John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)

I welcome the publication of this Bill. The Lisbon reform treaty is an outcome of a long negotiation process. Much of the substance of the reform treaty was negotiated under Ireland's EU Presidency in 2004. I congratulate our negotiation team on a job well done. On the issues of particular national interest, it was able to shape the outcome in ways that fully respect our interests.

When Ireland joined the Union, the EEC as it was then, in 1973 there were nine members. Today there are 27 EU member states, 12 more than there were five years ago. The EU has trebled in size since we joined in 1973. Now that the Union has expanded to 27 member states, common sense dictates that a larger organisation needs to revise its rule in order to advance the common good. Streamlining the decision-making process of the EU institutions will make them more effective, efficient and flexible. The Lisbon treaty is fundamentally about modernising the EU's institutions to ensure they work better for EU citizens.

Fine Gael is firmly pro-European and we have demonstrated our commitment to Europe through vigorous and energetic campaigns in favour of a strengthened European Union. I regard EU membership as a cornerstone of Ireland's success. I have always urged people to vote "yes" for a better Europe and "yes" for a better Ireland. Our citizens should vote "yes" in the Lisbon treaty referendum because it offers the best deal for Ireland and for Europe.

In the treaty referendum each voter will make a once off decision based on a simple "yes" or "no" choice. This treaty represents the best balance of interest between good co-operation with other EU member states and the protection of our national interests. However, for some, the decision might be seen to involve a degree of future uncertainty and risk.

As a businessman and entrepreneur, I believe an important aspect of voter decision-making is to be optimistic for the future. The entrepreneurial approach to decision-making has to do with vision, imagination, enthusiasm and self-confidence. The entrepreneurial thinking process understands that if new opportunities are to be successfully grasped it is important not to act based on yesterday's logic. With an entrepreneurial approach, the voter will select the plan that is proactive and positive on the optimistic assumption that the benefits flowing from the plan will be achieved while the possible risks will be managed and any perceived downsides will be avoided. With a positive, self-confident outlook to the future, the entrepreneur will vote "yes". From a business point of view and having regard to the advantages of a "yes" vote in attracting business to Ireland, hopefully a "yes" vote will be secured, given its potential to create jobs and attract investment from the US in particular.

For the entrepreneurial decision maker, the issues of likely reward and possible risk go together. On the reward side, all past experience points to the fact that being a full and active member of the EU has brought substantial economic and social benefits to Ireland and its citizens. This outcome is demonstrably quantified. One only has to think of the euro in one's pocket to understand that the EU has been beneficial for Ireland. On the possible risk side, there is a confidence that specific actions for the management and mitigation of potential risk factors can be taken to ensure the risk element can be avoided into the future. There is a clear understanding that the risk factors can only be managed from a position of influence within the process of the implementation of the decision. One cannot manage potential risk factors as a spectator looking on.

The choices available to the voter in the treaty referendum are a simple "yes" or "no". The simplicity of choice could possibly mislead the voter in the sense that a "yes" vote is for the treaty and all its future change implications while a "no" vote represents the status quo. In many significant ways, this perspective is misleading. In some ways, it is easier for a "no" vote to sound warnings about the future. Arguments around the perception of maintaining the status quo can be superficially attractive. A "no" vote in the referendum is essentially a negative assessment. It is an act based on the premise that the worst will happen and, therefore, voting "no" will give the best protection under such adverse conditions. Leaving things as they are does not ensure that the current position will be kept the same, rather it subjects it to a torrent of uncontrolled and perhaps uncontrollable change. A "no" vote can be reasonably represented as a strategy of evasion in the unreasonable expectation that given some time, things will sort themselves out.

Many of the arguments against the Lisbon treaty are simply recycled versions of "no" arguments put forward during every EU referendum held since 1972. These negative arguments were ill-founded then and they are equally so now. According to Mary Lou McDonald, MEP, Sinn Féin opposes the Lisbon treaty not because its members are eurosceptics but because they are ambitious for Europe and because they believe that, collectively and democratically, Europeans can achieve great things. They claim to be pro-European while at the same time opposing this treaty.

The argument that we should reject this agreement and go back and negotiate a better deal must sound familiar to Sinn Féin leadership. It would have heard a great deal of that type of argument during and after the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement. As a democratic political party, it must know in its heart and intellect that this is a barren, fruitless and irresponsible strategy. Telling the negotiation team to go back and get a different deal is not how international agreements are concluded and honoured.

The Lisbon treaty contains a real and meaningful response to concerns regarding the perceived lack of democratic accountability within the EU. The treaty contains a number of provisions aimed at reinforcing the national parliamentary dimension in the EU by extending national democratic control over decisions at EU level and ensuring greater transparency in the decision-making process.

A recent eurobarometer survey showed that while a large majority of Irish people support EU membership, only a quarter of us believe that our opinion counts when the EU makes decisions. This is an indication of how disconnected citizens feel between their everyday lives and the EU institutions. The reality is, however, that EU legislation, in the form of directives, regulations or decisions, has a real impact on the everyday lives of all EU citizens and it is negotiated on behalf of citizens by their governments. The primary legislator in European society is the national parliament, the true democratic expression representative of the citizen. In this context and in recognition of the growing importance of EU legislation and the need to hold the Government accountable for the negotiation of this legislation, the Oireachtas has established a Joint Committee on European Scrutiny.

The central task of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny is to act as a watchdog, scrutinising every item of proposed EU legislation, which on average numbers more than 500 documents annually. It can decide to scrutinise in-depth proposed EU legislation which it considers holds significant implications for Ireland. This detailed examination of legislation can, where appropriate and necessary, involve detailed discussions with all affected stakeholders, including Ministers, senior officials, interests from industry, business, agriculture and consumer society as well as NGOs. It also invites the views of the other expert committees within the Oireachtas. On the basis of those detailed examinations, the joint committee produces timely scrutiny reports which make recommendations to the Government on negotiation positions to be adopted in Brussels. The reports also act to alert the Oireachtas to any proposal for EU legislation that may have a significant negative impact for Ireland.

See this speech in context