Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I am surprised at the Deputy. Of course I am not suggesting that under this treaty we will go that far. However, I am making the point that we have gone a long way in that direction. Therefore it is important that we look at the European institutions to ascertain how they can be more efficient and responsive to their citizens and to the national parliaments in the member states.

Throughout our membership, we have been asked at regular intervals to approve treaties which have been the building blocks of the Union as it evolved. Each major step taken by the Union now seems self-evidently to have been the right one. However, that was not always appreciated at the time. The prospect of change intimidates even to the point of stopping us from taking the decisions that are needed and from looking in an objective way at where the best interests of both Ireland and Europe lie. Each major advance by the Union took courage and a belief in the future of Europe. The reform treaty represents the latest stage of the evolution of the European Union. It paves the way for a more effective EU which can serve the needs of Europe, and thereby the best interests of Ireland, in the decades ahead.

The treaty is long and technical in nature and as such does not easily lend itself to campaign slogans and soundbites. In general, EU issues do not generate the kind of excitement and enthusiasm often associated with the cut and thrust, and adventures and misadventures of domestic political debate. I am reminded of another great Frenchman, Jacques Delors, who once said: "You cannot fall in love with the single European market." The French, after all, are the great authorities on love in the modern world. While it may be difficult to form a passionate attachment to the terms of a treaty, we cannot deny its importance to the development of the EU and its internal workings for the foreseeable future. The treaty will give the Union the flexibility and the capacity to face many major challenges that Europe faces in the decades ahead. There is no doubt that there is a need to restructure the workings of the Union to take account of its enlarged membership and the various issues now confronting Europe.

Opponents of the reform treaty use a number of lines of attack. It is suggested that they are not against the Union even though they campaigned against every previous referendum on the matter. It is acknowledged that Europe has achieved for Ireland and I am glad that that grudging admission can now be wrought out of those who oppose the treaty. However, it is then suggested the treaty will take the Union in a negative direction. Deputy Breen spoke about this in his contribution. I was very interested in his contribution, particularly in the later stage where he listed a series of false suggestions that are commonly propagated about the European ideal. It is disturbing in our domestic debate on Europe that every time we have a European referendum the same issues are produced: neutrality, abortion, a military super state and conscription. All these subjects are raised even though they have nothing to do with the treaty. While of course we have full sovereignty in these matters and it is important that we debate them as a Parliament, it seems extraordinary that these subjects are only debated when we have a referendum on Europe and are no longer debated on their own intrinsic merits and demerits. That is as it lies and is the system with which we must argue.

There will of course be the argument that has been made in every referendum since 1972 that there will be an erosion of national sovereignty and the emergence of a European super state. We have argued all this before and we have had all the warnings in predecessor treaties and they have all been proved baseless in time. Had we listened to the doubters on previous occasions, we would never have had the euro, which was provided for in the Treaty of Maastricht. It has been a key element in our recent economic success and a major convenience and ease for the travelling public.

The arguments against the European treaties have not changed and are broadly the same as those used to argue against joining the Common Market in 1972. Deputy Quinn is sitting very easily in his seat. I remind him that then Deputy Conor Cruise O'Brien at the time expressed grave unhappiness at the fact that the Labour Party was constrained to provide the "no" argument in the then European campaign.

See this speech in context