Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

One of the important aspects of this debate is that we respect different views and different perspectives. It is important to say at the outset that it is possible to disagree fundamentally with most of what the Minister of State has just said and still be in favour of ratification of the Lisbon reform treaty. I do so because I profoundly disagree with what he has said. The question put to a person like myself is what should a person of the left do. I believe the answer is that they should be in favour of a critical yes. I believe so, because what is needed, if one is to consider what we have just heard, is a plurality of discourses. What do I mean by that? The old ignorant view that the mere liberal model is the only model of economic transfer or economic change in global terms is just that, it is sometimes ignorance, it is sometimes an ideologically driven right wing view, but it is nonsense.

At present, all over the world, where people are debating their futures, be it in terms of security, food, access to water, rights to education, a balanced relationship between genders, men and women, between young children, between the rights of female children and male children, in every case where there has been political advance, there has been a debate about how these needs can be met and which path of development is to be chosen. In every continent at present there are massive movements that oppose what are regarded as the successors to the failure of the Doha round in regard to trade. Thus, there are popular movements in Sub-Saharan Africa opposing trade agreements that might be imposed by the European Union. There are movements against free trade agreements that have been developed all over Latin America. In Asia, there are different groups, for example, South Korean workers striking against imposed conditions.

Let us be clear that one should be for the Lisbon treaty because one is insisting on a space and a discourse that will give us a real debate about economics, a real debate about trade and a real debate about Europe in the world. It is not helped by those who suggest globalisation is a neutral process. That is nonsense. I do not deny globalisation but it depends on which process about which one is speaking. Is it the globalisation that takes responsibility for climate change, energy production, human dignity and human rights? One is entitled to call that a globalisation of concern. My party, of which I have the honour of being president, which was founded by James Connolly and which has always been an internationalist one, stresses solidarity and the need to protect the rights of workers wherever they are. One of my crucial decisions in recommending that my supporters and those of the Labour Party vote "Yes" is based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is immensely important.

Let us consider those opposing the treaty such as those in the Ganley camp. They believe we should not have regulation, that we should have deregulation. To some extent, in the tailspin of such people are those who make the case for competitiveness without cohesion. There was a degree of agreement on the Lisbon accord in debating the future of Europe. There were two pillars: cohesion and competitiveness. One was not to be advanced at the cost of the other. We have just heard the superficial version, that we must become a competitive trading block in order to enter the world marketplace and reduce our costs. No doubt, the next phrase which we did not hear would have been about labour market control and the liberalisation of labour flows.

I have been around a long time. Such matters should and will be opposed by the trade union movement all over the world. They should also be opposed here. I will cite an example in the medical area. If one imposes a business model, as the HSE is doing, that workers must be let go in order for it to function within the budget allocated, the question that immediately arises is whether there is no floor below which citizens enjoying medical rights will be allowed to fall. The argument from the HSE's business model and the 1% Progressive Democrats section of the Cabinet is that one must drive it on, irrespective. That is nonsense and can be debated in Europe and defeated after a "Yes" vote. It is important to do so. The Mandelson plan to effectively use Europe as a trading block, driven on through free trade agreements with different parts of the changing world, is just that — nonsense.

The other side of the coin which I do not find amusing, as an academic, is the sheer illiteracy of the economics. As a democrat, I am used to being in a minority. I believe in a particular kind of economy of the planet, the country in which I live and the people I represent. Others have a different view. Christian Democrats, for example, refer to competitiveness more than cohesion. Populists, like the Cabinet, talk about whatever is fashionable at the moment. We hear ideologically free phrases such as "the figures don't stack up" and "the fundamentals are sound". People used to say that about horses that had wind. The reality is that it is not economics and it is not serious. I do not present that as intellectual elitism, I say it is necessary to do the work.

It is wrong to construct an argument about aspects of previous treaties which are not contained in this one, as many opponents are doing. That is nonsense. It is equally important to ask a fundamental question: what are the consequences of voting "Yes" or "No"? If one votes "No", is a better treaty available? There is not. Will voting "No" reverse decisions and principles decided in previous treaties? It will not. One may vote "Yes" not because one loves the treaty but because one wishes to participate vigorously to create the Europe that all of us want. That Europe must have a debate on a social model of the economy that allows, for example, trade unions which have been talking recently. If the inflation rate moves beyond what has been agreed in respect of wage rises for ordinary workers, what non-wage benefits will the trade unions seek? Will there be more holidays, a shorter working day or year, changed working conditions or State child care services? That is the agenda for the trade unions here, in Europe and all over the world. The social model of the economy is different from the illiterate notions, some of which are similar to saying the moon is out, that there is a global market and a single model in which we will participate. I can go through these arguments on another occasion such as the idea that "innovation" is a word we use loosely. There is such a thing as creativity in society. Creative societies create knowledge economy spaces within which one has innovation but one does not get it from populist ignorance substituting for economics.

It is about time we had such serious debates about the kind of Europe the Labour Party decided to support at its conference when it decided to support the Lisbon treaty because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the values we espouse of solidarity with working people and the right to enjoy a climate with sustainability. Many of the issues are genuinely global if we are to respond to them. We will do so but within a model that we will debate in Europe. That is why we chose these values, not just solidarity but equality, rights, justice, peace and recognition of the value of work in all its aspects.

I noticed something that was missing from many speeches. If one accepts the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it is possible to drive the rights perspective on into international bodies. Therefore, Europe could become a champion for rights. Contrast that prospect for the future of Europe with the Mandelson doctrine. We are not having a treaty that is about a market only. It is about changed administrative and institutional decision making arrangements in a larger European Union that includes social and political issues much more than it includes market issues.

It is interesting that Poul Nyrup Rasmussen in writing his report for the Party of European Socialists, "Europe and a New Global Order", states:

We need global progressive alliances for change. Such alliances will have to bring progressive political forces together around shared political aims. They will go beyond the borders of social democracy and include progressive civil society organisations, NGOs, trade unions and businesses devoted to building a sustainable world of democracy, peace, security and social justice.

Let us think about how positive this is, what an invitation to a new discourse this represents in conditions of global change, compared to the notion that we will have an immiserated extension of what we have and a good attempt at imposing it around the world, that we will not understand what we are doing but we are told that there is an opportunity to sell something. We will have a debate after the referendum. A "Yes" vote makes it possible for us to change the direction of Europe and defeat the Mandelson reductionist position and replace it with something that comes from the European tradition — a respect for intellectual life, values based on genuine humanity, respect for discourse, respect for diversity, respect for different models and hundreds of years of economic theory from Adam Smith through Marshall to Keynes that realised that the entire purpose of economic proposals was to serve a moral and social purpose. If we are living what I am saying, the case for a "Yes" vote need not be made in the context of illiteracy. It can be made from a standpoint of principle by social democrats and socialists who are anxious to develop a Europe that many future generations will respect as one that gave them a better prospect of intergenerational justice.

Cuireadh an díospóireacht ar athló.

See this speech in context