Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

We always knew that worried-looking journalists would speculate about how difficult it would be to get agreement. We knew an air of crisis would be created and the negotiations would drag on until the early hours of the morning. We knew that a last-minute deal would be done, much to the practised relief of the EU leaders and assorted commentators. We know that every EU leader would declare that they had been vindicated in their approach to the negotiations. It all went according to plan. We are being told that there is no alternative but to ratify this treaty, as we are always told.

The first imperative of the summit was to show that Europe is moving forward so a deal was always going to be done. The second imperative was for the French and Dutch Governments to be able to say that some of the most objectionable parts of the constitution have been removed. The text was duly blurred in places where it came in for greatest criticism during the French and Dutch referendums. The third imperative was for various European Union leaders to play to their national public, just as the Taoiseach has done in recent days. Last but not least was the imperative to avoid referenda where possible. For this to happen, everybody must pretend the constitution is not a constitution.

According to the imperatives, the summit has been a great success, but the summit has not been a success for ordinary people across Europe. The summit decided to rename the EU constitution a "reform treaty". This is reminiscent of the name change of Windscale to Sellafield. Objectionable terms have been changed to try pull the wool over people's eyes. Some of the more obvious symbols of statehood have been removed or clouded over but let us make no mistake, the so-called reform treaty is the EU constitution in all but name. As the Taoiseach stated earlier, the changes do not "undermine the balance and substance of the constitutional treaty". The constitutional treaty has been taken off the shelf, dusted off, repackaged and put on special offer. No referendum will be necessary in most states.

The draft mandate for the Intergovernmental Conference, IGC, explicitly and continually refers to the conclusions of the IGC in 2004, or in other words, the failed EU constitution. As the Taoiseach stated, "90% of the substantive package remains unaltered". This is the same package that has already been rejected by the people of France and The Netherlands. We were forced to vote a second time on the same package that was the Nice treaty, but the French and the Dutch who are being asked to swallow this pill will not be asked again whether they want the treaty. They are being told they can like it or lump it.

The EU summit failed spectacularly to deal with any of the real issues and concerns of people across Europe. EU democracy is further weakened and smaller member states in particular are further marginalised. We will get an EU president whether we want one or not. We do not want one. We will also get an EU foreign minister, albeit with a different title — a high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy. That is a mouthful. In effect, this is a foreign minister in substance if not in name. People will see through the clouding of the matter.

The Oireachtas will lose its role to decide on a whole new range of policy areas. This will add to the difficulties we already have in influencing EU policy in its current areas of competence. Our neutrality will be further undermined as we slip closer towards a militarised European Union. While welcome, the protocol on services of general interest does nothing to stop the headlong rush towards privatisation and liberalisation of services. Member states are still limited in their economic choices and restricted in their ability to tackle poverty and social exclusion. The treaty will do nothing to address issues of global inequality and poverty, nor to uphold international law.

Moreover, we have not yet dealt with the issue of enlargement. As the new voting arrangements will not kick in until 2014 or 2017, the voting arrangements for any new member state still remain to be resolved. When the new voting arrangements kick in they will mark a further shift in power towards the bigger countries. The people of Europe do not want the reheated leftovers of the EU constitution, they want a European Union that is more democratic, which prioritises people over profit and respects the sovereignty of nations, especially those with smaller populations.

Unfortunately this is not what has been or is now on offer. Instead, the EU elite has chosen to run away from the people. The Government cannot run away, much as it might wish to do so, and the people will be given a date for a referendum. People must examine the treaty fully and in detail and must debate its implications fully before the referendum takes place. It will be an opportunity to expose this treaty as the cynical manoeuvre it is.

