Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

It may be unseemly to quote Bismarck in the context of a German Presidency of Europe, but he made one apposite comment when he remarked that laws are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made. We have not yet seen the law that will eventually result from last weekend's summit but, having seen just part of the process of its manufacture, even its greatest fans could not disagree with the reality that the blueprint for a new reform treaty is not a particularly pretty document.

The Labour Party supported the constitutional treaty and fully participated in the process that resulted in this single legal document. We believe in an EU governed by the rule of law. We remain convinced that, for a people to be able to claim ownership of such a complex political organisation like the EU, they must first understand it. After the referendum on the Nice treaty, it was acknowledged that our citizens were not fully abreast of the purpose and future intentions of the European Union and there was an increasing disconnect between the EU institutions and who they were meant to be working for, namely, the people of Europe. After 50 years of existence, the Union was at a crossroads.

One of the fundamental points agreed at the Finnish Council was the need to make Europe simpler. We all agreed that by providing clarity in our legal framework, we would begin to assuage people's concerns that the EU was a heaving Leviathan-like structure intent on gaining more and more control over national law.

Rather than a single document that people can understand, we are now confronted with a body that is governed by four separate treaties, comprising more than 1,000 articles that have never been consolidated but are full of amendments, substitutions and deletions, together with a forest of protocols, directives and regulations and a range of different ways of decision-making. The obvious advantages of setting out what the Union actually does through a list of competences are now buried in a legal text where the contents page needs an accompanying explanation guide. That is not just a pity from an aesthetic point of view, it also has practical ramifications. Most parties and individuals in the Dáil are pro-European. Most of us realise that means a Europe clearly relevant to its citizens and their concerns, which is a more open and accessible Europe. However, the truth is that a generation of eminent people who gathered on our behalf in Brussels have continued with an approach, language and terminology that does not aid the citizen to directly deal with the treaties themselves.

There are many benefits that still exist from the constitutional text. It seems that it was still possible to retain a great deal of what was achieved through this process. In terms of the institutional amendments, the additional powers conferred on the European Parliament, the new budgetary procedure and the new rotating presidency of the European Council will assist in a smoother running of the mechanisms within Brussels. The establishment of the EU as a single legal entity will open a new chapter in the Union's jurisprudence which will hopefully be of advantage to the legal recognition of the Union's work. While the new title for the EU Foreign Minister position is rather cumbersome, at least the powers and functions of the high representative have been retained, further bolstering the coherence of the Union in its key strategic role on the global political stage.

In addition, I welcome the further role that national parliaments will be able to play in the work of the Union and while EU legislation may not be the most interesting legal documents that come before this House, it is important that we, as Members, continue to develop our capacity to scrutinise European legislation. By doing so, subsidiarity will not merely be a principle annexed to these legal documents, but will be made an increasing reality, to the clear benefit of our country.

One of the greatest benefits from the constitutional project that has been retained is the clear list of competencies that the member state has sovereignty over and those that have been handed over to the Union, through previous treaties, for collective responsibility. This list, simply compiled, is a useful and essential tool to show to those cautious of the Union that the EU institutions have limits, which have been defined through agreement by all member states and which they cannot exceed.

However, one of the greatest disappointments and causes for concern is that people will not be able to find these important clarifications within an ever-expanding legal text. They are now buried within one of the two founding treaties, under the common provisions title. That fact is evidence of the reality that democratic development and accountability have long been the poor relations of the European project. We are all responsible for the fact that the European Union and its affairs remain remote and removed from its citizens. That was one of the good reasons for embarking not just on another round of institutional reforms to cope with an enlarged Union, but on a constitutional treaty-making exercise.

The constitutional treaty deserves our support as democrats. It would have given us a written EU constitution in a single text between two covers that all citizens could strive to understand, owe allegiance to and so claim to own.

What has now transpired is that that aspect of the process that made most sense has been ditched. It is not just flags, Beethoven, etc., that went out the window. The success of the last Irish Presidency was to hand over a draft text which, by comparison, was clear and lucid. That draft also has been ditched.

The draft constitution was admittedly long and detailed. It could not be otherwise if it is to set out a legal framework for close co-operation between 27 countries which wish to remain sovereign while pooling that sovereignty in certain clearly-defined areas, but its overall structure was simple enough. It set out the principles of the Union, prescribed limits for what it could do, detailed how its institutions were to work, laid down a charter of rights to govern Union legislation, and consolidated policies developed over 50 years.

The irony is that the referenda in France and the Netherlands showed a wide communications gap between leaders and their electorates on European issues. This was interpreted as a suspicion of Europe's political elite and their expansionist plans for an enhanced European agenda. The solution was to strip the new treaty of its constitutional aspects, not just flags and anthems, but even the notion of a single basic text. The citizens' need was a need to take stock, to seek to simplify, to consolidate and to establish rational basic structures and rules.

That is why one of the most important treaty-making tasks was the one undertaken by the Irish Presidency. It was the most basic but least exciting of tasks — the drawing up of a genuinely readable version of the existing constitution of Europe. The popular failure to grasp the European architecture is not due to any intellectual deficiency on the part of the people of Europe, nor is it simply lack of interest, but the opportunity to make Europe more readable, accessible and therefore more understood has been missed.

One particular issue that has come to light and attracted comment in the past couple of days, and which has been commented on during Question Time and subsequently by Deputy Kenny here today, relates to Ireland's position on the opt-out from the charter. The simple fact is that the charter comes into legal effect when member states are applying EU law. If we are members of this Union, then our Government should adhere to that law, just as we ask our citizens to do. The Taoiseach told us just now, as he did during Question Time, that he is in complete agreement with the charter but wants to know the implications of the British protocol for member states if interpreted by the courts. I do not understand how we will determine that before the court is seized of a tangible issue. The charter is a simple set of clear principles — rights that the Labour Party strongly supports and considers necessary for the application of European law. The public deserves to know where each party stands on an issue that removes an important aspect of the original treaty from the Irish people. The Taoiseach seems to say that all he has done is enter a caveat that allows him to raise issues at the convention.

The Labour Party continues to support the Charter of Fundamental Rights and believes it should be fully incorporated in the text of the new treaty. The opt-out of its provisions by the Government will have implications for Irish workers and trade unions in respect of basic and fundamental rights of Irish citizens.

A pretty document it may not be but it is the one that we have. Much of the good work from the long consultative process that resulted in the draft constitution has been retained in the outcome of the recent European Council. The changes made to this legal text will need to be presented to the people of Ireland, as declared by the Taoiseach. A very simple question that will be asked by our voters is why we need it. I thought we had learned a lesson from Nice but it seems we have taken the same approach to our next European referendum as we have for all the previous times, blindly ignoring the fact that Irish voters are increasingly asking why they should vote for another one of these treaties.

For those who framed the agreement, and for those who support the European project, there is a necessity to make it clear how the new structures will help to address concrete issues. We will find it extremely difficult to sell treaties to the electorate on the basis that they provide Europe's leaders with a less messy way of conducting their affairs. Instead we need to demonstrate how a more effective Europe can contribute to economic growth, more and better jobs, action on climate change and a fairer world order. I do not doubt that Europe's leaders faced a major challenge going into the weekend. They have emerged with just as great a challenge, namely, persuading people to support the new treaty.

It is a pity to see the fine balance found during our Presidency dissected into legal pieces and peppered throughout an already unpalatable legal text. Selling this to our population, after it gets further additional commas, sub-clauses and numbering changes from the Intergovernmental Conference, IGC, will be a major challenge.

See this speech in context