Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

That is beneficial to the public at large, it is beneficial to the elected representatives and it is beneficial to the country.

Sadly and wrongly, all politicians seem to reach the conclusion that when something goes wrong one should blame Brussels for it being wrong because they did not do what they should have done. In fact, that is not the case at all. We are our own masters. We predetermine what happens in Brussels. We ourselves draw up the rules and regulations.

In this treaty there is specific provision for the member state parliaments to have a greater influence than they ever had previously, and that is by way of the Joint Committee on European Affairs of which I am chair and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny which is chaired by Deputy John Perry. There is in place a vetting procedure that did not exist previously. It is significantly beneficial to Government, irrespective of who is in office. It is significantly beneficial to European institutions because they will know at a much earlier stage whether what they propose is in order and acceptable.

That is a good development, but I would voice one proviso. It is almost a veto. It is not a veto but it close to being one. The danger of any such situation is that the entire development and the evolution of the European concept may be slowed down. It is necessary to slow it down in some cases but in other cases, it is not a good thing. That argument has two sides. I ask that it be borne in mind by European institutions and national governments in the future that this is not intended to be a recipe to bring the European Union and the development of its institutions to a halt. It is merely to prevent those who decide to rush off on a solo run, like our friend Mr. Mandelson, and determine what they may well see as the best option in the EU's interests from doing so.

The new proposals whereby the Commission will now be divided up may be seen by some people as a disadvantage. We only have one third of representation over a 15-year period. I used to think this was a disadvantage and was a strong supporter of the notion that each country should retain its Commissioner. Of course, that would mean that some countries would retain two Commissioners. I have changed my mind. I believe the proposed system is much better, much safer and much more in the interests of smaller countries. It will defend the interests of the smaller countries in a much better way than allowing a situation where the Commissioner was referred by every country as "our Commissioner" to continue. It was never intended that a Commissioner would be referred to in that way by a national government or state. It was never intended that the Commission would become the property of member states. From the outset, it was always intended that the Commission would be the driving force and engine that drove the European Union on in a responsible and regulated way. What has happened in recent years is that we have all fallen into the trap of referring to what has become known as "our Commissioner". If everyone out of the 27 member states in the European Union has an "our Commissioner" attitude, we will ultimately find ourselves in a situation where it cannot go in 27 different directions. This only relates to the present situation because the Union will be larger.

There is a notion that the European Union has fulfilled all its objectives and that it is time to slow down, row back from the shore, go backwards, reassure and re-examine matters. There is an argument for slowing down from time to time but slowing down and bringing things to a halt are two very different issues. One of the things that needs to be remembered is that the entire Continent of Europe is a long way from being within the European Union. I know there are and always will be proposals in the future for enlargement. However, we also need to recognise that there are areas within Europe, for example, the western Balkans, which have, to say the least, caused friction in the past and are likely to cause friction in the future unless specific action is taken. I know the Acting Chairman is about to tell me to stop. I can see the hair standing up on the back of his neck and can see him getting ready to tell me that my time is up.

See this speech in context