Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

On behalf of Fine Gael, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue and to endorse the treaty and Bill before us. It would have been convenient and politically expedient for Fine Gael to oppose the treaty. From reading history, I know of the mission led by Mr. Brian Lenihan to the United States in 1986 when he was sent by Mr. Charles Haughey to oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement on cynical grounds. Thankfully, when Fianna Fáil got into power one year later, it reversed its cynical position.

Fine Gael is not a cynical party. Its interests are those of Ireland, which is the reason it is happy to support this treaty. It probably does so with more gusto than the Government, judging from the campaigns it is carrying out nationwide, its public meetings, leaflet drops and so on. I will have four meetings in my constituency alone. It almost feels as though Fine Gael sometimes does the Government's job for it. However, if it is in the country's interests, so be it.

As someone who is passionately pro-European, I would have liked to have seen a proper constitution for a real united Europe. However, this is not available and the constitutional treaty, which was much more of a treaty than a constitution, was not such a constitution. The treaty before the House is not even a constitutional treaty and is less than that again. However, I support it in any case, because it represents progress and constitutes a step forward in a number of ways. It is a step forward in respect of democracy as it gives the European Parliament much more power. It will have powers of co-decision in 80 different areas and will force both the electorate and politicians to pay a little more attention to European issues at European elections, because unlike this Parliament, the European Parliament has real influence on legislation. It controls, alters and amends legislation proposed by the executive. The executive does not run the show in the European political structure in the manner of executives in nation states. The European Parliament's relationship much more closely resembles that of United States Congress to the Presidency in the United States than it does to this Parliament. This is the reason it is important for the European Parliament to get more power.

Moreover, the treaty entails a significant expansion of qualified majority voting. While people mention the loss of the veto and perhaps a Minister can advise on this issue, I do not recall an Irish Government ever using the veto. The veto has been used by other countries to prevent progress and changes that we sought. Consequently, it is largely to our advantage that the veto should be reduced as much as possible. The treaty also gives more power to national parliaments and gives them the opportunity to review European legislation in advance. It also allows national parliaments, working together, to call time on proposals about which they have concerns, which is greatly to be welcomed. This Parliament should rise to that challenge and not simply complain about legislation that Members did not bother to read when it came across their desks.

The treaty also gives more power to citizens. The proposed facility for citizens to put forward 1 million signatures to call on the Commission to introduce new legislation constitutes a real power. Deputy Morgan, who spoke earlier, is no longer present. If he has concerns about agency workers, perhaps he should team up with his friends across Europe to get 1 million agency workers to sign such a petition and to initiate a process in the Commission. The treaty also will mean that when the Presidency of the Council is being decided, the European leaders will be obliged to recognise the outcome of the European elections. This of course means that should the European People's Party, EPP, win the European elections, as it did last time and as I expect it will do in 2009, the President of the Council will be drawn from the EPP. I suggest the person most qualified to so do is John Bruton, the current EU Commission ambassador to the United States. I imagine that in return, the Party of European Socialists will be given the Presidency of the Commission. Unfortunately, that does not leave any role for the largest party in this State. However, it was its own decision to sideline itself from European politics.

The treaty also makes Europe more efficient and I welcome the fact that there only will be 18 commissioners. Deputy Morgan suggested earlier that as Ireland has 20 Ministers of State and 15 Cabinet Ministers, there should be 25 Commissioners. I take the opposite view, namely, there should not be 20 Ministers of State and the State has too many Ministers. Perhaps Ireland should follow the example of the European Union in slimming down the size of government. This argument is largely irrelevant because the change regarding the number of commissioners was included in the Nice treaty. This already has been decided as we already have voted on and agreed to it. It is somewhat bizarre that the "No" side should make such arguments about not having a Commissioner for five out of every 15 years. This provision was included in the Nice treaty and we already have voted on and agreed to it. The"No" campaign's lack of arguments is demonstrated by its requirement to make this argument again although it already has been lost.

The treaty also allows for greater integration in a number of areas. It allows for a little more integration of foreign policy, albeit not to the extent I seek. When the national governments decide that Europe wishes to work together as one, a Vice President of the Commission, who will be a foreign minister in effect although he or she will not have that title, will be able to speak for Europe as one. Henry Kissinger often used to ask, "Who do I call if I want to call Europe?". At least there will be a single person to ring when the Heads of Government agree on a particular issue. Unfortunately, because this will still be a matter on which unanimity will be required, an enormous number of issues will remain on which no agreement will be possible. Nevertheless, this still constitutes progress in some ways.

