Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Quinn was in possession and he has nine minutes remaining.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before the debate was adjourned, I referred to the need for European citizens to reconnect with the European project and the realisation that the federal structure implicit in the decision making nature of the Council, the Commission and the Parliament was not meeting that task in the media coverage of European politics in the 25 member states. I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his officials.

Three weeks ago, the Joint Committee on European Affairs agreed an uncontentious proposal I initiated to bridge the gap between the perception and the political reality, which is that 70% of the legislation dealt with in the Parliaments of member states originates in the European institutions in Brussels. How can reportage be generated locally, which reflects the scrutiny given by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament to the same legislation when it originates in the Commission? There is only so much space and time for European affairs because of the commercialisation of the media since Mr. Murdoch and others took over the main media outlets. Coverage is limited on RTE and in broadsheet newspapers to what happens in the Houses of the Oireachtas. If we do not "Europeanise" time, European affairs will not receive the coverage required and our citizens will feel they are not properly informed about what is happening.

My proposal, copies of which I will make available if Members wish, is that there should be a European week during every plenary session. Questions to all the Ministers would have a European dimension. For example, a question to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government could be about the implementation of the Building Control Bill and how the European directive on energy and new buildings would be implemented, which is a requirement under European law directly originating from European legislation at a European level, transposed into domestic law. We would focus on that. Questions to the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and so on would be prioritised in terms of matters which related to European issues or those originating from a European directive or proposal.

On a Wednesday morning in this House we would have a commissioner who would sit where the Minister for Foreign Affairs now sits, for example, Laszlo Kovacs, the commissioner responsible for taxation within the Commission, or any commissioner other than the Irish commissioner, who would be somewhere else. Any national parliament would not have its national commissioner sitting. The commissioner sitting in this House, for example Laszlo Kovacs, would talk about the vexed issues of taxation, harmonisation, the current stress on the US Treasury by the IRS with regard to what they — not us — would see as the abuse of our taxation system, and how it is being used for transfer pricing; and all the pressures and internal competitions that relate to the issues of harmonisation and a common platform for the measuring of corporation tax. That is just one example.

Laszlo Kovacs, a former Member of the Hungarian Parliament, a former leader of the Socialist Party there, and a Foreign Affairs Minister, would not only sit and deliver a speech to the rest of us, but we could ask him questions in the same way we can ask questions of our Ministers. The media, who are ever present in one form or another, would be able to report on these issues because there would be no other domestic dispute or issue arising.

Leader's Questions would obviously be retained for contemporaneous issues of domestic concern but all else would have a European focus. That would be the case in this Chamber. What would happen in the Seanad? I will propose an illustration which would hold true for all Senates across the European Union where bi-cameral systems operate, and where it would be for each parliament to adopt its integration. I will give the Irish illustration of how it would work.

In the Seanad on a Thursday, so as not to compete with media coverage on the Wednesday, an illustrative and useful example of what would be newsworthy would be the chairperson of the agricultural committee of the European Parliament in the Seanad, with all Republic of Ireland MEPs in session and with the rights of question and access, debating why the European Commission has to introduce the sugar regime because of the fines threatened under the WTO rules. The consequences of that will, according to all the analysts, see the virtual elimination of the Irish sugar industry as we know it over the next five or six years, with appropriate compensation. It is necessary for the European Commission and the EU to comply with the WTO in terms of reducing our unjust subsidy of sugar prices in world terms in return for our access to other markets elsewhere.

They are only two illustrative examples and Members can think of many more which affect them. If we had those issues discussed here in this national parliament, and in every other national parliament, the political connection between what is happening to our citizens and voters in our constituencies at one level would be directly related to the decisions made by councils of ministers and members of parliaments in response to European Commission proposals. That connection is not currently apparent and its absence was a contributing factor to the reason many citizens, in addition to those who previously voted before, voted for the first time in the Netherlands and in France in the way they did, regarding the EU. If such a connection existed, people would see the re-connection between the European ideal and projects at one level and what the EU is doing at national level on people's behalf, either for or against their interests.

