Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, referred last week to the intriguing collection of opponents to the current proposals. He was similarly intrigued, not to say flabbergasted, when such an intriguing alliance succeeded in defeating the first attempt to pass the Nice treaty. Instead of accepting the democratic will of the people of the State and renegotiating that treaty to meet the concerns expressed, his party decided to hold another referendum. Already, we have heard some supporters of the Lisbon treaty state it does not matter what the people decide as what is proposed will go ahead anyway. A member of one of the Opposition parties voted in the European Parliament to the effect that if the Irish electorate votes "no", it should be ignored.

The Minister of State also stated Ireland's "key interests" would be protected. Surely that will not be the case if, as will happen, the State has less power to prevent implementation of measures that may be inimical to its interests. However, there have been instances in which Ireland's key interests have been damaged because policy in key areas has been set by Brussels. One such area is fishing. In this regard, Deputy Feighan referred last week to €60 billion in EU funding for Ireland. Perhaps that was a fair exchange for the equivalent value in fish that has been taken from our waters both legally and illegally by foreign vessels since 1973. It is probably much higher given that no one knows the true scale of illegal fishing here and no one in Government seems inclined to answer any questions about it. In 1972 my party opposed our entry into the EEC because we said it did not represent a good deal for Ireland. People living in or familiar with our coastal communities know the mistakes of those negotiations in 1972 and what they have done to our coastal communities, and the scale to which they have been decimated.

I refer to fishing because it is a prime example of a natural resource with massive potential that was basically surrendered by this State following decades of earlier neglect when countries like Norway were making fishing one of the main stays of their economies. It is an example of how sovereignty was surrendered to Brussels and how Brussels through the Common fisheries policy exploited our fisheries and many believe is currently planning their virtual closure. Bearing in mind how Norway has exploited its resources to develop its economy, it is clear that what was done in this country at that time left much to be desired.

My party makes no apology for pointing this out or for challenging successive attempts over the past 35 years to further surrender sovereign control over this country to Europe. No doubt we have made predictions that were not fulfilled but so too have the europhiles and we certainly make no apology for being the only party in this House to represent the large number of people, including many members and supporters of all parties here, who are opposed to the ongoing leaching of powers over sovereign states to Brussels.

I referred to false predictions on the part of europhiles and we only have to go back to the Nice treaty to find lots of examples of these. We were told, for example, that enlargement would have no consequences for employment or employment conditions and anyone who begged to differ was attacked as a racist or hysterical. Opponents of the Nice treaty pointed out that the treaty was designed to facilitate the mobility of capital and labour with the inevitable consequence that employers would use this to undermine wages and conditions of employment. Then we had the case of Irish Ferries and other cases of job displacement. Even some supporters of the Nice treaty are now realising that enlargement has indeed facilitated the undermining of wages and conditions by the employment of agency workers. This is why at least one major union, Unite, is calling for a "no" vote, and why many other trade union activists and members will also vote against the proposal.

Farmers, who have traditionally been among the strongest proponents of further empowering the EU, have become increasingly concerned over the consequences of surrendering more power to Brussels, as was witnessed last week with the large protest concerning the WTO. In recent months we have had the situation regarding Brazilian beef which, despite the fact that the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, did an about-face and reversed her previous opposition to a ban, is ongoing. This is an illustration that when Ireland's vital interests are at stake the Government is unable to protect them if sufficient other interests in the Commission think otherwise.

The same also applies to the current concerns over what will take place in the World Trade Organisation negotiations. It appears that Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, with the support of the Commission, is prepared to accede to the demands of other trading blocs for concessions that will mean entire sectors of farming in Europe will be unsustainable in the face of imports from Brazil, New Zealand and elsewhere. When the Treaty of Rome was signed, food security in Europe was a major consideration. Commissioner Mandelson's negotiations will take away whatever subsidies and supports exist for the production of food in order to open up imports into the EU. If allowed to continue it will effectively make it impossible for Irish and other EU farmers to be able to compete and survive. This is a major concern for the rural community here.

