Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

I will share my time with Deputy Lucinda Creighton.

The Lisbon treaty has undergone a long period of gestation. Its origins began with the Convention on the Future of Europe and it involved debate and discussion over several years. The convention took on board the views of many people before it formulated its proposal for the EU constitution. We now know that this constitution was not passed by the popular vote in France and the Netherlands, and thus the concept was put on hold as consideration was given to what the next step should be.

The purpose of the constitution was to consolidate the existing treaties and streamline the decision-making process for a membership of 27. What is often forgotten is that 19 countries ratified the constitution, three of them — Spain, Luxembourg and Romania — by referendum, with 77% voting "Yes" in Spain, albeit with a low turnout of 43%. At the European Council meeting of June 2007, it was decided to start negotiations on a replacement treaty, which culminated in the signing of the Lisbon treaty, referred to by some as the reform treaty, in December 2007.

In order for the Lisbon treaty to come into effect, it must be ratified by all 27 member states, with the intention that the process will be completed by 1 January 2009, when the treaty will come into effect. It appears that Ireland alone will hold a referendum on the matter. This will lead to additional focus being placed on us not just from the 500 million in the EU, but also from the other power blocks. The figure of 500 million is significant when compared to 4 million, but not so much when compared to China's 1.4 billion, a country with one fifth of the world's population and which now uses half of the world's cement and one third of its steel. This is the challenge that the European Union faces as the global becomes local.

Many people who will vote "Yes" will do so for idealistic reasons, perhaps motivated by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and others will vote for economic reasons. Since 1973, Ireland has received about €60 billion from the EU budget and has made contributions of €19.5 billion in the same period. Some will vote "Yes" for a combination of these reasons. Some will vote "No" for idealistic reasons and one has to respect that. However, the most important thing is that people have as much information as possible to make an informed decision and vote in a certain manner for the right reasons.

Traditionally, Irish people have voted in a pragmatic manner but the decreasing turnout certainly gives one food for thought as the comfort zone creates a certain disengagement. This can create a fertile environment for "No" campaigners who can oppose a policy from opposite ends of the spectrum. Strangely, very few are opposed to the general principles of the European project. Indeed some "No" campaigners talk about how good Europe has been. Alas, this treaty is the one that will cause the difficulty. It is difficult to go back and establish which treaty might have been supported in the past by those advocates of a "No" vote, albeit they recognise the good that Europe is doing.

The same arguments are made time and again. Our neutrality is akin to the cat with the nine lives — it being lost on each occasion that we passed an EU treaty. Our neutrality must have many graves stretching from Rome to Maastricht to Nice. I would like to be in a position to say that our concept of neutrality has ceased and that we are full participants in the common foreign and security policy but this is not so. If something is worth being a member of, it is worth protecting. Where we can assist in dealing with evil and oppression, we should do so and follow our own sovereign decision. In recent weeks, there has been much criticism of China's role in the Tibet Autonomous Region and yet that country, as a member of the UN Security Council, can decide our foreign policy, as can any other permanent members if certain circumstances arise. The comfort blanket of the UN can dictate our sovereignty in some decision making on foreign policy, while the European Union, strangely, cannot. This is paradoxical. I also believe that the majority of Irish people would favour our participation in the common foreign and security policy if they were afforded the opportunity to voice their opinion on it. Hopefully, they will get that opportunity in the not too distant future.

Support for membership of the European Union is high in this country. A recent EU barometer showed that this support is at 74%, with recognition by 87% of the people that we have benefited from Europe in the past. However, there is also concern that six out of ten people believe that their voice is not heard in Europe. Many see Europe as being out of reach and this presents a challenge to us to try to bridge this divide. If we took responsibility for some hard decisions rather than seeking to blame Brussels, we could assist in this regard.

Right around the world, we witness unrest such as that in the Middle East, conflict in South America and human rights difficulties in China. When this is contrasted with the peace that exists within the European Union, we are starkly reminded of one of the main reasons the Union was established. It is difficult for the generation of today to visualise that Europe was the cockpit of two world wars.

The referendum campaign will throw up many issues, some of which are factual and some of which are not. To date, much misinformation has been put into circulation and while one has to deal with this, the detail of the treaty and what it does must be outlined. The reform treaty will provide for a more effective Union over a number of areas and will permit the Union to develop in a positive manner.

