Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Rather than address the democratic deficit, the Lisbon treaty will widen it. The treaty removes Ireland's right to a permanent Commissioner for five out of every 15 years, which means that we will not have a representative on the body responsible for drafting and implementing laws. Ireland's representatives on the Commission have played a crucial role over the years and, regardless of how well the Irish Government builds its relationship with European Commissioners from other states, that is not a substitute for an Irish voice at the table. Such a voice would reflect, or at least understand, Ireland's values and its past, present and future. It would help us decide at an early stage whether to support or oppose legislation planned by the Commission. For a small country like Ireland, it is vital to have a permanent voice at the European Commission, especially given our small number of MEPs and the fact that our voting strength on the Council of Ministers will be halved if the Lisbon treaty is passed.

The treaty will also remove member state vetoes in more than 60 highly sensitive areas, including energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation and the inclusion of health and education in international trade agreements. I thank the Taoiseach for making the argument for retaining our vetoes when he tried to buy off farmers' opposition to the treaty by promising to use our veto on Mandelson's WTO package. However, if we do not have a veto, we cannot even threaten to use it in the future. That will be the case for the 60 areas that will transfer to qualified majority voting. We will give more than 100 new powers to the EU, including self-amending articles that will significantly strengthen EU institutions while weakening the influence of member states and citizens on legislation.

In order to make this process of centralisation appear less dramatic, the drafters of the Lisbon treaty included a protocol on member state parliaments. Advocates of the treaty argue this protocol will greatly increase the role of parliaments in the decision making process, but nothing could be further from the truth. When one cuts through the rhetoric and examines the detail of what is proposed, it is clear that the new powers for member state parliaments are nothing more than cosmetic window dressing designed to improve the treaty's appearance. At the core of the proposals contained in the protocol are two new mechanisms known as the yellow and orange cards. Under the yellow card system, member states will have eight weeks to scrutinise proposals from the European Commission and, if one third of parliaments believe a proposal goes beyond existing powers of the EU, they can request, but not instruct, the Commission to reconsider the proposal.

A number of problems arise with this system. Eight weeks is not sufficient time to scrutinise detailed Commission proposals. The Joint Committee on European Scrutiny is already overloaded, as its members will attest, and if it was to receive a controversial proposal during a busy period in its schedule or in the recess, it is unlikely that it would be scrutinised. When we tested this mechanism earlier this year, the Commission could not supply the required documentation in time. God forbid that we would have to deal with all the Commission's proposals. Furthermore, member state parliaments cannot object to the substance of proposals or suggest amendments but can only raise concerns if they believe the EU is overstepping its legal mandate regarding proportionality and subsidiarity. Member states can already make such objections at Council level or through the European Court of Justice. As if this was not bad enough, there is absolutely no obligation on the European Commission to do anything other than consider the objection. If it disagrees, it can carry on regardless and member state parliaments are powerless to do anything until the proposal reaches the Council of Ministers, where our strength will be halved if the treaty is passed.

The second proposal, the orange card, also allows member state parliaments eight weeks to scrutinise proposals but if a simple majority believe a proposal breaches subsidiarity they can seek the support of the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament in blocking it. Again, however, eight weeks is too brief a timeframe to scrutinise proposals given how long it can take to put them before the Dáil. Having given a proposal its scrutiny, a parliament will have to secure the support of 13 other parliaments within eight weeks and, even then, the proposal can only be blocked with the support of the European Parliament or the Council. Anyone who is familiar with the workings of the European Parliament will be aware that months can pass before the Parliament takes a formal view of controversial proposals. I have come from a meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, which just received a proposal sent on 1 April for report by the committee. This proposal has not even been discussed by the Oireachtas.

The idea that eight weeks is sufficient time to scrutinise proposals, build a coalition of 14 member states and achieve the support of the European Parliament or the Council is ludicrous. Of course, the power to block a proposal is completely subject to securing support from an EU institution. Thus, when one considers the details of the protocol on member state parliaments, it is clear they do not offer any meaningful form of intervention into the legislative process. They merely provide a cumbersome procedure that is unlikely to be used successfully to block Commission proposals.

If the drafters of the Lisbon treaty were serious about bringing citizens closer to EU institutions, they would have designed democratic, transparent and effective forms of member state intervention. Instead, they are offering something that is weak, cumbersome and completely opaque. The protocol on the parliaments of member states gives the EU nothing new or meaningful with which to address the democratic deficit. On that basis, it cannot form any part of a credible argument for supporting the Lisbon treaty.

A better deal is possible. All states should retain a permanent Commissioner and voting strength at the Council should reflect the fact that states come to it as equals. Member state parliaments and citizens must be given meaningful forms of participation in the legislative process, including, in this State, the absolute right for citizens to have the final say in any significant changes to EU treaties in the future. Key strategic vetoes on public services and taxation should be strengthened. The Irish people can secure a better deal if they vote "No" on 12 June. The Government will be given a strong mandate in the new negotiations with our European partners as a result of such a "No" vote.

Tá mé ag impí ar mhuintir an Stáit seo teacht amach ar Dhéardaoin, 12 Meitheamh chun a vótaí a chaitheamh. Creidim gur féidir, trí vóta "Níl", margadh níos fearr a fháil d'Éireann agus cur leis an cumhacht atá ag an Pharlaimint seo agus parlaimintí eile na hEorpa. Tá mé ag caint go háirithe mar gheall ar an tír bheag seo, le daonra beag. Ba cheart dúinn an chumhacht vótála bheag atá againn a láidriú. Is ina mhalairt de threo atá conradh Liospóin ag dul, in ainneoin an méid atá sa tuairisc seo. Tá mé ag cur in aghaidh na tuairisce seo. Diúltaim é in ainm na baill ar fad den choiste. Níor thacaigh mé leis. Ní raibh aon deis agam mo sheasamh a chur ann. Is ait liom nach bhfuil an tuairisc seo ar fáil go dátheangach, in ainneoin Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla 2003.

See this speech in context