John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

I thank the Taoiseach, his colleagues and the civil servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs for their hard work during the Irish Presidency. It is important that we work together with other EU states to combat terrorism. We have experience of this here and it can best be fought by working together in the areas of security and intelligence. However, as the Taoiseach knows, certain EU intelligence agencies are reluctant to swap information.

Mr. Barnier, chair of the defence working group, argued that we need to build up European military capacity to combat what are now known as the new threats. I do not accept this. Those with experience here will know that combating terrorism by military means does not work. The United States, the mightiest military power on the planet, could not prevent attacks on it on 11 September 2001. We should learn from this. While Britain has a strong military force, it could not defeat terrorism on this island. We must be subtler and realise that it requires better security and intelligence rather than increasing military capacity. I fear this will be used to build up European military capacity. Arms dealers, not European citizens, will be the only beneficiaries of this.

The solidarity clause has been agreed. While we have difficulty in ascertaining Ireland's position on many issues, we know what has emerged from the summit regarding the solidarity clause. The wording is clear and is similar to article 42 of the draft treaty. It says, "they shall mobilise all the instruments at their disposal, including military resources to prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of one of them". This issue was raised at the Convention and I spoke on it. I was happy to support the clear and unambiguous amendment proposed by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche. It stated, "deployment of military capabilities for the purpose set out in this article shall be limited to the territory of the Union".

Why did the Taoiseach not seek to have this wording included in the solidarity clause? It makes perfect sense to me. If we allow the clause to go forward as it currently stands, there is a real danger that we will once again be dealing with the doctrine of pre-emption. I asked the Convention what did it think George Bush was doing in going into Iraq. Mr. Bush and Colin Powell argued repeatedly that it was to prevent the terrorist threat in the United States.

Deputy Kenny rightly referred to Sellafield as an obvious and easy target for terrorists. In this case, why has the Government agreed to include the EURATOM Treaty, which sustains the nuclear industry in the European Union, as part of a protocol attached to this treaty? This matter was repeatedly raised at the Convention by me and my Green Party colleagues. We had the support of some member states when we tabled amendments to this effect and when we asked for a sunset clause to be included. Unfortunately, the Government did not support us and I do not understand why it failed to do so. This is an important issue. Many Irish people are concerned about the threat of Sellafield, which has been heightened as a result of threats from al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups which will undoubtedly seek out a target as easy as Sellafield. Will the Taoiseach address this issue?

Will the Taoiseach report on comments coming from the summit of business people seeking a cost-benefit analysis of climate change? This would seem to be in line with the attitude of the Bush Government to the environment and especially to the Kyoto Protocol. The book, The Sceptical Environmentalist, supports such a cost-benefit analysis and asks whether it is good for business to deal with climate change through eco-taxes and energy taxes. While such an approach would be welcomed by employers and business people, it is the wrong way to go about business. The current approach by the European Union will lead to us to become less European. The problem is that Boston is moving closer to Berlin.

Why are we enshrining an economic philosophy through the Lisbon agenda into the proposed constitution? This does not make sense. Deputy John Bruton said this is a matter for member states.

We need a European-wide referendum. Deputy Rabbitte spoke of giving the voters a choice. We saw the choice given on the Nice treaty, which was tantamount to saying: "You can vote for or against this, but if you vote against it, we will have to vote again". The same will happen in this referendum. While people can either vote for or against it, in reality they had better vote "Yes". There is really no choice. If we had a European-wide referendum on the basis of a dual majority, we could have real democratic legitimacy and a real debate.

I am shocked that the Government plans to hold a referendum on citizenship on the same day as the European Parliament and local elections. People have spoken about a guru giving advice. We do not need a guru. This is a political no-brainer. We are confronted by prejudice and racism every week when housing is discussed at the city council and people claim that those from foreign parts get housing before them. This is the lowest form of politics and it is disgusting that, instead of being a responsible politician with a calming effect, the Taoiseach is pandering to this prejudice. His behaviour does the Government no credit and the Green Party will take a strong line on this matter.

See this speech in context