I will now move on to aspects of the treaty itself because, as I have outlined, it is very important that people know what it proposes to do. With respect to institutional provisions, it proposes many changes, such as a new full-time president elected for a renewable term of two and a half years. This concept aims to improve the coherence of the Council. The presidency of the Council of Ministers will held by blocs of three with one lead country. Ireland will be grouped with Greece and Lithuania. Again, this aims to improve the coherence of the Council. There will be a new voting arrangement called the double majority system where 55% of the states and 65% of the population will be required. This replaces the cumbersome method used at the moment which is based on a certain allocation of votes per country. Where the Council is acting other than on a proposal from the European Commission, 72% of member states will be required.

As outlined by the Minister, the size of the Commission will be reduced from 2014, with a maximum cap of two thirds of members. This was agreed to in principle in the Nice II treaty. The detail of it was not adhered to so this is something that has been decided in the past. In real terms, in respect of the concept of Commission cake time, we will be in a healthier position than we were prior to 2004 where the five larger countries had two Commissioners each and the remainder had one. We will be on a par with others, as we have been since 2004.

There will be a high representative for foreign affairs and security policy combining the current High Representative for Common and Foreign Security Policy and the Commissioner for External Relations. This appointment will also represent the Vice President of the Commission. This is to enhance the co-ordination of EU activity in respect of third countries and improve the EU's visibility in external relations and support the person who will answer the phone to Mr. Kissinger. The European Parliament will be capped at 751. The role of the Parliament is enhanced by extending areas of co-decision with the Council of Ministers.

There will be an increased role for national parliaments. The Commission is obliged to give them at least eight weeks advance notice of legislative proposals. Each national parliament will be given two votes. In Ireland, the Dáil will have one and the Seanad will have one. There will be 54 votes in total. National parliaments or houses can vote to issue a reasoned opinion on whether a Commission proposal respects subsidiarity — the principle that the EU does not take action in areas of shared competence unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. If at least 18 votes out of the 54 are issued, the Commission's draft must be reviewed.

In the case of judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation, the threshold is 13. The two measures mentioned earlier make up what is known as the yellow card system. However, the Commission is not obliged to amend or reject the proposal but if it maintains it, it will have to justify it in a reasoned opinion. If a majority of national parliaments oppose a Commission proposal as a breach of subsidiarity and the Council or European Parliament agree with them, the proposal can be struck down. This is known as the orange card system. National parliaments are to be kept informed of evaluations of the member states of the Union policies in the justice and home affairs area, the work of a standing committee on co-operation on internal security and the evaluation of the activities of Eurojust and Europol.

A new treaty article will state that the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights as we incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the treaty. The treaty will confer legally binding treaty status on this charter, which was only a political declaration when agreed in 2000. This is very welcome. This charter consists of 54 articles, divided into seven sections, covering a diverse range of rights, for example, the right to life and respect for private and family life. It applies to the Union's institutions and to member states in their implementation of EU law. Nothing in the charter is to be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights as recognised by, for example, the member states' constitutions.

In the area of justice and home affairs, the European Union defines itself as an area of freedom, security and justice. Where people move freely across borders, police and judicial co-operation is required to protect people from terrorism and serious crime. Under the existing treaties, the EU can already act in the areas of police co-operation and judicial co-operation on criminal matters but using inter-governmental co-operation methods with a limited role of the Parliament and Court of Justice, rather than the normal "Community method". The new treaty will enhance the EU's effectiveness in fields where it has already been active, for example, external border control, visas, asylum and immigration. The new treaty will extend the EU's field of action in the fight against serious cross-border crime, police co-operation, mutual recognition of decisions by courts and judges and the creation of an EU public prosecutor with functions in defined areas. Majority voting will now become the norm in this area but unanimity is retained for some matters, such as family law.

In the area of judicial co-operation in criminal matters, there will be an "emergency brake". A member state can refer a proposal to the European Council if it is concerned that it would affect fundamental aspects of its legal system. If there is no unanimous agreement at European Council, a group of not less than one third of member states may proceed among themselves after four months but this is not binding on other states. Ireland has availed of an opt-out in regard to judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation. In a separate declaration, Ireland has indicated its intention to opt in to the maximum extent possible and to review this measure within three years of the treaty's adoption. Fine Gael opposed this policy decision. However, we acknowledge the existence of the declaration and we hope that the opt-in will be availed of in the not too distant future.

The treaty provides for little overall change in the Union's competences in policy areas. It sets out some basis principles. Regarding conferral, the Union only has those powers explicitly conferred on it. All other powers remain with member states, which is important to remember.

See this speech in context