I invite the Minister for Foreign Affairs to consider that unless, during the period of reflection, we see some positive, active, innovative initiatives coming from small member states we will not get anything from the bigger member states. We have one prime minister, Mr. Blair, on his way out; President Chirac does not know if he will be a candidate again in 2007; we have a new Chancellor of Germany who has yet to find her feet; and Italy faces an election next April. Accordingly we cannot expect any political initiative or leadership from the four traditional major European countries. The drive in this instance, which should reflect the culture of the 25 EU countries, should come from the smaller countries.

There is no better country poised to lead that initiative than Ireland. The way in which Deputy Roche, while Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, co-ordinated activity in terms of the run-up to the ratification of the constitution treaty, is a tried and tested way of doing business. Ireland has seniority among the new ten entrant countries and among other countries and we should use that seniority to use the period of reflection not as some passive period of inaction but as an active period of intervention coming from the small member states. This is a unique opportunity.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Harkin and Gormley.

While I welcome any opportunity to critically discuss the European Union, I find the format of this debate wholly inadequate. If the EU is to emerge from this crisis and come into line with public preferences, a series of focused debates is needed on a range of issues which have been expressly identified by people across Europe as being unacceptable. These issues include the neo-liberal trajectory of the EU, ever-increasing militarisation and the endemic democratic deficit. If people in Europe are to feel they are being listened to, these debates must have a real, visible and timely impact on the institutions and operations of the EU.

As Deputy Quinn said, with only five minutes to discuss the current situation in the European Union and the constitutional treaty, where does one begin? To start, the EU constitution is dead and the Government needs to get through the grieving period and move on. Sinn Féin wants Ireland to move on and begin a long overdue debate on the future of Europe. This debate must be based on an acknowledgment that the referenda in France and the Netherlands, and opinion polls from other European countries, demonstrate that the current socio-economic model, namely the content of the EU constitution, is not working and is unacceptable.

Despite the defeat of the constitution, Sinn Féin felt a responsibility to launch an information campaign on it last month. Our initiative was in response to the Government's White Paper on the EU constitution. The Government is marketing its document as a factual account of the contents of the constitution but it is essentially a piece of propaganda, the primary purpose of which is to sell the constitution. The White Paper attempts to do so via the editorial strategy, which is to extract articles from the constitution and paraphrase selectively. It frequently dismisses or diminishes the significance of substantive changes. This is no surprise, as the Fianna Fái-Progressive Democrats programme for Government asserts that "any perception either within the EU or outside that Ireland was other than a fully committed member would be deeply damaging".

The policy pattern resulting from this foundation is one of a refusal to criticise EU measures, even those in direct opposition to the expressed wishes of the Irish people. By contrast, Sinn Féin is not afraid to stand up against EU measures which are damaging to Irish interests. Our policy on the EU is one of principled, critical engagement. This means that we decide to support or oppose the many and complex developments in the EU, each on its own merits, using the criteria of democracy, transparency and accountability, equality and human rights compliance, the effect on Irish sovereignty and the potential for promoting Irish unity.

One such area is the Hague programme. The time available to me to give it the attention it requires is grossly insufficient. Suffice to say that the Hague programme is fundamentally flawed, with its flaws exacerbated by an action plan which front-loads contentious measures relating for example to the transfer of sentenced persons, judicial and police co-operation ahead of measures relating to minimum standards in the taking of evidence, pre-trial detention procedures and work with respect to police standards. Elements of this action plan are dependent on the EU constitution. In light of its defeat, a moratorium should be introduced on the passage through this House of all further EU measures stemming from the Hague programme, pending the outcome of a full review and debate. I reiterate the demand I have made on several occasions, particularly on the Order of Business, for the need for a full debate on the Hague programme, the necessity for which has been acknowledged by the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his Department officials. I ask the Minister to include in his closing remarks a guarantee that this debate will take place and an indication of the date. It is important that we debate it. That is something that none of us would be either averse to or afraid of.

