Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I welcome this debate, which is unusual in the degree of unanimity on both sides of the House in respect of supporting the Lisbon treaty and urging the public to vote "yes". That does not necessarily mean we will have a successful outcome. We are all mindful that in the case of the referendum on the Nice treaty, those who supported it did not cast their votes the first time and it required a second referendum for it to be successful. It is a debate that has importance.

I have been involved in a number of referendums, some of which have been extremely contentious, and I welcome the peace that has been achieved, although we must debate the issues in an open fashion and deal with questions and concerns.

This seems a simple matter at heart, even though it is a long, complicated treaty. It is essentially about ensuring we have a framework for 27 countries. At present we are operating under rules that apply to 15 country membership. With the considerable growth in the EU we must ensure it can operate as efficiently as possible. We are conscious that an element of bureaucracy surrounds the EU. To an extent this is inevitable but it must be streamlined. More importantly, the EU must be democratised further than has been the practice in the past.

One of my concerns is about meetings of the Council of Ministers, which have always been held in private. The fact that co-decision is provided for between the Parliament and the Council is an important step forward. The greater openness in respect of coverage of meetings is a step forward although there are always means to circumvent this when difficult decisions must be made. Human ingenuity will ensure this pertains into the future.

It is important to recognise that the Commission must be streamlined. According to the terms of the treaty, Ireland is doing rather well. Although opponents of it state that we are losing out, in the overall balance of the larger pool we have done well. I cannot imagine anyone having difficulties with the new office of the president, whatever about who will fill that position. The voting procedures seem practical for efficiency, ensuring that the very large transnational organisation that is the EU will function coherently.

It is unfortunate that there is misrepresentation in respect of tax and defence. Madame Lagarde's rather arrogant intervention in the past few days does not help. I am surprised at this intervention by a senior Minister in the French Government at a time when discretion is the better part of valour. I am glad the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Joe Costello made clear rebuttals of such proposals on tax harmonisation.

There is an important element in respect of the input of national parliaments. This is a new departure for European structures and the way policy is framed within the EU. It may be a small step but it is one that recognises the attachment to the importance of national parliaments across Europe.

Important principles, some of which are repeated and some of which are new, underpin the Lisbon treaty and must be echoed and affirmed in the House. One concerns the Charter of Fundamental Rights. These are principles on the rights of people across Europe, whatever their circumstances or class, and they are important to establish the underpinning of social democratic values across Europe. There will be social proofing in terms of social partnership and this has done much in this and other countries in ensuring prosperity and fairness, limited as it may be.

The humanitarian values expressed in the Lisbon treaty are important. On global poverty, it seems that we are in danger of excluding more people as we become richer, as the rich part of the world can assist those areas that are suffering deprivation and severe poverty. Under Article 188D, the treaty states: "Union development co-operation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty". While this is a simple statement and people can claim it is only an aspiration, its inclusion in the treaty is important, as are statements regarding the third countries that are victims of natural and man-made disasters and the establishment of a European voluntary humanitarian aid corps. These practical measures must be underpinned in the treaty and outlined to the public when discussing the treaty because of the danger of discussing the mechanics rather than the fundamental philosophies.

The other great set of values included in the treaty relates to the environment. The EU's record has been positive and significant in terms of environmental change and measures to protect the environment. For the first time, however, the considerable challenge everyone faces in tackling climate change has been included in a European treaty, which I welcome warmly. While the EU has set us great challenges in terms of our role in tackling climate change, we have not lived up to them until now. The challenges have not gone away just because the Government disregarded the issue's importance in the past decade. The problems are getting more acute and the responsibilities are deepening. The EU has set us a stringent target of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, representing a fall in CO2 production from 77 million tonnes to 55 million tonnes. This is a significant change, but it is in the interests of the world and we must play our part. The all-party consensus referred to by the Tánaiste is not the issue, as it is not a question of parties falling out concerning climate change. Rather, it is a question of whether the Government has the bottle to introduce measures that will make a difference.

Regarding the forthcoming referendum, the Ceann Comhairle led a delegation to Germany some months ago where I attended a range of interesting meetings with German parliamentarians. How conscious they were of the importance of the referendum was striking. As we are the only country that will have one, the future of Europe hangs on the decision of the Irish people effectively. The importance of this was brought home to us, but I am not sure as to how far the referendum's importance has sunk into the public consciousness. The impression I have of the public mood concerning the Lisbon treaty is of bewilderment and boredom. We must address this by ensuring the issues are clearly and coherently explained in a way that is true to people's genuine commitment to Europe. There is a genuine understanding that Europe is increasingly affecting our lives, an effect that will be even greater as the world shrinks and economic power shifts eastwards.

