Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I wish to take up where my respected colleague, Deputy Penrose, left off. The interpretation of regulations is something we have at our own behest. For example, the French have a very healthy attitude to a proposal that affects them primarily. They laugh at it. They take an uproarious fit of laughter at something like the regulation mentioned by Deputy Penrose. If it affects them negatively, they do not do it and they are quite right. Provision is made within the European institutions to accommodate all that and because it is a matter of our own interpretation, nobody forces us to do it at all. We cannot force the European Union to go our way and it cannot force us to go its way against each other's will. That is as it should be. That is democracy and it is important.

I compliment Deputy Perry on his work as Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. It is a very important and responsible role. I have been a member of EU-associated committees for a long time, longer than most other Members of the House I am sad to say, for my sins. It becomes more important as time goes on that the parliamentary system is used to scrutinise, test and challenge European legislation and Ministers on the policy they pursue at EU level and when they return. I compliment my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Dick Roche, and his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for making themselves available to the committees, and the European affairs committee in particular, on a regular basis before the GAERC meetings. That has been very important.

It is vital we anticipate legislation before it is put in place and that we provide input, exerting Irish influence at centre stage before discussion takes place in the Commission or at the Council. It is important that when Council discussions take place, the Minister or Ministers negotiating are fully aware of the thinking in home parliaments.

I am amused at some of the excuses which have been put forward by people who were supposed to know about these matters in the recent debate on the Lisbon treaty. Some suggested they voted against the Lisbon treaty because it was invasive and undermined our sovereignty, and it did not allow us to become masters in our own house. It was meant to be colonisation, among other things. These views are all wrong and the people putting forward such views were reading the wrong treaty. They must have been reading earlier treaties.

If these people had read the Lisbon treaty carefully and understood it, they would know that more than other treaty negotiated since Ireland's accession to the European Union, or the EEC as it was then, the Lisbon treaty returns to national parliaments more power, initiative, control and command than at any time since this State's foundation. It is totally erroneous and misleading for anybody to suggest we have lost power or are likely to lose it through the Lisbon treaty.

The Lisbon treaty is a two-edged sword. It could be a vehicle whereby unprogressive parliaments could roll back and immobilise the European project. Problems existed prior to the Lisbon treaty, even the days before the Nice treaty, and the Lisbon treaty is responding to that issue. I am amazed that some of the so-called articulate observers have been unable to discern that. It is simple and logical. In the run up to the first and second Nice treaty referendums we were all arguing for a return of some recognition of national parliaments, their importance and input. For people to suggest it was all right to vote in favour of the Nice treaty in either the first or second referendum — it is immaterial at this stage — and vote against Lisbon is absolutely ridiculous and flies in the face of facts.

The role of the committee system is very important. There is a problem in that if one is involved with a committee, as those of us involved for a number of years will know, nobody wants to know about them. A person could be dead on a committee for weeks and nobody would want to know of it unless they read about it on the back of a newspaper the following day. It is appalling that in a democratic Parliament, nobody wants to know what goes on. I have often said the only way to deal with the problem is to have live broadcasting of the proceedings of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

There are good reasons for this. It would enable a Member of either House to display what he or she does here. The general media perception of what we do here is usually cynical and this perception is being presented on a regular basis to undermine the credibility of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is alleged this is done for very good reasons, as the public has a right to know. The public has a right to know the facts rather than a perception created by some people with a hidden agenda. The quicker we recognise this, the better it will be for ourselves. We must assert our authority in the area.

I compliment the Members who have spoken today on this subject and on the European scrutiny committee. They all have a clear knowledge of the subject matter. It is a pity that does not extend outside the House, and we should ask how we can best convey that important message outside. How do we ensure, for example, that the economic fortunes of this country are not hijacked by people outside this House who may well have an ambition to get in here or to some other parliament where they can exert influence?

How is it that some people put forward their version of democracy rather than the established version? Why should their version be better than ours? For example, why do some people see a version of democracy which is centralised with a particular figurehead, possibly elected by an electorate of all people of the European Union — in which we do not have a majority? That is an interesting supposition. What would it mean for Irish sovereignty? Where would it go under those guidelines?

If we in public life have something to say, we should say it whether it is critical or laudatory. We should not say something for the wrong reasons but we should state the reasons quite clearly. Many people use the political arena to conceal an agenda of their own or withhold vital information on where they are coming from, which would in turn give the general public some idea of what can be expected of them.

The notion of "people power" will always be put forward, which is important even in football and hurling nowadays. I wonder if there is merit in it. One should remember that history is well laced with examples where people power went wrong. Any historian will readily recognise that one does not need to go back too many centuries to find such examples; one does not have to go back a century at all to learn how people power has gone wrong. People power can often be confused with democracy.

It is important to remember that when people use their vote in a democracy, it is important they have the right information. It is also important that they are discerning in the sources of information, where the information comes from and how it is backed up. For example, it is not sufficient for somebody to make spurious and groundless allegations on what the European Union, the European scrutiny committee or the European affairs committee and the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs is about. They should spell out the source and nature of any allegation and indicate the people they consort with on a regular basis. Who are their friends and with whom do they liaise or speak? What is the agenda of such people?

Their agenda is to dismantle the European Union as it is now and reduce it to a short and simple open-ended economic adventure, where the greatest and fittest would survive. Those who are smaller and weaker, politically and economically, would go to the wall.

See this speech in context