretation, which is interesting. An eminent barrister and constitutional lawyer in Trinity College, Gerard Hogan, agrees with those two gentlemen and disagrees with the Government’s interpretation. How can the Government go to the electorate and say this is what the charter and constitution mean when there are so many different interpretations? We need clarity on that issue.
This is important because the potential strength of the European Union rests on members coming together to tackle major issues such as the environment and the defining issue of our age, the energy crisis. This is where the European Union can and must play a role yet individual states refuse to play ball. It makes sense to have Europe-wide energy and ecological taxes. Imposing them on an individual basis will no longer work.
If the European project is to be successful we must empower the citizen and reconstitute the convention. We need a new constitution which must be put to a Europe-wide referendum. I am concerned by statements today suggesting that somehow at a later stage we can give the same constitution back to the French. That shows a lack of awareness of the human condition and of the French people. If that is done, the recent riots in France will look like a picnic. It is not in the French psyche to take things lying down.
The French Greens are split down the middle on this referendum and harbour a legacy of continuing bitterness to the extent that when their delegate was nominated for a position on the committee of the European Greens, her own people did not vote for her. The Minister of State should not underestimate the level of antagonism that continues there. He cannot succeed by giving the same treaty back to the French. I spoke recently to the ambassador from the Netherlands who said that as far as the Dutch are concerned, that constitution is over.
Several aspects of the constitution were moving in the right direction in regard to empowerment of the citizen, namely, the citizens’ initiative. When I attended the convention I was asked to draw up the first draft of that initiative and I was happy to see it included in the constitution. It can happen without the constitution. I suggest that we proceed with that amendment to empower the citizen so that we can collect signatures and move away from the idea of the militarisation of the European Union which does not interest most citizens. They want to see action on the environment and energy. If the Government moves in that way, there is a chance of re-engaging the citizen and making the European Union relevant once again.