Co-operation at European level will become more important to us. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated that we are no longer a small island on Europe's periphery. While we are that small island, we are on the periphery of a united and integrated EU that has an effect on our lives. For example, the cost of mobile telephone roaming charges was determined by the European Commission last year and a decision has been made regarding the use of mobile telephones on aeroplanes. The latter, a simple and small matter, is an example of the practical ways the EU affects us. The EU's position on child abduction is another example of how strong a united, large and diverse Europe's policies on managing and tackling issues can be. This fact is brought home when we see that we can do something significant, not just in Ireland, but across the Continent, to ensure children are protected. This is one of our great achievements through EU membership.

We can deal locally with issues such as crime, the environment and immigration, but our efforts are amplified when Europe works as one. The Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland's premier research body, published its annual report in which it itemised the key issues it will investigate and analyse. Almost all of them have a strong European dimension, be it in terms of immigration, the environment or social cohesion. In light of this, it is important to have a debate. In a sense, it is good that some opposing opinions are being expressed. We could get cosy if there were no parties and individuals probing and testing our comments. I welcome the debate. Yesterday, I listened to Deputy Morgan to discern the opposing argument. While one could claim that Sinn Féin or Libertas are opportunistically jumping on the band wagon to get publicity, are genuine concerns to which we must listen being expressed? In a sense, the answer is "Yes". The idea that one can send the treaty back to get a better deal is attractive, but it must be recognised that a constitution produced by a long democratic process was found wanting, subsequently rejigged — some would say watered down — and agreed. Yesterday, Deputy Morgan raised issues such as workers' rights, the Laval judgment and the exploitation of migrant workers. While these matters deserve attention, we must sometimes be honest, that is, the EU has generally been positive in terms of the protection of workers' rights. Sometimes, national governments have fallen down in this regard, particularly in respect of agency workers.

The opinion that we can have a perfect treaty that will do everything is erroneous and a misrepresentation of the EU's nature. The Union is a work in progress and no treaty will provide every answer. We must assess and measure whether the treaty is progressive or backward. I objected to the Maastricht treaty because of its right wing bias. Does the Lisbon treaty progress the social agenda? The answer is clearly "Yes". While the progress is limited, the issue is being advanced. Is the environmental agenda being progressed? Again, the answer is "Yes". It is surprising that the issue of climate change has taken until now to be included in a European treaty because the EU's record on tackling climate change is, comparatively speaking, good. Certainly, it is fantastic when compared with the USA's record. The point is that the values underpinning this treaty are those we support as a people and we should act positively by supporting a treaty that promotes such values. Without values, politics are worth nothing.

The European Union often seems to be a distant body which does things that create difficulties, such as straightening bananas and so on, that are at a great remove from people's lives. However, one should look back and consider the longer term. The European Union has been an enormously benign influence in respect of inequality and at times has been a persuader in ensuring that we dealt with such issues. As someone who has been involved in the women's movement for far too long, I recall times when we depended completely on the European Union to protect and promote our rights. When we were obliged to fight tooth and nail against reactionary Government policies that excluded, denied and neglected women, we were able to reach beyond the national Government and obtain support from the European Union in a manner that was transformative for our lives and for women of my generation. This was not limited to women as it also applied to workers' rights and to Northern Ireland.

Today, Members are celebrating the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Belfast agreement on Good Friday. The European Union played its part by providing support, funding and space for the peace process to thrive and to come to a conclusion. At times, such EU support was highly important because there were many dark days and difficult times for many Governments that were trying to deal with what appeared to be an intractable problem, but which came good in the end.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, mentioned the urban-rural divide. As I represent County Wicklow, I also recognise that. My county enjoys the benefits of the Leader programme and it has been recognised that one cannot leave people behind in the course of our development and that helpful supports can be brought in on foot of the provisions within the European Union.

As for the environment and tackling climate change, the greatest challenge imaginable has been presented to us. The Government has set a target in the programme for Government of a 3% reduction in CO2 emissions every year. However, when one queries this target, even Green Party Ministers suggest that rather than meaning 3% every year, it means annual reductions of 3% overall. I do not sense the Government is conscious of what must be done. I refer to the tough and radical change that will be required to meet the targets set for Ireland by the European Union. A debate on climate change will be necessary and while active discussions have taken place at committee level, ultimately unless the Government makes a focused and co-ordinated effort on climate change, Ireland will have failed in its role in respect of the European Union. Members have a responsibility to ensure the Lisbon treaty is passed and that Europe can be made more democratic, efficient and socially conscious. If we do so on 12 June, we will have done a good service to the European Union. However, this will only constitute the beginning because given our responsibilities regarding the environment and climate change, Ireland has not yet begun to live up to its obligations.

See this speech in context