John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

The purpose of the summit was to try to deal with the impasse that continues in the European Union following the rejection by the Dutch and French of the European constitution. It seems that we will muddle along on the basis of this summit. I have not seen any concrete proposals emerging simply because countries have different points of view. The British believe the constitution is dead and do not want to know about it. They were never enthusiastic about it anyway. The French do not want to say too much because their people have rejected it and domestically it would not look good to suggest holding another referendum, as it would not be acceptable to the French people. The Dutch are in a similar situation which leaves the Germans under Angela Merkel, who want to resuscitate the constitution and who are its main drivers.

In the meantime we have all this talk about the European citizen. Not only is the European citizen being ignored, but those of us who have been elected are also being ignored. Many of the items contained in the European constitution such as the arms agency and the extension of the Petersberg Tasks are being introduced in any case without any debate in this Parliament or elsewhere in the European Union — so much for democracy and the citizen.

The Laeken declaration suggested bringing Europe closer to the people and we now have the new idea of a citizen's agenda for Europe. If we are serious about empowering the people, words are all very fine, but they need to be matched by some sort of action. I agree with the proposal of Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel to hold a pan-European referendum at the end of the process. I made such a proposal to the convention. However, before we can proceed with such a referendum, we need a new convention. I have made this suggestion and many NGOs throughout Europe have made a similar suggestion, which is constructive. I have not heard any better suggestion coming from the European leaders. We need a new European convention to sit for a defined period of perhaps three months, have real terms of reference and be required to come back with a result. The result would probably entail leaving out Part 3 of the constitution, which has caused considerable annoyance and is very difficult for many citizens to come to grips with.

However, this suggestion is not being taken up, particularly by the Government, which wants to proceed. However, how are we to proceed? Are we just to pretend that the Dutch and French have not rejected it? Are we to hand it back to them? Are we to try to get it through by parliamentary means and not have another referendum? That will not do, as it would show contempt for the democratic process. I suggest trying to enhance the democratic process. There are many ways in which such a referendum could work. It could be required to have dual majority and clearly the countries that might reject it in those circumstances would need to reconsider how they want to approach the European project. It is a sensible suggestion and I ask the Minister of State to respond to it today.

Clearly in some incidences, such as dealing with energy and climate change, we need greater integration within Europe. Yesterday, Dr. Eddie O'Connor addressed a European Parliament committee about the need for an integrated approach. However, the problem is that individual member states will claim they want to maintain their independence in the sector. This simply will not work particularly when we are trying to deal with the problem of climate change and global warming. We need more integrated action in this regard.

I have tried to get my hands on the Presidency report on the European security and defence policy, but have been unable to find it. Given that we will hold a debate next week on EU battle groups, I would like the Minister of State to comment on the fact that the UK's biggest helicopter and marine commando carrier, HMS Ocean, will be docked in Dublin Port later this month.

See this speech in context