Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

The date 2 October 2009 will be a seminal moment in our relationship with the European Union. If we pass the Lisbon treaty, we will say to our EU neighbours that we are on board and intend to proceed in partnership with them. By passing it, we will say to our EU partners that we want to see the establishment of areas of co-operation or shared competences, particularly in respect of the internal market, energy and economic and social cohesion. These are the areas on which we must focus if we are to be assisted in putting our economy back together and getting people back to work. Without these areas of co-operation, we will be forced to proceed alone. We cannot afford such a policy. We rely, from this juncture, on our EU partners to assist us in getting back on track. These provisions are built into the treaty and if we reject it for a second time, any assistance to be garnered from our EU partners will be nullified.

We are a shrewd people and have built our country on the management of relationships, either socially, politically or from a business perspective. Adopting the treaty will assist those relationships, particularly in the areas of foreign direct investment and EU research programmes, two areas that are vital to our economic growth and which are encompassed by the treaty. I hope we can continue to play a qualitative role as a member of the European Union in this regard and that we can continue what has been a long and fruitful relationship. I am grateful for our membership of the European Union because mine is the generation that has benefited most therefrom.

Membership of the Union and protection of our national interests are not mutually exclusive. In spite of the economic constraints upon us now, it will be through a deepened relationship with our EU partners that we will restore our economic vitality.

At the EU Foreign Ministers meeting held after the last referendum, our Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke on the diverse nature of the Irish debate and the overlap in that debate between issues that were relevant to the treaty and others that were not. Some of those extraneous issues, which have no part in the debate on treaty revision, have now been put to bed. The guarantees are secured and we should acknowledge that.

Our national interest is a strong Ireland within a strong European Union and one that is concerned with jobs, families and social solidarity. The Union consists of 27 countries and 490 million people and I make no apologies for contending we should be part of an integrated union that challenges the hegemony of the United States, China and Russia.

Our views in the Labour Party have been always tempered by a belief in social solidarity, as espoused in the European social model. That model of social solidarity has come under attack from people such as our own Commissioner. Those who argue in favour of the retention of a Commissioner should ask themselves if the incumbent Irish Commissioner has acted in the best interest of this country or propagated an agenda that is contrary to our largely social democratic principles. I hope our next Commissioner will possess the egalitarian republican ideals once espoused by the Taoiseach. I am glad to note we have retained our Commissioner nonetheless.

The EU Commission, by its composition, has shifted to the right. That provides clear evidence of the need for the Union to reform its structures. The primacy of inter-institutionalism, that is, of an all-powerful Commission, must be challenged. I am not espousing intergovernmentalism per say because there must be a finely tuned balance between the two. The treaty provides such a compromise. That balance, as contained within this treaty, is provided for by extending the decision-making powers of the European Parliament, an institution that reflects the wishes of the peoples of Europe.

We, the peoples of Europe, must understand that the model underpinning the workings of the European Union has been dominated by those who have sought to de-regulate every aspect of our lives, especially within the realm of public services or services of general interest, as they are referred to in the treaty. I am glad we have made progress on that matter and that these services are recognised within the treaty.

We have seen the fruits of the Commission's labours - a European financial structure that is in tatters and an EU economy that is floundering. This is unsustainable and unbalanced. The way to redress the imbalance is to give more powers to the European Parliament. This will shift the power back to the people, the same people who are currently unemployed and face an uncertain future and who are rightly suspicious of their Governments and want to see jobs and the economy put to the forefront of the political agenda. The European Parliament will at least provide a counter-weight that will be more reflective of the wishes of the European peoples, even if it is dominated by the right. The Parliament, by its nature, because it does not govern unilaterally, is closer to the people and will reflect their concerns. It will ensure that job creation throughout Europe remains the first priority. That is provided for within the treaty.

The Lisbon treaty provides that the "ordinary legislative procedure" involves co-decision between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, with qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers. This mechanism, by its nature, increases democratic control over legislation. This concept, however, is not debated widely because there is still a serious deficit of knowledge among legislators and the public as to the general powers of the European Parliament. Until every citizen has as much knowledge of how the Union works as they do of their local councils or even the Houses of the Oireachtas, treaty revisions will be dominated by issues such as those on which legal guarantees have been obtained and which form no part of the treaty.

The fact remains that we still do not understand how the whole mechanism works. Before I am accused of patronising anybody, I must state every single person to whom I spoke prior to the last referendum stated he or she did not understand the treaty or how it worked. That is a fact. How can I sell this treaty to anyone if the majority of us do not understand qualified majority voting or co-decision or know the difference between a directive, a regulation and a decision? We must inculcate our fellow citizens with knowledge of the workings of the institutions in a positive way. This must start in every school and from a young age. Until such time as this is achieved, there always will be opportunities for Governments and self-interested groups to take advantage of people's lack of knowledge.

There is still a dearth of knowledge. It is not sufficient for the Government to suggest it has delivered the goods in terms of legal guarantees or solemn declarations. There are many who were never exercised by these issues in the first instance. Most were exercised by the fact that they did not know what was in the treaty. There are many who were never exercised by these issues in the first instance.

We, in this House, are to blame for this. We have never set out to have a meaningful educational dialogue with our fellow citizens on the fundamentals of how the European Union works. That is partly why the referendum fell the last time. It could do so again unless we engage in a meaningful way with our fellow citizens.

See this speech in context