Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Ceart go leor.

The Council refused to acknowledge that the same failed economic policies which have led us to our current position are exactly those which are reinforced in the Lisbon treaty. These policies have been exposed as being in contradiction with the economic needs of the moment. However, the Council persists with the myth that the Lisbon treaty is necessary to deal with the crisis.

Neoliberalism has failed. Its excesses and the logic behind it have put at risk the hard work of an entire generation and threaten to plunge whole populations into poverty. The simple fact is that ratification of the Lisbon treaty would make matters worse rather than better.

There is a need for a fundamental change in EU policy and in its treaties. These matters should have been the subject of European Council's deliberations. The protection of jobs and creation of new employment must be the absolute priority in the midst of this economic crisis. The haemorrhage of jobs must be stopped and that will require proactive interventions by the governments of member states.

Political leaders are casting about for solutions without understanding the nature of the problem. If we do not put the needs and interests of people at the heart of the future economic system, that system will also be doomed to failure. The approach of political leaders to the Lisbon treaty is exactly the same. In light of the major changes that have taken place during the past six months, it is bizarre to listen to EU leaders trying to force through a treaty which was designed to deal with an entirely different economic and political environment. We believe the treaty was a bad deal then and it is probably an even worse one now. The Lisbon treaty is old hat and is a charter for the policies of failure. We need a new treaty for a new time.

The media reported that the Taoiseach would use the opportunity presented by the summit to update his European colleagues on the Lisbon treaty and the development of the so-called legally binding guarantees agreed at a previous EU summit held last December. It is absolutely astonishing that he updated his colleagues in Brussels on the Lisbon treaty and the development of guarantees for Ireland but that he feels no compulsion to extend the same courtesy to the Irish electorate. For some months, Sinn Féin has been calling on the Government to publish the wording of those guarantees if, in fact, any such guarantees have been secured. I wonder whether these will be guarantees at all or whether they will be mere legalistic verbiage.

In light of their reluctance to speak out on this matter, it appears that the broader issues of the EU's democratic deficit, its erosion of workers' rights and public services, its emerging foreign and defence policy agendas and its promotion of free trade over fair trade have not been dealt with. Ensuring that the facts emerge may well provoke a debate in which the Government does not wish to engage prior to the European elections.

A meeting of the 27 member states' Commissioners also took place last month. The reason for this meeting was to discuss a strategy for Ireland's rerun of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that the Government is due to hold later in the year. The Commission's representative in Ireland warned those gathered in Brussels that the political and economic situation in Ireland could lead to a second "No" vote. The people gathered for the Commission's "brainstorming" session also discussed the €2 million they intend to spend on an advertising campaign which will precede the rerun of the referendum and which will try to promote the pro-Lisbon agenda. A spokesperson for Commission President José Manuel Barroso claimed that it was their intention to distribute factual information on EU policies and the Lisbon treaty to citizens in Ireland and in other member states in order to allow a vigorous debate to take place. However, the last thing EU leaders want is a real debate taking place either in Ireland or elsewhere in the Union.

What is proposed is a waste of €2 million, which, in view of the current crisis, could be better spent on social projects. The Irish electorate will not be bought by the European Commission or bribed by it or anyone else to vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty. We have already made our decision and, in my view, this decision will be reinforced if the Government proceeds with its plan to rerun the referendum.

If the Commission, the Council or the Parliament truly want a vigorous debate on the Lisbon treaty or on the current direction of European policy, they would not have done everything possible in the wake of the rejection of the proposed EU constitution by the Netherlands and France in 2005 to ensure that there would not be a popular vote on the treaty in member states. The Commission does not want an open debate on the Lisbon treaty; it merely wishes to persuade us of its way of thinking. This will not happen.

The people of Ireland and Europe deserve better than the Lisbon treaty. We need a new treaty for new times. Ireland's place is firmly within Europe. The Irish people have been loud in their support for the European Union but they will not accept a bad deal for Ireland. They do not want to hand decision making power over our future to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

The people of Ireland want a different Europe, and they have stated that in a referendum. Member state citizens across the Union want a different Europe but they have not been given the opportunity to state that in a referendum. We want a Europe based on solidarity and fairness, a Europe of peace that respects the right of each member state to make its own decisions on sovereign matters and one that prioritises workers' rights and public services — a Europe of equals. That is the opportunity before us. The people are ready to take up the challenge, and it is time for the European leaders to catch up. Ireland must remain at the heart of Europe but we want a change of policy direction in Ireland and also in Brussels. We need a new treaty for a new time, a new dispensation. We need new political leadership but it is not coming from the opposite side of the House.

I refer to the question of the Palestinians, previously raised by Deputy Costello, and the onslaught by Israel over the new year which resulted in the slaughter of over 1,500 people in the Gaza area. Given the logic of the position of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, as espoused at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, will the Minister of State indicate whether anything was said about the Palestinian situation at the recent Council meeting? Were the Minister's views common to other European leaders because he stated: "It is very clear to me that very serious offences and almost certainly violations of international humanitarian law were committed by both sides". On the use of white phosphorous by Israeli, he went on to state: "The use of such weaponry in a densely-populated area such as Gaza is completely unacceptable and does represent in my view a violation of international humanitarian law and raises serious questions regarding the conduct of its military campaign in Gaza which the Israeli Government will have to address".

Questions must be raised at European level about the Euro-Med agreement, the preferential trade agreements with Israel, and the fact that the European Union is continuing with them despite breaches of humanitarian law and international territorial law. If it has not been done to date, will the Minister give a commitment at the next European Council summit meeting that he will be to the fore in demanding the suspension of the trade agreement, which is the logic of his statement?

I draw the Minister of State's attention to comments made by the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Richard Falk, on the Geneva Convention and the requirements for warring forces to distinguish between military targets and surrounding civilians. He stated: "If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law". A war crime dictates to the European Union that the trade agreement must be suspended.

On a related matter, has the European Council re-examined its policy of excluding Hamas and not dealing directly with the elected Government of the Palestinian people, and the effects its policies are having on those under siege in Gaza and the West Bank? Has any thought been given to suspending the trade agreement due to Israel's ongoing policy in the West Bank, namely, the capture of land and the illegal settlement, another issue which would be sufficient to conclude that the agreement must be suspended?

Will the Minister of State indicate if there was any discussion on how the EU, as a member of the Quartet, would help in lifting the ongoing siege of the Palestinian territory called Gaza? It is no longer on the media's radar but there is an ongoing siege and humanitarian aid, food and reconstruction equipment cannot get into an area which was bombarded continuously for three weeks. That serious question must be addressed. I hope it will be addressed and that the Minister of State can give a commitment that there will be more discussion at future EU Council meetings.

See this speech in context