Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

Last week's summit was critically important for Ireland and Europe because it considered a €200 billion recovery plan for the European economy and the urgent issue of climate change. These should have been the priorities for the European summit and today's discussion. Instead, as a consequence of last June's referendum, the first priority at the summit and for this House is the Lisbon treaty and the future constitutional arrangements for Europe. That may be good news for those who wish to slow down Europe for the sake of their commercial or political interests or whose politics thrive on institutional paralysis but it is not good news for those who need the European Union to respond more effectively to the economic crisis or wish the European Union to lead on the future of the planet.

The big story coming out of the summit was that a deal was struck on the Lisbon treaty and a second referendum will be held. Already people are lined up in their trenches. Those who were for it are for it again and those were against it are against it again regardless of what is written in the document. I do not take that approach. This is by no means a done deal. Important progress has been made but this matter remains a work in progress. What has been agreed is a carefully constructed formula which under certain conditions should lead to a second referendum. However, as the Taoiseach confirmed in the comments he made this morning, the holding of a second referendum is conditional on a satisfactory outcome for the work currently in progress.

If we have learned anything from the last referendum, it is the importance of reading the small print. I welcome the recognition in Europe that the same question cannot be put to the people again. Significant changes are required to address the concerns raised during the campaign and major progress has been in that regard. The decision to revert to one Commissioner per member state is a significant change to the proposition that was put to us last June. The proposal to reduce the size of the Commission arose from a concern for making that body more efficient. It was an agreed and important part of the new architecture but as my colleague, Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, has pointed out and to paraphrase the Secretary General of the Commission, if one has to choose between efficiency and legitimacy, one chooses legitimacy. The decision that each member state will retain a Commissioner should be acknowledged as representing a real response to concerns raised during the Irish referendum.

The European Council has also undertaken to address a number of the other concerns that arose during the campaign. The proposals on abortion, neutrality and taxation are not controversial and were never going to be affected by the treaty anyway. Nonetheless, it is welcome the a belt and braces approach is being pursued in order to reassure voters on these points. However, I have concerns about two other issues.

The first issue pertains to the summit conclusions, which commit to "a guarantee that the provisions of the Irish Constitution in relation to the right to life, education and the family are not in any way affected by the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon attributes legal status to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights or by the justice and home affairs provisions of the said Treaty". What does that mean? I am aware that abortion was an issue in the referendum and I have no objection to a restatement of the status quo, in other words, that abortion is entirely an Irish matter. That was done in the Maastricht treaty. However, I have serious concerns about this paragraph in terms of where it came from and what it might mean. Exactly what are these issues of education and the family in respect of which it would appear that Irish recourse to the charter is to be restricted? I heard some ingenious falsehoods being peddled during the campaign but these issues are new.

One of the principal reasons the Labour Party supported the Lisbon treaty in June was the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we believe would greatly strengthen the rights of the individual citizen in the European Union. We would be very concerned if the charter was watered down or if Irish citizens had more limited access than other European citizens to the rights enshrined therein. Clearly, the devil is in the detail and a process of negotiation must now begin. A mechanism should be found to allow the involvement of pro-Lisbon treaty parties in that process.

The other issue about which I have concerns is workers' rights. I was satisfied that the Lisbon treaty would significantly enhance worker's rights but a perception was successfully created during the campaign that the opposite was the case. This was not helped by the Government's poor record in protecting and enforcing workers' rights at home or in progressing European initiatives to enhance rights. The issue was further complicated by decisions of the European Court of Justice, including the Laval case. There is a real concern among working people that the way has been opened for undermining the levels of pay and working conditions accepted as the norm in this country and most other member states. These issues must be satisfactorily addressed before another referendum is held.

Working through the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union, Deputy Costello has advanced a number of proposals that would protect workers' rights. However, these proposals, which are discussed in the report of the sub-committee, were not adequately taken up by the Government. I welcome the political commitment made in the conclusions to attach high importance to this issue but this needs to be fleshed out. We also need to see a commitment from the Government to address this issue domestically. Again, I am aware this is intended to start a process of drafting and I am prepared to engage with the Government in this regard but the importance of this issue does not seem to have been grasped.

The Government has committed to holding another referendum before the end of next October. The proposition to be put to the people in that referendum is to be changed. We can see the shape of some of that change, but we do not know the detail. It is the detail of the change which concerns me and which will determine the Labour Party's response.

This is not a done deal and two issues arise which are of real concern. These are the Charter of Fundamental Rights and workers' rights. If a second referendum is to be held or passed, those concerns must be addressed and the Opposition parties need to be involved in the process that addresses them.

I want to say a few words about the economy and climate change. I welcome the decision made by the European Council to launch a co-ordinated economic recovery package across the European Union. The plan wisely avoids a one-size-fits-all approach but emphasises instead the need for a co-ordinated approach. It also endorses some key principles. The initial thinking from the Commission pointed to the need for short-term action that would build long-term competitiveness. It pointed, for example, to the potential of the green collar sector to create employment, and the importance of investment in research and development and in infrastructure.

These are points which the Labour Party has been making for some time. I also believe that Ireland should play its part in this European initiative but again, there is no clarity as to what the Government is thinking or doing. After months of doing nothing, last Monday there was a big public relations exercise at Farmleigh, although there is still no plan. It is by no means clear whether the Government's economic plan, when it eventually appears, will fit with the overall EU strategy. It should do so.

The EU has, in recent years, been one of the strongest advocates of international action to prevent runaway global warming. It was in this context that the Commission's energy and climate change package was published at the beginning of the year. The intervening 11 months have changed global economics and politics almost beyond recognition. The reality of global warming has not changed, nor has our obligation to stop it.

Whereas much of the detail of the energy and climate change package is welcome, the major concessions to big polluters and the conditions now attached to a 30% reduction if goodwill is shown in Copenhagen by the United States, China and others are a cause for concern. This watering down of the original package is delaying the inevitable — that we must take radical, collective action to prevent catastrophic climate change, and that we must take it sooner rather than later.

The EU has been the most important vehicle for progress in recent European history. It has been vital for progress in Ireland of its citizens, economy and environment. We must not allow our current difficulties, or the political difficulties of this Government, to reverse this progress for the sake of a short-term fix.

See this speech in context