Sinn Féin has an electoral mandate to engage with EU policy by challenging the democratic deficit and all those policies that are adverse to Irish interests and promoting an agenda with quality and a meaningful act of citizenship within Europe. I stress a meaningful act of citizenship within Europe because that is what I believe we should be about. In the coming period Sinn Féin will continue to encourage genuine debate in this House and throughout the country on the European Union, its current policies and neo-liberal policy trajectory, and on the quality of the Government's representation of this and engagement with it. I look forward to the Minister's reply at the conclusion of the debate.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I spent some time this morning writing a five-minute speech to deliver this afternoon but I have decided to scrap it. I had intended to speak briefly about the EU budget, the foot-dragging that is taking place and the knock-on effect for the Structural Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the rural development funds and so on. I intended to mention that for the 11th year in a row the European Court of Auditors could not sign off on the EU budget and that the Finance Ministers last month refused to sign a declaration of assurances on their accounts.

I intended also to speak briefly on the World Trade Organisation negotiations and how Peter Mandelson is definitely going beyond his remit when it comes to agriculture and how Tony Blair does not seem to realise we have had Common Agricultural Policy reform. I intended to speak about the information deficit, referred to by many Deputies, and Margot Wallström and her plan D, where she speaks about debate, dialogue and democracy, so that citizens have some opportunity to know what is going on in the EU.

I was particularly interested in and taken with what Deputy Quinn said about the European week. It is an excellent suggestion to which I hope the Minister will pay attention. He is talking about a real, down to earth way of translating theory into reality so that people who are interested have an opportunity to see how EU legislation impacts on their lives and how it is not just something going on in Brussels. I hope the Minister will take note of what Deputy Quinn said as some of his ideas were excellent.

While all these points are worth making and the debate has been informative, citizens need more than information from the EU. They need to see results. They need to see the EU working for them, protecting their interests and making a positive difference in their lives. The reason I have decided to change what I was going to say was that I have come from Buswells Hotel where I met a delegation of pig farmers who are extremely concerned about their livelihoods under the proposed nitrates directive. These farmers got no help from the EU, yet these new proposals can literally put them out of business. That is real life. We can talk about information, the European constitution, globalisation — we need to do so — but if the EU does not work for its citizens, then to some extent it is all hot air because nobody is listening to us.

Pig farmers are genuinely concerned they are going out of business. This comes down to excessive regulation and changes in the regulation, for example, the amount of nitrogen considered to be deposited on land by a sow has overnight been increased from 67 kg to 80 kg with target indices reduced from three to two. I listened to the farmers and I said I do not know how anybody farms in Ireland because of the excess regulation with which people must live. Some of those decisions come overnight. How can those farmers trust the EU and trust it is looking out for their interests? One farmer said to me there is a global picture here. We all live on a small planet and we have a good deal of regulation here.

If pigs are being produced in Monaghan, Roscommon or Sligo, at least they are being produced under certain conditions. If Irish pig farmers go out of business, that pigmeat will be produced somewhere else in the world but not under the same kind of regulation. At the end of the day, those trying to save the planet to some extent are damaging it. That is a general statement and there are details in it that need to be worked out. As a general statement it is true.

There are other Irish farmers who must have traceability from farm to fork, and so they should. New veterinary legislation is being implemented which makes life more difficult for them. They must compete with imports from South America where they are not working on a level playing pitch and where animals are produced under very different conditions. European farmers are concerned that the European model of agriculture is not being protected by the EU. Other workers look to the services directives and hope their jobs will be protected while at the same time it will boost competitiveness within the EU.

I agree with what Deputy Quinn said about the EU Council of Ministers making laws in public. That is a decision that could be taken overnight and it is a positive sign to EU citizens.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This discussion is somewhat redundant given the rejection of the constitution by France and the Netherlands. Already there are some voices saying we must continue with the ratification process, that these countries cannot be allowed to stall progress, including Angela Merkel, who has been elected as the Chancellor of Germany. It is a pity people are arguing this point because these are the people who rejected the idea of a Europe-wide referendum, a proposition I put to the Convention on the Future of Europe. This would have operated with a double majority — a majority of citizens and a majority of states. It makes sense. It made no sense that a member state could have a veto on such an important issue. However, my proposal was voted down and those same people who voted down that proposal argue that a referendum is a crude instrument and one cannot give such an important decision to people.

