Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

I agree very much with the sentiments of Deputy Collins and thank him for sharing his time. I will begin by making a few observations about the legal framework in which we are holding this referendum and have held previous referendum campaigns. They are minor comments and do not really involve the big issue.

The McKenna judgment governs, to a large extent, the way in which balance is required. It goes on at length about the requirements of the Government to achieve balance in the way it deals with the sharing of information with members of the public. It does not state what the Oireachtas is meant to do. There should be a strong distinction between the Oireachtas and the Government, which is certainly reflected in the Constitution.

As a result, I find it slightly absurd that the European affairs committee, of which I am a member, is required on its current trip around Ireland to present a balanced view taking in "Yes" and "No" sides. This is in spite of the fact that almost all members of the committee are in favour of a "Yes" vote. We are nonetheless required to provide this balance, which is not in the least reflective of our opinions.

The Oireachtas, and the Dáil in particular, is a constituent assembly. It has an inbuilt balance in that we were all elected by the people, and our opinions are reflective of the opinions of the people. We should not be required to carry out what is an absurd exercise. The McKenna judgment is Judiciary-made law and it is our own fault we have not legislated on the issue or set down the requirements.

Another example of judge-made law is the Kelly judgment, which deals with how we, as Deputies and Senators, must behave in the three weeks before a general election. We must close our offices to ensure balance and that we do not have a competitive advantage over people who are not Deputies. The next thing we know, Patricia McKenna or somebody like her, will go to the High Court seeking that in a referendum campaign, our Dáil offices should be closed because they give a competitive advantage over "No" campaigners who are not Members of the Dáil. It is our own fault because we have not done anything in the context of clarifying what is required. Equally, the Referendum Commission will be required to painfully set out the "no" side of the matter even though no one in the Government and very few Members of the Oireachtas are opposed to the treaty. That is the corner into which we have painted ourselves by not being active in this area.

To illustrate the absurdity, I wish to make one observation. The Joint Committee on European Affairs is currently holding meetings throughout the country on the treaty. If it provides speakers to represent the "Yes" and "No" camps for one of its meeting and if, during proceedings, the speaker for the "no" side has a lucid interval and decides that he or she is going to vote "Yes" on the basis of all the arguments that have been put to him or her, the meeting which began in compliance with the McKenna judgment will end up being in contravention of it due to the absence of a speaker for the "No" side. That is how ridiculous matters have become.

As many speakers stated, the EU has been a fantastic project for Ireland and Europe. However, that fact will not win the referendum for us. Eaten bread is soon forgotten and that is particularly true in the European context. My view is that the European Union has been responsible for a radicalisation of the middle ground and has created a revolution in consensus building. Ireland has done well out of the building of consensus. Evidence of this can be seen in the social partnership model, developments in Northern Ireland and the work of the Government and the Civil Service in the context of the expansion of the EU. The European Union represents part of the way politics has moved away from the adversarial model of one country being pitched against another.

The European project involves three phases. The first was people trying to bury the hatchet, the second related to monetary union and the expansion of services and the next phase will involve the EU taking its place on the global stage in order to address major global issues. The major issues I am bringing to people's attention when I am campaigning in respect of and trying to explain the treaty are climate change and energy security, which, for the first time, will become shared competences for the European Union. The latter is to the intervention of Irish delegations at various IGCs and European Council meetings. We deserve much credit for that.

On the expansion of the Single Market, I wish to refer to two reports. The Forfás report published in February, which the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy McGuinness, had a role in welcoming, outlined the great benefits to Ireland, particularly, Irish consumers, of the expansion of the Single Market during the past ten to 15 years. Much remains to be done and the flexibility built into the Lisbon treaty means that Irish consumers will benefit from a more flexible and efficient European Union. The EU has many new member states and it must adopt new decision-making systems. The latter are contained in the treaty.

I accept that the treaty is complicated. I am amazed that Ulick McEvaddy's great argument is that he does not understand it and, therefore, he is going to spend a fortune on calling for it to be rejected. There is a great deal more to that than meets the eye.

IBEC has made an interesting observation, namely, that American corporate interests invested €83 billion in Ireland in 2006, which is more than the combined figure invested by such interests in Brazil, India, China and Russia in the same period. Foreign direct investment is clearly facilitated by the Lisbon treaty and our membership of the European Union, the eurozone and the Single Market.

The next phase of European Union development relates to its role on the global stage. When the Rwanda crisis arose in 1994, there was an extremely limp response from the European Union, the UN and the international community in general. What happened in Rwanda is a stain on the reputations of everyone who was involved in those days. However, we have moved on. Ordinary people want us to give them something on to which they can cling and say "That is what the European Union has done".

Ireland has sent troops to Chad and is playing a large role in the leadership of the overall force. This will be of major benefit to those of us who continue to support the European project because it stands in such stark contrast to what happened in Rwanda. We completely failed to respond to the enormous humanitarian crisis that arose in that country or to the genocide which preceded it. There has been a virtual genocide in Darfur and there is a humanitarian crisis on the borders of that region to which we are finally responding. That is to our credit and it is something that members of Fianna Fáil have trumpeted as one of the indicators of the direction in which Europe is going. Events in Iraq have shown that America's star has waned to some degree. As a result, the European Union has been offered an opportunity to direct the way the international community deals with crises such as those to which I refer.

On energy security, Ireland is more dependent on outside energy supplies as a result of its geographical position off the coast of England which, in turn, is located off the coast of Europe. There is no doubt that the elevation of energy security to a position as one of the shared competences of the European Union will be of great benefit to Ireland. To me, that major change represents the most attractive part of the treaty. In my view, this change is comprehensible for people. There is enormous political will which is beginning to catch up with that of the people to develop better policies on climate change and energy security. The European Union is, in turn, through the treaty, catching up by elevating energy security to a position of importance.

Another element of the treaty is the Charter on Fundamental Rights, which will be elevated to the status of the two treaties that exist side by side. The potential for the charter to play a central role in the expansion of social and economic rights is unknown at this point. Many people are stating that it will be as important as the Convention on Human Rights in the context of its overall impact on the decisions that will be made in the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Joint Committee on the Constitution, of which I am a member, discussed the effect of the Convention on Human Rights, which seems to have an almost greater gravitational pull than the Constitution. Some commentators predict that the Charter on Fundamental Rights will have an equal impact on Irish jurisprudence. That is a development I welcome. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context