Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to join colleagues in debating the EU reform treaty. It is very much in Ireland's interests that the EU perform efficiently and it is clearly in Europe's interests that it do so. It is clear the institutions which undoubtedly served the Union and its people well over a long period are not suitable in the new Union with 27 member states. It is frankly impossible for the EU to perform efficiently and effectively with the current arrangements and this treaty is extremely necessary at this point. It is true to say that the treaty in its current form was largely negotiated during Ireland's Presidency in 2004. That should give people in Ireland considerable comfort because there is no doubt but the state which holds the Presidency at a particular time has a greater opportunity than other member states to ensure the considerations that are important to its own people are to the fore and are taken into account because of the level of involvement it has. That is an important consideration in the context of the current debate in the run-up to the vote on the EU reform treaty.

In the Council of Ministers the new majority voting system will considerably enhance the position not just of Ireland but of all the smaller member states. That is to be welcomed. It is very important and gives the lie to the case which is made by some of those who oppose the treaty.

If we look at the history of our involvement in Europe and the benefits it has brought us we should keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that EU membership has been good for Ireland and it can only continue to be good for us and the other citizens of Europe if we have institutions that have the capacity to deal with the challenges of the day. Undoubtedly, Ireland's enormous success in attracting foreign direct investment has been significantly enhanced by our membership of the European Union with the Single Market and the availability of 500 million customers. That is something which we frequently take for granted and we certainly ought not to because it would have been impossible in any other circumstances to have attracted US$83 billion worth of foreign direct investment into a country of this size with its population and location were it not for it being a member of the EU and a part of the Single Market.

We sometimes take for granted that we have come into the eurozone which gives considerable trade advantages in terms of convenience, access and the capacity of the euro to avoid currency fluctuations which previously bedevilled the currencies of several of the smaller countries and currently some of the bigger ones.

We also take for granted the enormous advantage of peace and stability in the European Union. Despite the fact that we hear on a daily basis on news bulletins and see television coverage of the ravages of war-torn areas around the world, we take much for granted in terms of the peace and stability the European Union has brought to all of its citizens.

One issue many people fail to take into account is the considerable increase in Irish per capita GDP since we joined the European Union. At that time our GDP was approximately 60% of the EU average, while the current situation is that we are at 144% of the European average. That is an enormous leap forward and it manifests itself in a much better quality of life for people and a much wealthier society here. We have gone from having a workforce of just over 1 million people to considerably more than 2 million people in a very short time — a lot less than the length of time we have been members of the European Union. That is a wonderful achievement.

We should also acknowledge the value we have received from European funds, especially the Social Fund, but also the Common Agricultural Policy and the contribution to our infrastructure.

Many of those who oppose the treaty refer to their concerns in the areas of defence-neutrality and taxation. It is most important that all of us who speak on this EU reform treaty make it clear that there are no neutrality, defence or taxation implications. No matter how often that is said there are people who choose to say the opposite is the case. Anyone who makes an attempt to study the treaty will find there is no impact in each of these areas.

I reject the charge against the treaty that it is difficult to understand. As Deputy Coveney stated, it is not exactly entertaining, but it is perfectly understandable to anybody who takes the trouble to look at it.

Despite the obvious challenges posed by having 27 members in a Union that previously was much smaller, we have to examine the kind of challenges that each member state faces as a nation state and accept that we will all tackle these more effectively as members of the European Union. I refer to globalisation, which sometimes seems constant but in fact changes very quickly and in a sense that creates a much more competitive market, one in which it is only possible to deal effectively if one has the institutions which have the capacity to do so.

The treaty allows the European Union to deal on a legal basis with the challenges of climate change. It is acknowledged internationally that the EU has been to the forefront in trying to get agreement and to raise the standards in terms of our response to climate change. We need to do this because of the impact it will have on our own countries but in the immediate and short term we have to be concerned about countries in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere that experience famine currently as a result of the changes that have already occurred. Ireland has illustrated that it is prepared to play a proactive and leading role in Europe to address climate change. That is one of the challenges that Europe can only effectively face if it has the institutions capable of doing so.

Another difficulty that is faced internationally, no less in Ireland or Europe than elsewhere, relates to the challenge of energy costs and energy security. It would be very difficult for us to address these issues if we were operating independently, especially as we import virtually all of our fossil fuels and have a significant dependence on having access to them. We also have issues of cost. All of this is conveniently tied in to the debate on climate change. Even if we did not have to face issues in this regard, undoubtedly we would have to face issues in the areas of energy costs and security.

Another area that is of significant concern to all of us and that can be best addressed with institutions capable of doing so is that of cross-border crime. I very much welcome the provisions in the treaty that will enable our police force to work much more effectively in co-operation with police forces across Europe to address the enormous difficulties right across the western world in the areas of crime, especially cross-border crime.

We also have to face up to the fact that the international economic environment is much more difficult than it was two or three years ago. While some of our international partners did not enjoy the growth rates we had in recent years, everybody is affected by the economic downturn that is inevitable from sub-prime lending on one level and the huge increase in the cost of oil on the other. They are all challenges that Europe has to be in a position to address and certainly would have huge additional difficulty in the context of the current arrangements.

A certain amount of concern has also been expressed about the idea of having a full-time President of the Council of Europe. The role of a full-time President is effectively that of chairman of the Council of Ministers. The term is for two and a half years, renewable once for up to five years. The current system is for a rotating Presidency on a six-month basis. The ideas promoted by one country in its Presidency were frequently allowed to fall into the background by the next Presidency. That is not an ideal way to do business. The level of continuity and co-ordination that will be possible with a chairman of the Council is hugely desirable. I also think it will be enhanced by the fact that rather than six month Presidencies in the future we will have 18 month Presidencies jointly with two other countries. Our partners in the Presidency will be Greece and Lithuania, both of which are some distance away and both quite different interests and concerns. This will make for an interesting 18 month Presidency with Ireland undoubtedly having an opportunity to put its concerns to the forefront. I am very pleased to have an opportunity to support the treaty and to urge people to support it in the referendum.

See this speech in context