Democracy should be at the heart of the European project. That is the reason a Europe-wide referendum is a good proposal. I ask the Minister to put that proposal back on the table. If the Minister says the French will have to vote again and if we are continuing with the ratification process, that means the French and the Dutch will have to vote again. If one thinks the French riots are bad now, they are a picnic compared with what will be experienced in France if this issue is put to them again. We Irish like to think of ourselves as rebels but, in fact, we are pretty docile and passive compared with the French. I ask the Minister to take that issue on board. We ought to have a Europe-wide referendum.

A constitution for Europe is not only necessary but desirable but this constitution, if we did have a Europe-wide referendum, would be rejected. We must go back to the drawing board. It is possible to get a constitution the people of Europe will support. I say the people because there is a democratic deficit. There is a European elite that is pushing a constitution which people do not want. The Minister will have to accept that. Let us go back.

There is no question there are good things in this constitution, including the opening up of European Council meetings. I welcome the citizens' initiative, the first draft of which I put forward. I welcome also a charter for fundamental rights but I refer to the Government's White Paper in which it is clear we have different interpretations of such a charter. Recently, I had a debate with John Palmer who said this charter of fundamental rights is fully justiciable. It is important because there is no doubt this constitution also enshrines neo-liberal values, as has been alluded to already. We need a charter for fundamental rights which is fully justiciable. There are right-wing elements in this Government that boast about the fact they and the British have stopped the charter for fundamental rights in its tracks. This document suggests that the Government has managed to stop the so-called horizontal clauses. Point 15 of Chapter 4 of the White Paper states: "An important distinction is made between rights and principles. Principles are not directly justiciable". I wish that they were. Examples of articles containing principles are those relating to the rights of the elderly the integration of persons with disabilities and environmental protection. The Government is stating that it has managed to stop progress in these areas, which I do not welcome.

I agree with Deputy Ó Caoláin that considerable spin is going on here. I do not welcome that the White Paper states: "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. But no specific requirements as to the level of military spending are involved, nor is there any binding requirement to increase it." The Government is trying to inform us not to bother our little heads about it, as it is not that important. I know it is important, as I was a member of the defence working group.

I want to comment on what the previous speaker mentioned. Environmental protection is very important. It is an area in which the EU has made advances, which is why I support rigorous EU environmental legislation. However, at World Trade Organisation negotiations environmental protection is often seen as a protectionist measure. Environmental protection must be integrated into the World Trade Organisation talks if we are to have a sustainable future.

The type of Europe I want is a social, sustainable, democratic and peaceful Europe.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Another Europe is possible — a Europe for the people. I ask the Government to work towards that goal.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Even though the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, will wind up at the end of the debate, I wish to make some remarks in response to some of the issues raised by the Deputies. Deputy Allen spoke about Iran and its nuclear capability. Ireland has full confidence in the EU three in this matter. As I have previously said at meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, we are briefed on a regular basis and were briefed on the current situation as recently as Monday. I accept that it is an extremely difficult and potentially dangerous topic, probably one of the most difficult on our agenda at the moment. The three member states are carrying out their discussions and negotiations with the full imprimatur of the 25. Their involvement on behalf of the EU has had a calming effect on a potentially more divisive international debate. It should be allowed to continue in this respect.

As always Deputy Quinn made very constructive remarks and suggestions on these issues. I entirely agree with him on the need to instil leadership in how we proceed in what is a difficult but not unique situation. The EU has been in difficult situations before. I agree with his suggestion for more public meetings of European Councils of Ministers. Ireland will continue to promote more transparency in these matters. If the constitution had been given a chance in that respect, this matter would have been progressed. He suggested better connections between the European and national parliaments in both decisions and the level of scrutiny. All parliaments need to know more. We learnt from the first referendum on the Nice treaty and we have introduced an element of scrutiny. Perhaps we should do more. I am open to considering some of the issues raised by the joint committee in that respect.

Deputy Ó Caoláin made a point about debate. It is a matter for the Whips to agree what can be debated in the House. I accept that in debates such as this we do not get a huge opportunity to go into issues in detail. However, this is one of the reasons for having the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs.

