Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I am concerned the debate on the Lisbon treaty should be based on fact rather than fiction. I am even more concerned when I see fiction being peddled by magazines such as the Catholic monthly newspaper, Alive, which seems to be deliberately designed to stoke anti-European sentiment. In reading that newspaper, I see a particular focus on abortion and euthanasia with the claim that, if the Lisbon treaty referendum is passed, we will have lost the right to decide on such issues. This is utter poppycock and I question the approach of those in my church who are arranging or facilitating the dissemination of such misinformation. The evidence is in the current issue of Alive. On the back page under the "for God and for Ireland" heading, it is stated that, if the Lisbon treaty passes, we will have lost the right to decide on issues such as abortion, euthanasia, freedom to promote the Catholic faith and same sex marriage. This is rubbish. On another page of the newspaper is the headline, "Lisbon Treaty a big cause for concern". The subsequent article states: "Irish Catholics who wish to keep our Constitution's protection for unborn children and for the family based on marriage should be seriously worried about this treaty".

It is important to debate this treaty on the basis of facts. The Lisbon reform treaty does not in any way threaten Ireland's policy on abortion. The 27 members of the European Union have different policies on the issue of abortion. Some states allow for the widespread availability of abortion. Some, such as Poland and Portugal, have a limited availability, while others, such as Ireland and Malta, do not allow abortion in their laws. Since there is no consensus on the issue, the European Union has chosen not to take any stance, but instead to leave it up to each member state to decide its own policy.

As an additional safeguard, Europe, at Ireland's request, added a protocol to the Maastricht treaty confirming that no European treaty can be used to override Ireland's recognition of "the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother" contained in Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution. That protocol remains in place and will not be changed by the contents of the Lisbon reform treaty.

There are those who will claim the Charter of Fundamental Rights will alter this position. The charter applies to the Union's institutions and to member states in their implementation of EU law and does not in any way replace their constitutions. It is important to clarify that the charter does not radically alter the protection of fundamental rights within the Union or extend the competences of the EU. Accordingly, the charter will not extend the capacity of EU citizens to bring cases before the European Court of Justice to force member states to reverse their positions in areas that fall within their competence, such as the domestic prohibition on euthanasia and abortion.

I would have believed that those disseminating such misinformation would have been the first to take note of what the Pope has to say about the treaty. He stated:

Last September, I made a visit to Austria, partly in order to underline the essential contribution that the Catholic Church is able and willing to give to European unification. On the subject of Europe, I would like to assure you that I am following attentively the new phase which began with the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon. This step gives a boost to the process of building the "European home".

It is important to mention this fact and to debate the treaty based on the facts of the situation rather than the fictions. It is also important to bear in mind Ireland's position in the European Community, now the European Union, since joining. The net benefit in pure cash terms has been €40 billion. This does not sound like much when spoken quickly, but it is 40 thousand million euro. Evidence given by the Secretary General of the Department of Finance to the Committee of Public Accounts in February confirmed that the total cash the State has received since joining the European Community in simple historic cash terms is €60 billion, while the total payments made to Europe in that period came to €20 billion. This means that European citizens have invested €40 billion in Ireland in the past 35 years. Even this year, when Ireland is among the wealthiest countries in terms of gross domestic product per head, we will still be net beneficiaries to the tune of €500 million.

The non-cash benefits have been even greater. We have gained significantly from the Common Market as an exporting country considerably dependent on free trade. Our membership of the European monetary system and the interest rates we have enjoyed have been positive. We have had a labour supply on our doorstep to meet demand during years of significant growth. Our wealth as a nation has been related to our membership of the EU and, in this regard, we are the envy of Europe. It cannot conceive how, in any situation, we would turn our back on it, as proposed by many anti-Europeans. Their proposal is dressed up in language suggesting that, while they are for Europe, they are not for this or that. I have heard it all before in respect of every European treaty that appeared before the House and went before the people by way of referendum.

The Lisbon treaty needs to be ratified by all 27 member states to come into effect. At this stage, it is clear that the other 26 member states have or will have ratified the treaty to enable it to come into force. It is difficult to believe that they, representing 99% of the population of the EU, are wrong in their assessments of the benefits of the treaty. It reminds me of the woman who, long ago, watched a troop of soldiers marching by. Looking for her son, who was not great when it came to marching, she said that everyone was out of step except for her Johnny. To a degree, this is the position of many of those opposing the treaty. Any rational examination of the treaty confirms that it is a progressive development in that it provides for greater democratic procedures and more effective decision making. It will enable Europe to have a greater influence on the world stage and a greater role in co-operating with developing countries.

It is particularly advantageous to the smaller member states, particularly in respect of the arrangement for the rotation of commissioners. When I travelled to European meetings as a Minister of State a long while ago, the large states — the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy — had two commissioners each. They have since each lost one and, under the new arrangements, will take their turn in the rotation alongside us and even smaller countries like Malta and Cyprus. Anyone who suggests this is unfair to a member state with 1% of the Union's community is not speaking in rational terms.

See this speech in context