I thank the Minister for that information. I want to make it absolutely clear that I did not and would never refer to this Dáil as a rubber stamp. But I did refer to this procedure of ratification as a rubber stamp procedure. Surely if we cannot amend the treaty and we only have the decision to ratify or not, the Government in bringing it before the House is certainly turning the House into a rubber stamp in so far as this procedure is concerned.

I want to ask the Minister about the Act. In regard to its proposal to remove all barriers in the internal market of the Community and to have, as near as possible, a single integrated market, does the Minister not share my apprehension that this will involve considerable danger to our economy in a number of areas? Are the Government engaging in any procedure which will protect at least sensitive areas from the dangers inherent in this development? Is there to be any compensation for this country following the elimination of all internal mechanisms inside the common market? We saw yesterday and the day before that the position of our agriculture in the Community is being weakened and the Common Agricultural Policy is in the process of being dismantled. If our agriculture is to be thrown to the winds, are there any compensatory advantages in any area which the Government are seeking in the context of the new situation which this European Act will create so far as the internal market of the Community is concerned?

I do not agree with the premise that the internal market is a danger to this country. The reverse will be true, it will be of benefit to this country. We always wished for a more open market in which is sell our goods and if Deputies examine our trading figures with individual countries in the Twelve since we joined the Community, my point will be borne out, and my regret is that this has not happened more quickly. Obviously there are sensitive areas not just for this country but for other member states and the objective of the Twelve is to achieve a common market by 1992. As a help to achieve that a number of areas which previously required unanimous voting have been brought into majority voting. The right of veto in other areas, such as the harmonisation of taxes and other sensitive areas, still exists.

The Minister mentioned harmonisation of taxes.

As an example.

To take it as an example: the Minister will agree that that could involve us in a loss of revenue of around £500 million or £600 million and there are many other areas where the process which will be initiated under this European Act could result in very serious losses to the detriment of different sections of our economy. It is no good closing our eyes to this fact. The Minister should accept that while a completely free market is very advantageous to us from one point of view—because of our geographic situation and our small size —it can have very grave dangers for us from other points of view, particularly now when we see our agricultural industry being totally dismantled. Does the Minister not recognise that there is a very real need for a major arrangement to be made within the Community to compensate this country for the very serious dangers that we will incur in this process? In other words, does he not think that the implementation of this Act is another compelling reason why we should seek to negotiate an entirely new régime for Ireland in the Community?

The European Act contains a chapter on cohesion in the Community. This is something countries like Greece and Ireland insisted on putting in so that the less developed areas outside the centre of the Community would be developed and that the Community would concentrate its efforts on getting the standard of living in those countries up to that of the countries in the centre of Europe.

I must not have made myself clear when I answered the previous supplementary. I said that in the area of taxation, the invoking of the Luxembourg Treaty still applies. We can still use the veto there. That is not one of the areas which is open to a majority vote.