Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy asked a number of questions and I will try to answer them all. The title "reform treaty" is good because it is a reforming treaty. It is necessary because the Union is far bigger than when the current rules were designed. Some 90% or more of the treaty is the same as the constitutional treaty, and I understand the two reasons the other 10% or less was removed. On one side, this was done to deal with the issue of constitutional symbolism and, on the other side, it was done to satisfy the French and Dutch positions, as their voters said "no".

Frankly, I do not have much time for the argument about symbolism. The idea that the people of Europe will stop having respect for the anthem, stop carrying the European logo on their cars or stop having European flags because certain parts are in or out of the treaty is nonsense. The Deputy will know from his group that I have made this point in the discussions. However, that is not the real reason — we should be straight about that, as I am being, because we are better off being honest on these issues. The real reason they wanted that part removed was because doing so made it easier for them to be able to say to their parliaments that they do not have to hold a referendum. With the symbolism removed, they can justify the point that it is not a constitutional treaty and, therefore, can be ratified by parliament. There is no doubt that is what they will do. It is not for any other reason.

I have no problem whatever with helping our colleagues in France and the Netherlands on the issues that created difficulty for them. To do otherwise would be unfair. When I was in a similar position, I got the Seville declaration, which I had to get from my colleagues. Therefore, I have no problem making those compromises and amendments. I just divide the two reasons that apply to this issue.

On the charter, it is not just the UK position that is at issue. Everybody is in favour of the charter, although the UK has a different position to the others. However, they were all in favour of the charter being removed from the treaty while being linked to it in a legal way. I do not believe that makes a damn of a difference. In fact, it was to be left out of the convention in the first case. I was in favour of leaving it out at that time because it was making the constitutional treaty enormously bulky. It was not necessary to include it and easier to leave it as a number of annexes to the treaty.

However, let us be clear that we have been supportive of the charter throughout the negotiations since it was introduced in 2000 and following its amendment in 2004. We were satisfied with the manner in which the charter was incorporated into the draft constitutional treaty in 2004, although that was not my preference at that time. We would have been happy to have it retained in the reformed treaty but, unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain consensus on it because of issues in a number of countries. Its legal standing will, however, be confirmed in the new treaty, which is the key point. It is confirmed in the new treaty, has the same legal value as the treaties and applies to all areas embraced by the European Union where the member states apply European law. That is the crucial point.

The British protocol was introduced at a late stage in the negotiations on Friday night. We have no difficulty with the scope and application of the charter. I have been through this over seven years and we have no problem with it. Nevertheless, we considered it necessary and prudent to look for an opportunity to study the implications of the protocol. That is all I did on Friday night. I said the British were bringing in a late protocol and I wanted to be able to study what it means. While we continue to examine the technical implications of the protocol, although I have asked legal experts to examine it because the legal draft was produced by the United Kingdom and put in late for negotiation, we are satisfied that the text of the charter and the wording to be included in the treaty appear to adequately define the scope and application of the charter. Unless there is some legal complication or reason, it does not create any difficulty for us, but we must study it.

Some other issues were raised by the French and they do not create any difficulty for us. We were happy with the provisions of the JHA agreement in 2004. The United Kingdom indicated it could no longer sign up to that deal and the Presidency subsequently proposed a procedure that has become known as the "emergency brake". That is included in the treaty and it enables any member state to block agreement if it believes the fundamental aspects of its legal system are being affected. We have a similar legal system to the UK and as a result we keep ourselves linked to the UK with regard to JHA issues. It would be unwise of us not to do so.

See this speech in context