Deputy Gormley said that the European constitution was redundant. Whatever I am, I am a democrat. A number of countries have already ratified the constitution including two by referenda. What are we to say to those countries given that when we originally started on this road we agreed——

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government agreed the system.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy was part of the convention. It was agreed that we would endeavour to ratify and return later if any countries had not ratified. We need to allow the period of reflection and positive engagement which were the words that Ireland suggested at the meeting to discuss this issue.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the French vote again?

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Dream on.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will concentrate on a number of issues which occupy the attention of foreign ministers at the moment. While the Union can readily function without a constitution for some time to come, which is accepted, having adequate financial resources is an immediate and indispensable requirement. The EU's current annual budget is in the region of €100 billion which, although a very large amount of money, represents 1% of the combined wealth of the member states. The relatively small scale of its budget gives the lie to the notion of the Union as a super-state in the making. Clearly, it is not. Instead, the Union functions at a certain level to pool and augment national authority in agreed ways for our collective betterment.

The Union's budget is used for three main purposes: to fund the Common Agricultural Policy and rural development generally; to support the development of less prosperous regions; and to improve Europe's economic competitiveness in the face of intensifying international competition. Let us take the Union's agricultural spending as an example. The CAP is a pillar of the Union, without which European agriculture would be in real difficulty and Irish farmers would suffer. There are no grounds for being defensive about the CAP. Those who criticise it conveniently ignore that it has been repeatedly reformed to make it more cost-effective and market-oriented.

The CAP has been shaped by the member states to meet the Union's evolving needs. It has not been foisted on the unwilling as is often implied by its critics. Agriculture is the only policy that is fully funded at European level. Under the most recent budgetary proposals, CAP is destined to consume a declining portion of the overall EU budget and just over 0.3% of Europe's gross national income. This is hardly a disproportionate price to pay to sustain a world-class European agriculture with all that this entails in terms, for example, of animal health and food safety. The EU represents one of the best blocs in the world in this respect.

The EU budget's second priority is economic and social cohesion, which has benefited Ireland enormously over the years. It is clear that the new member states have particular development needs and that European funding is especially important for them. We can sympathise with their desire to catch up with the Union's wealthier regions as quickly as possible. For this reason, Ireland has stood squarely behind the principle of economic solidarity that lies at the kernel of the Union's success to date.

The third main strand of EU spending is in the area of competitiveness. The budgetary proposals made by the Luxembourg Presidency envisaged a substantial rise in expenditure in this field. It is generally agreed that the Union needs to step up its performance if we are to secure Europe's prosperity in a rapidly changing global environment. While the implementation of the Lisbon Agenda falls largely within individual national competences, it makes sense to augment the efforts of individual governments with a strategic approach at the European level, for example in pursuit of excellence in research and development. In these ongoing negotiations, we have argued for a budget that will be adequate to fund the Union's core policies. Even though we have become one of the wealthier member states, we have not used this as an excuse for curtailing the Union's budget.

The accession of so many countries whose economies are less developed than those of the existing membership has inevitable financial consequences and the Union must be prepared to face up to these. With such little time left, we have entered an intensive phase of the negotiations on the future financial perspectives for the years from 2007 to 2013. After a disappointing failure in June, when difficulties over the British rebate prevented agreement, we have a second chance to get it right in December. For the sake of the Union's credibility, we must grasp this latest opportunity. There is a particular responsibility on the current British Presidency to create the conditions for the agreement that so narrowly eluded us in June.

I assure the House that the Government's approach is designed to secure the best possible deal for Ireland in these complex and difficult negotiations. We will play our full role in the search for this much-needed agreement, which will have a tangibly positive impact on the future of the European Union.

The second priority issue for Foreign Ministers at present is the WTO negotiations which will reach a crucial stage at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting next month. The WTO provides another example of the important role played by the European Union. The Commission has been given the responsibility to negotiate on behalf of the Union. This ensures that collective European interests are represented in a manner that would not be possible if all of us negotiated separately. The Commission's negotiators are required to remain within the mandate given to it by the Council. I have had occasion to remind the Commission of this fact at a number of recent meetings.

