Debate before signing the Act
Deputies criticise the Government for signing before the Dáil debated the Act and argue that ratification leaves the House with only a yes-or-no choice. The Minister says this is the established treaty procedure, that the Act will be debated before ratification, and rejects descriptions of Parliament as a rubber stamp.
Did the Government consider having this Act debated in this House before it was signed?
Comment on this
No. The procedure in all these cases has been that the Government signed, it was agreed between the Six, Nine, or Ten, and then it came to the House for ratification or rejection.
Comment on this
In view of its implications, did the Government not consider it proper to have it debated in this House before signing?
Comment on this
This is precisely what was done in 1972 and with any other change in the Treaty of Rome. The same thing happens in every other European country.
Comment on this
Our entry into the Community was done by way of a referendum and this is a change of almost equal significance. The Government have unilaterally signed this agreement and the only option open to us is to vote against its ratification. We cannot change it, we cannot do anything about it. The Government are going to railroad it through because of their majority, that is if they get the Progressive Democrats to vote with them.
Comment on this
Words like "railroad" and "rubber stamp" procedures are not fitting language for a democratic institution. A significant change has not been made since we joined the Community in 1972. This is a very small step forward. There are many other countries, including Ireland, who would like to see a much more significant step towards European Unity. Look at the additional powers we are giving the Parliament — practically nothing.