Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)

It is a personal pleasure to be present in the Chamber with the Acting Chairman, a constituency colleague of mine. Although his role is a non-speaking one, I am sure he will soon be back in full voice again.

This referendum is ample testament to the courage and dignity of the Taoiseach in his leadership of the country and Fianna Fáil. It is a benchmark of the singular importance of the referendum that he chose to put aside his own position and sacrifice himself politically in order that the referendum might be passed and that our national interests would be correctly served by a "Yes" vote. It is also a testament to the importance of the referendum and the treaty that the "Yes" vote for which I am calling is being echoed by the three major parties — Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party. These three major parties command the hearts, minds and loyalties of the people when they go to the ballot box. It is important to note that these three major parties, which the electorate supported demonstrably in the recent election, are behind the treaty.

It is important to present the facts about the treaty in a balanced way. It is an innocuous but necessary administrative response to a number of issues affecting the European Union. The public should put aside any lingering scepticism it might entertain with regard to the treaty. Some might feel it is an opportunity to knock the Government and I am glad that Deputy Neville dealt with this point in such a direct manner. The public should carefully calculate our national interests which have been well served by being part of the European Union within which we have enjoyed the most spectacular transition. It is no exaggeration to say Ireland is the model concerning EU membership. Many of the applicant states which are anxious to join the Union and share in that prosperity self-consciously try to steer themselves along the Irish model.

The public should recall that the treaty does not operate in isolation. There are compelling reasons for voting "Yes", particularly the uncertain financial backdrop to the vote. The world is a much more uncertain place than it was when the people cast their votes at the last general election. There has been a major crisis in the international financial system and the global economy, occasioned by a US problem — the sub-prime lending in which some American financial institutions were engaged. It is not a particularly European problem but a US one that has spread, not unnaturally, to the heart of the international financial system. This uncertainty demands that people be cautious with regard to issues affecting the European Union, particularly voting in referenda. I am not trying to scaremonger but I am merely pointing out that there are causes and consequences when people choose to reject treaties such as this. The world is far more globalised and interconnected today than it was ten years ago. Rejecting this treaty would send a message of uncertainty and instability to a world that is already unstable due to problems in sub-prime lending.

The problem of sub-prime lending originated predominately in the United States. It should not be forgotten that that nation accounts for 35% of the world's wealth: it is a 35% stakeholder in the world economy which means it has enormous influence. Europe must carefully watch what happens in the United States with regard to this issue. Thankfully, European and Irish banks have been substantially unaffected by the sub-prime crisis. We must be fair to Irish banks because, while it is often popular to criticise them, they have been responsible lenders at a time of unprecedented success for the economy. The sub-prime crisis has not revealed irresponsible lending practices at the heart of our banking system which is a tribute to those working in it.

There has been sluggish growth in the European economy in recent years but it is not teetering on the edge of recession, like the US economy. This is down to a set of reasons that relate to the dependence of the US economy on consumer confidence and domestic consumption. The US economy and US consumers depend heavily on investments in the stock markets and equities but that is not the case in the eurozone. For all of these reasons the euro currency offers a haven of stability in an unsettled global currency market that has seen sharp depreciation of the dollar. It is not an exaggeration to say that in its short existence the euro has established itself as a credible reserve currency. It does not rival the dollar yet but an interesting international academic study of the status of the euro as a reserve currency has concluded that in the next ten to 15 years it is possible that it could replace the dollar as a reserve currency. That is a significant destiny for the European Union and those who manage the euro in the European Central Bank. There is a huge responsibility on those who manage the affairs of Europe.

The European Union is the largest and richest economic bloc in the world. It is an economic powerhouse but diplomatically and politically does not rival the United States on the world stage. It is often depicted internationally as somewhat incoherent in terms of its diplomatic and political voice in world affairs. I passionately believe in world development and believe it would be catastrophic if we chose not to reform the institutions of the Union and how they are run in executive and administrative terms. If we do not reform the institutions and instead leave things as they are, there is enormous potential for bureaucratic and political inertia and, as it is said in the United States, gridlock in the political and executive system. If this gridlock and political inertia at the heart of Brussels, the administrative capital of the richest bloc in the world, were to coincide with a period of deep financial instability and speculation on international currency exchanges, there could be catastrophic effects. This would not only affect Irish prosperity and living standards but the entire European continent and the wider world. This is a serious responsibility for a bloc such as the European Union to hold in its hands and it behoves European leaders to put to the forefront the issue of the reform of institutions to make them more transparent and accountable. The treaty does this.

The treaty will provide a voting system and administrative arrangements that will enhance the decision making process. Simultaneously, it carries the necessary changes and adaptations that will allow for democratic accountability, which is important.

Our vital national interests are protected in the treaty and there is no question of our arrangements on abortion, defence and taxes being affected. It is a modest treaty, the substance of which was negotiated by the Taoiseach in 2004, when we held the Presidency of the European Union. I hope that, when it is passed in Ireland and ratified across the continent, European leaders will pause to consider who should chair the proceedings of the European Council. I hope they turn to the Taoiseach, as I believe he would be an ideal man to provide the leadership required in Europe. The meetings of the European Council which are sometimes boring, incoherent or indeterminate in their conclusions and recommendations must be chaired and steered. We need strength at that table, as the proceedings need to be steered well.

See this speech in context