Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I will not go on too much. I raised a question during my contribution. In the event of the wording being proposed and accepted in December by the other member states and in light of the Crotty judgment, which I well understand related to a fundamental change in the scope of the EU, if the wording requires an amendment to the Constitution, there is no doubt but that there would need to be a referendum even though the Government has previously tried to avoid referendums, which led to the Crotty judgment in the first place.

If the wording is not acceptable or the Attorney General's opinion is that it would require a referendum, would the Irish representatives at the December Council meeting demand a full re-opening of the treaty, a convention as Deputy Howlin called it? In that event, has Ireland considered pursuing the social progress clause to which I referred and which was a demand by the trade union movement, social support groups and many on the left or in the centre of politics in the EU? Would the convention be able to address the concerns raised by the Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the leaders of other countries that might have problems with some of the EU's past or future activities in respect of an undemocratic move to deny voting rights, if that is the proposal accepted in December? The removal of voting rights is a fundamental matter. Any suspension of any of Ireland's rights within the EU would constitute a substantial change and be contrary to the Crotty judgment. This was the context of my statement. If any attempt were made to use the simplified treaty change and method, I would oppose such a change.

See this speech in context