This could also mean that the reformed CAP will be totally undermined and would mean that farmers were misled in 2003 when they agreed to decoupling. I went to meet EU personnel in Brussels at the time to advocate for decoupling as the way forward. Sinn Féin was the first party in this House to do so. We went out and acquainted ourselves with the motivation behind it. We were told that decoupling allowed the EU to meet its promise to move away from production subsidies and that the CAP would be safe from any future attack at the WTO. That is why I travelled throughout the country, in the Twenty-six Counties and the Six Counties, to convince farmers that it was in their best long-term interests to accept the decoupling package. However, if Commissioner Mandelson gets away with it and takes away whatever support exists, that will be the end of food production in this country as we will not be able to compete with imports from outside the EU.

The Government and the other parties here are desperate to reassure farmers that the WTO has nothing to do with the proposals embodied in the treaty. Of course it has, and nowhere more explicitly than in Article 2 which proposes to give the Commission exclusive competence over international trade agreements. Therefore, if the Lisbon treaty was currently in effect and if Commissioner Mandelson had the qualified majority support, there would be nothing that this country or France, if in a minority, could do about it.

This illustrates that when Irish vital interests are at stake the Government will not have the power to prevent measures inimical to those interests from proceeding. With no Commissioner for five years out of 15 and no veto and with exclusive competence for international trade agreements given to the Commission, the Commission will be better able to implement decisions that damage vital areas of our economy and we will be able to do nothing to prevent it.

Supporters of this proposal claim that it will introduce greater efficiency into the decision-making process. That will be cold comfort if those decisions are ones that are against Ireland's interests. Much has been made about the fact that 27 states leading to 27 Commissioners would be unworkable. I would argue that it is working better at this time than at any time previously. Even as it stands the Government must prove that it is capable of preventing the Mandelson proposals from being presented as the EU position. If it is not, farmers and others must ask themselves how much worse the situation will be if this treaty is passed. This is a major challenge to the leadership of the farming organisations. If Commissioner Mandelson is allowed to get his way, are the farming organisations prepared to instruct their members and lobby for a "no" vote on the Lisbon treaty as a means of staking their claim?

While those on the "yes" side maintain the fiction that the Commission's position at the WTO is somehow bizarrely distinct from the way in which the Commission adopts that position, they are well aware that those directly involved in farming and fishing will take into account such issues when deciding how to vote.

There is a significant difference within the "yes" campaign on the issue of neutrality. Fianna Fáil claims, despite the existence of the battle group, that there is no move towards having an EU armed force, but Fine Gael has recognised that is the reality and has welcomed it, as outlined in its Beyond Neutrality policy document. The Labour Party differed radically and publicly at the time from Fine Gael on this issue. The Green Party has also, until recently, consistently opposed any weakening of Irish neutrality and linked that to the ongoing use of Shannon Airport by the US military. However, despite their differences all four parties are singing from the same hymn sheet. They cannot all be right. How can they all have different positions and sing from the same hymn sheet?

Sinn Féin is not arguing that this State ought never to co-operate with others if mutual interests are threatened. However, we are certainly opposed to Ireland being part of a military structure where control of that structure would be outside of Irish Government control. If the European Commission can decide by a majority to pursue policies damaging to member states' interests in areas such as agriculture, the logic of EU centralisation is that it will also encompass powers over other key areas, including foreign policy, and similarly end up potentially going against the wishes and interests of individual member states.

There has been a persistent attempt by the "yes" side to paint the "no" campaign as somehow unrepresentative. It cites Sinn Féin's position and the involvement of other smaller groups. We certainly do not claim to speak on behalf of all those opposed to previous referenda. Prominent members and supporters of other parties are involved in the "no" campaign, including members of Fianna Fáil, almost half the Green Party, a big section of the Labour Party, members of Fine Gael, members of the trade union movement and farming bodies.

See this speech in context