Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

Apart from the issues of QMV, the advantage of having a Dáil debate would be to address further fundamental issues of accountability. For example, the House would benefit from knowing the role of the Dáil and Seanad in light of the treaty in terms of accountability and the deficit which exists, for example, on common foreign and security policy.

The Taoiseach referenced the European affairs committee. In the previous Dáil, the chair of the European affairs committee was in a different position from the chair of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs with regard to the sharing of information. I also suggest there is a continuing debate in the European Parliament on accountability.

There is also the matter of international foreign policy where the European Union adopts a common position. There are no mechanisms of initiation, scrutiny or reporting back in that regard. The advantage of a debate is to at least be able to hear such proposals as might emerge in the context of the new treaty. It is deeply damaging to the European debate and the preparations for it. There is what is referred to as a "double deficit" in the current foreign security policy, which is a treble deficit if we consider the failure of our committee structure here to be able to adequately access decisions which are, after all, being taken.

The Taoiseach is not misleading the House when he is speaking about governments. The decisions have been taken by the executive in an intergovernmental context without adequate accountability back to participating parliaments.

See this speech in context