Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

I wish to share time with Deputy Broughan.

Most of the arguments in this debate have been well thrashed out and I will not repeat points that have already been made and that I support. I am in favour of the Lisbon treaty and will vote for it. I worked in the European Parliament for three years and, though it is an august institution, the first 12 months of my time there were spent seeking to interpret the Byzantine language that emanates from it. This is an issue for ordinary citizens of the European Union who find it hard to interpret national legislation at the best of times, never mind European treaties and some of the language used therein. This has negative consequences for the relationships citizens have with the European Union and terms like "co-decision" and "subsidiarity" may be examples of language used in a manner that is sometimes deliberately designed to obfuscate or confuse people. Be that as it may, my experience of the European Union has led me to see it as a positive force.

I grew up in Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s and transfers from the European Union helped members of families like mine to attend college and benefit from the European Social Fund. I was able to get a grant for third level education. The investment in education through the fund helped thousands of people of my age who, otherwise, may not have benefited from a third level education. Neither would we have seen the resultant economic benefits derived by this country. This is, however, more of an historic context.

What is needed is a simplification of the language used in EU documents. The treaty should be voted for if for no other reason than that it incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a simplified document that codifies the rights of EU citizens. Whether one is from Ballyhooly or Budapest, one is a citizen of the European Union and, therefore, one's rights are guaranteed by this provision. The problems encountered by people in this country are exactly the same as by those in other countries. Our rights should be as inalienable as those in other member states.

I speak as a republican and subscribe to the ideals of this republic. No provision in the treaty is at variance with any of these ideals. Everything enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights gives succour to those ideals of egalitarian principles and seeks to ensure every citizen has a defined set of rights. That is the most important issue.

The farming organisations have stated a position on the referendum vis-À-vis the WTO negotiations. While I am sympathetic to their arguments, I would not advocate a vote against the Lisbon treaty on the basis of an argument over the WTO negotiations. The treaty will broaden the powers of the European Parliament through enhanced co-decision procedures. The Council of Ministers it would seem has sway over agricultural decisions affecting this country. If the powers of the agricultural committee of the European Parliament are broadened and national parliaments are given a greater say in transposing EU legislation, the voice of Irish agriculture will be strengthened and have more power on decisions affecting it.

It is important to note we have had little in transparency on the decisions made at EU ministerial council level. I would bet any money that if the attendance records for EU Council meetings were checked, Irish Ministers would be noted for a fair degree of absenteeism. Little information is available publicly as to what goes on at these meetings. Returning to the demise of the Irish sugar industry, a deal was hammered out at European level yet we do not know what happened on that fateful night in November 2005 at the relevant EU Council meeting. We do not know what Minister took what decision or what was said. The treaty will make every Council of Ministers meeting more transparent. I welcome this and it will allow us to know what our Ministers and the Permanent Representation are doing in Brussels.

When the Convention on the Future of Europe was held first, the imposition of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing probably set a negative tone. There was a large-state view on how the proposed EU constitution should proceed with the larger member states seeking to control the agenda. I do not blame smaller member states for kicking over the traces. There was a clear modus operandi of seeking to impose a certain set of values in the constitution. I am glad this has been rolled back and its replacement is a treaty.

The ideals of the constitution have been simplified in the treaty. If the treaty gives more power to the European Parliament, it gives more power to the people of Europe. If it gives more to national parliaments, it gives more power to us as Irish citizens to have a say in how the European Parliament proceeds on any legislative matter, which can only be welcomed.

The treaty also puts in place further checks and balances against the Commission, a necessary mechanism. EU Commissioners such as Frits Bolkestein have been hell-bent on a liberalisation agenda. Some from a left-wing perspective will oppose the Lisbon treaty because of that very agenda. I contend we should agree with the treaty so that checks and balances can be put in place against that neoliberal agenda. It is also an agenda for which our own Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, has been a strong advocate and has done us no favours in that regard.

I support the Lisbon treaty. While it is not perfect, on balance we will derive far more benefits than negatives from it.

See this speech in context