As for the integration of the structures pertaining to the euro into the Union, this is highly welcome. Deputy Morgan expressed the concern that keeping inflation low will henceforth be an objective of the Union and not simply of the ECB, as will keeping public borrowing under 3% of GDP. My response is "Thank God". I can only imagine the amount of borrowing in which the present Government would engage, were it not for the Stability and Growth Pact preventing it from so doing.

Many bizarre arguments have been thrown up in respect of the European Defence Agency and its inclusion in this treaty. However, the European Defence Treaty already exists and has been in existence for some time. One step it is attempting to take is to reduce expenditure on defence rather than increase it. Collectively, the 27 member states of the European Union spend almost as much on defence as the United States. However, together we certainly do not have the military capacity of the United States because our militaries are not interoperable and do not work together. We are obliged to call in the Americans to help us in Kosovo, Macedonia and so on. Consequently, were European defence to happen and were member states to come together, money would be saved and some military capacity that we do not have at present would be delivered.

As for the triple lock, I accept its presence and that it must remain for the present. However, I do not consider it to be wonderful or something about which we should be proud. Essentially, it states that for Ireland to participate in any mission overseas, a UN mandate is required. Therefore, it states that we are giving a veto on our foreign policy to China and Russia. This is not right as such a decision should be made in the Dáil or if not here, by an elected European government. Such decisions certainly should not be made in Beijing or Moscow. Nevertheless, I accept this will be the case at least for the purpose of this treaty and this Bill.

Undoubtedly, this treaty will be good for the economy. It will allow the completion of liberalisation of services across the European Union and will allow for more competition for public services. I welcome this, as more competition for bus and postal services is required. Other countries have much better bus and postal services than does Ireland and we should not fear competition. It constitutes one of the advantages of this Bill. Some previous speakers who opposed this Bill also mentioned Eircom and blamed its botched privatisation on the European Union. This is nonsense as the privatisation of Eircom was botched by Deputy Mary O'Rourke, not by the European Union. The best advocate for lower prices and better regulation in telecommunications has been Commissioner Viviane Reding. She has been the most powerful advocate for reforms in telecommunications services. Members also have been told that this treaty will allow for the liberalisation of the electricity market. I wish it would, because that is not what is happening. Members already have witnessed the U-turn regarding the separation of EirGrid from the ESB. Were this treaty to force the Government to do the right thing, it would be even more of a reason to vote for it.

Even eurosceptics should vote for this treaty because of two important elements. I refer to the withdrawal clause. Were the treaty to be adopted and ratified, for the first time there would be a mechanism for Ireland, or any other country, to leave the European Union. Those who are against the European Union surely should be voting "Yes". The treaty also includes the Copenhagen criteria, that is, the criteria for accession of new countries to the European Union. I am reassured the criteria are included because it will prevent politicians in the future from fudging them, potentially to allow entry to a country such as Turkey when it should not be allowed in. The inclusion of the Copenhagen criteria makes it much less likely that Turkish accession will ever happen and this is another reason eurosceptics should vote for this treaty.

The only people who should not vote for this treaty are the small number who believe we somehow should have a better treaty. If such people exist, I challenge them to produce their alternative treaty. They at least should have the decency to emulate Éamon de Valera by producing a Document No. 2 and by demonstrating how they intend to convince 26 other countries to agree to it instead. If they are unable to so do, they do not have a case at all.

One always should remember that fundamentally, the European Union is a peace project. Three great men, Monnet, de Gasperi and Schumann, came together and created a European Union after a century of war and the death of 100 million Europeans. Fundamentally, the European Union is a peace project and everything else is a bonus. It has been an extraordinary bonus in terms of the freedom to work, trade, travel or study anywhere one likes, the delivery of Structural Funds to Ireland and the other benefits of the European Union.

In terms of the emerging world of the next generation, it seems clear that by 2050 China and India will account for 50% of global GDP, only 7% of the world's population will live in Europe and 90% of people in the developing world will be born into poverty. If the world continues on that path, we will have mayhem. We do not need a United States which believes the solution is to occupy countries and bomb the world or a China which thinks what is needed is neo-imperialism and the invasion of countries to take away their resources. We need a strong Europe with strong values. Even though this is only a small and incremental treaty, it brings us some distance towards that goal. That is why I support the Bill and will campaign strongly for a "Yes" vote.

See this speech in context