Chris Andrews (Dublin South East, Fianna Fail)

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the EU reform treaty as negotiated under the German Presidency in June. This is an important time for Ireland and its role within Europe. The treaty is being finalised at the intergovernmental conference which convened at the end of July and which will conclude at the end of this week if political agreement is reached. I support the implementation of the reform treaty and continued and open debate on the future of the European Union. I welcome the Forum on Europe's contribution and the European Movement Ireland's publications, which are particularly easy to read and should be recommended as a starting point to anyone with an interest in the treaty.

After the Nice treaty was signed off in June 2001, it was agreed that a further treaty was necessary to reform voting procedures, improve democracy and transparency and accommodate the new member states. With this in mind the EU constitution was agreed in 2004 under the aegis of the Irish Presidency. Negotiations were tough and it was one of the Taoiseach's finest achievements on the international stage. The constitution was subsequently ratified by 15 member states but was rejected by the Netherlands and France. As unanimity was required, the constitution was temporarily shelved and a period of reflection entered into throughout 2006.

In 2007, under the new German Presidency and with a changed political landscape, the debate was reignited and agreement was successfully negotiated into what has been rebranded the reform treaty. The statements in the Dáil give us a chance to kick-start the debate on that treaty and the future of the European Union.

The lack of debate is one of the major problems of the European Union. There is a lack of engagement and a perception by the public that they are not part of the decision-making process. This is evident from the rejection of the EU constitution by two of its founding members in 2005, seen by many as a serious setback for the engine of European integration. How can citizens vote for change and new treaties if the message is not properly portrayed and they feel excluded from the process? I hope the debate today and in days to come represents the beginnings of a well informed, well considered and inclusive debate on the future of the European Union, Ireland's role within it and the institutional framework.

Since Ireland joined the EEC in 1973, we have benefited and contributed a great deal. We have benefited from the Common Agricultural Policy, Structural Funds and having a common currency. We have also contributed enormously. It is widely recognised that the Irish EU Presidency in 2004 was one of the most successful of recent years. An Irish person, John Bruton, represents the EU as ambassador in Washington and Pat Cox was successful in his role as President of the European Parliament. Recently Major General Pat Nash was appointed to head the ESDP troops in Chad and the Central African Republic and Commissioner McCreevy, a former Member of this House, is paving the way for the expansion of the Single Market.

The history of the European Union is not straightforward. There has not been linear progression in integration, as many would have us believe, but a series of stops and starts, with periods of deepening and widening, reflection and scepticism. This is part of the process and is the reason I urge constructive and public debate on the matter. The reform treaty provides clarity on many institutional issues and will encourage the smooth working of the super-national institutions. It has excluded specific reference to state-like symbols, which were deemed unpopular, such as a flag, an anthem and a motto. The reform treaty has accounted for the concerns of Poland by delaying the new voting procedures until 2014 and it has provided an opt-out clause for the justice provisions of the treaty for Britain and Ireland.

The opt-out clause does not represent Euroscepticism. Fine Gael is saying that for the sake of it. The opt-out clause recognises the need to preserve the common travel area between Britain and Ireland and the fact that the common law system is different from the continental civil law system. The Cabinet that decided to avail of the opt-out clause has also committed to opting in if conditions in future are suitable. Ireland will not opt out from the charter of fundamental human rights. Europe has been a source of prosperity and justice in Ireland. I welcome the reform treaty and feel it will keep the European project on track, hopefully improving the democratic credentials of European institutions.

I have some concerns about the future of European enlargement. One of the largest EU projects under way is the accession of Turkey. The enlargement project has been relatively successful so far, with the accession of ten new states in 2004 being smooth, although the success of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria in January 2007 is still a matter of debate.

I am deeply concerned, however, about events in Washington last week. On Thursday, 11 October, the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee voted 27 to 12 in favour of recognising that the killing of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottomans in 1915 was genocide. So far, 15 other states have officially recognised the Armenian genocide, including France. The Turkish responded by recalling their envoy from Washington. This is a calculated and intimidating move that flies in the face of the liberal image Turkey would like to project.

The infamous article 301 of Turkey's penal code prohibits any insults to Turkishness. The new Turkish President and Prime Minister like to give the impression of being modern and open, but their actions are far removed from their fine words. Turkey's aggressive stance towards Greek Cyprus is another example of the country's actions not matching its words. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, should express his concerns to Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Erdogan, as well as urging the newly elected President, Abdullah Gul, to reconsider his response to the recent vote by a committee of the US House of Representatives.

Turkey must repeal article 301 to allow freedom of speech and increased protection of human rights. Without these measures being taken, I am concerned, as are many others, that the European Union will drop the bar for admission to the Union, thus diminishing the values and benefits of EU membership. There appears to be a debate between academics and Eurocrats about further expansion of Europe. It appears that they carry on this debate with little reference to the broader European public. These Eurocrats have deemed that further rapid expansion is, like medicine, good for us regardless of whether we like it. The difficulty is that these Eurocrats have left an ever-increasing number of people behind.

Today, many politicians and Eurocrats seem to measure the success of the European project by the number of countries striving not only for association and political partnership within Europe, but also for full EU membership. Admittedly, it is encouraging to see that the EU is perceived by the outside world as a model organisation. However, the EU's interior political landscape and the general mood of European political opinion suggest that it would be courageous to acknowledge that the EU needs to refocus on serving the well-being of its citizens instead of leading an ongoing debate on important issues such as enlargement over the heads of the public. These professional Eurocrats should consider the impact deficiencies in the EU's democratic system has on Europe's credibility at home, as opposed to focusing primarily on the devastating effects that refusal may have for new applicants. The public should decide Europe's future. Without constructive engagement and debate on this matter, the reform treaty will not be worth the paper it is written on. I look forward to engaging in that debate and I hope the reform treaty will be adopted.

See this speech in context