Sinn Féin has demands that it wishes the Government to take on board. Given the opportunity presented by the Intergovernmental Conference next month, perhaps it will address them and negotiate on behalf of the Irish people rather than on its own behalf. The first relates to the provision of state aid and to subsidies and funding. As my colleague, Deputy Ó Caoláin, outlined, Sinn Féin believes that state aid provisions are overly restrictive. Potentially, they make it impossible for member states to make use of redistributive tools, such as targeted state funding, to full effect to achieve objectives such as balanced regional development. For instance, I refer to addressing infrastructural defects in border regions in cases in which an overwhelming democratic mandate for such measures exists.

When responding to Deputy Ó Caoláin, the Taoiseach acknowledged that state aid provisions can cause conflict at times but stated that the Government must negotiate with the European Commission when such issues arise. Does the Minister of State agree the best way to ensure the Government and all future Governments would win such negotiations when conflict arises would be to insert an opt-out or a right to one into the next treaty? I call on the Government to pursue an opt-out on the right of state aid provisions to overcome this island's legacy of Partition and to build a vibrant all-Ireland economy that addresses all the aforementioned shortcomings.

The second issue relates to the pillar on police and judicial co-operation. Sinn Féin recognises the fundamental importance of international co-operation between law enforcement authorities in the interests of justice for victims and the prevention of crime. However, as the right to privacy is also a fundamental human right, all measures that would suspend this right to privacy must be justified, proportionate and balanced by adequate safeguards. In Sinn Féin's experience EU legally binding measures in the area of justice and home affairs have not achieved the correct balance. This is particularly the case after the events of 11 September 2001. Therefore I also call on the Government to negotiate an Irish opt-out on matters relating to police and judicial co-operation, just as the British have achieved for themselves.

Were such fundamental matters to be removed from the sovereignty of this member state, in effect we would be living in a super state, and even my old nemesis, Mr. Michael McDowell, agreed with me on this point. Britain and Ireland operate a different legal system from the rest of the EU and there is huge variance across member states in terms of human rights safeguards in operation at present. It is essential that the Government should seek and achieve an opt-out from the police and judicial pillar. If the constitutional treaty comes into being, an opt-out would allow future Governments the freedom to opt into progressive measures and opt out of regressive ones as mandated by the people.

I refer to the issue of Ireland's neutrality. How can the Government contend that the reform or constitutional treaty as proposed is in any way consistent with the position of this small State as a neutral independent state? The Taoiseach's argument is nonsensical. How can the introduction of an EU Foreign Minister or "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" represent the views of Ireland on the world stage while in the same breath representing the views of NATO members, nuclear powers or those countries that dived headlong into an illegal war on Iraq? How can anyone represent both views? The simple answer is that no one can do so. This move should be seen in the context of statements from the European Commission calling for EU member states to lose their individual seats in the UN.

Thus far, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is one good thing in an exceptionally bad treaty. We should ensure it is implemented in full throughout the Union and within this State.

While making statements on the EU Council, I have concentrated on the proposed reform treaty, but I want to raise another issue, namely, Palestine. EU Foreign Ministers, including ours, have made a hames of their involvement in this issue. Instead of concentrating on the source of the conflict, the occupier — the Israeli state — the EU has used its powers as a provider of funds to further beat the Palestinian people. The EU's decision to freeze funding after the democratic and fair election of Hamas amplified the impoverishment, hardship and factionalism suffered by Palestinians under occupation and sent the wrong political message to Israel and the United States. It has exacerbated the humanitarian problems tenfold, particularly in the Gaza Strip. What we have seen in recent weeks has been the result of the EU and others withholding funding from the region.

When will the EU start to apply real pressure on Israel to end its occupation? Will the Minister of State agree to push for the suspension of preferential trade? I hope he will be able to address some of my points in his reply. I do not anticipate his agreement with me, as we have been on opposing sides regarding previous EU treaties. There is concern among the public that we are being sold the pig in the poke again, namely, that we will be asked to ratify something that is unacceptable to the peoples of Europe. In many cases, there will be no opportunity for a referendum. It is detrimental to our nation, sovereignty and the interests of the Irish people as a whole.

See this speech in context