Contrary to what many in the international media have said in recent weeks, the Union has been to the fore in trying to bring about a balanced WTO agreement. Positive proposals have been put forward while other parties to the talks have held back. As far as agriculture is concerned, the CAP reforms agreed in 2003 constituted an important EU contribution to the current trade negotiations. EU Foreign Ministers have made it quite clear that these CAP reforms constitute the limits of Commissioner Mandelson's negotiating brief. The Government will be extremely vigilant to ensure that these limits are respected. The final decision on the EU's response to whatever emerges in Hong Kong rests with the Council of Ministers. The issues do not just concern agriculture and trade issues. The WTO and Doha agenda are about looking after the world's poorest countries, and Ireland has emphasised that in all the discussions we have had at EU level.

I would like to have had time to touch on issues relating to the constitution. I reiterate that we have an opportunity for a period of reflection. I compliment the National Forum on Europe for the work it has done. The White Paper we have issued will allow people a period of calm and collective period of reflection and positive engagement, particularly through the National Forum on Europe and other bodies such as the European Movement Ireland, with which Deputy Quinn and a number of other Deputies are associated. We must continue to articulate calmly the positive nature of membership of the European Union. We must show the positive path of what we were trying to do with the European constitution, namely, to make the larger group of 25 more effective and efficient.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will share time with Deputies Boyle and Ferris.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue of the EU constitutional treaty. I will demonstrate a different perspective, but it is one that should be considered by all Members of the House. Unfortunately, people who provide an alternative or different view, particularly people who represent working people, are often dismissed by the EU bureaucrats who fail to listen to the people on the ground.

The experience in France and other countries has shown that the citizens of Europe are more open and broad-minded than many elected leaders think. I am reminded of what Victor Hugo said to the French Assembly in 1848: "What Paris advises, Europe considers; what Paris decides, Europe continues". The constitutional treaty is severely damaged. In a 70% turnout on 29 May, 55% of the French voters killed off the 448 article monstrosity. The Dutch voters buried it a few days later. These results have been greeted with shock and hysteria by European leaders and editors. They believed their own propaganda and can, therefore, only respond with incomprehension. Like the 18th century aristocrats, they peer over the parapets and remark that the French are revolting.

Since the European leaders and opinion makers are politically bankrupt, they resort to psychological terms to explain what has happened. They say it is an outbreak of madness and that the French thought they were voting against Chirac. Perhaps it did not happen. They believe that France and the Netherlands have isolated themselves and that we can continue as if it never happened. However, it did happen and it is important we recognise that. It happened despite the best efforts of government parties and the main opposition party. It happened despite the overwhelming support of the French media.

It is important we accept the reality that people have major concerns about the way Europe is drifting. They have major concerns that this European constitution and the proposed plans for other aspects of it are out of touch with them. The draft constitution is a plan for a more centralised, more unequal and more undemocratic Union, further removed from ordinary citizens and more under the control of the political elites of the big member states such as Germany and France.

Up to now the European Union has been based on treaties between its members. It has been the creation of its member states and could not exist without them. The proposed treaty establishing a constitution for Europe sets out what is legally and constitutionally a new European Union, founded on its own state constitution. It makes the European Union an international actor in its own right, with legal personality and independent existence. It is separate from and superior to its member states, and able to negotiate treaties with foreign states on behalf of its members. Member states would become provinces of a centralised EU state whose policies are decided by supranational committees, the European Commission and the Council and Court of Justice, which in turn are run by undemocratic elites that are not elected by citizens nor under their control.

The treaty establishing a constitution for Europe repeals all the existing EU-EC treaties from the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Nice and incorporates their main elements into an EU state constitution. This was an opportunity to reassess these elements, repatriate powers back from Brussels to the member states and remedy some of the things that are drastically wrong with the Union, for example, the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, EURATOM and the endless Brussels rules and regulations. However, the constitutional treaty makes no attempt to do this.

The people of Europe have not sought this EU constitution. Giscard d'Estaing's convention which drafted it failed to carry out the terms of reference given by the EU governments in the Laeken declaration. This called for "more democracy, transparency and efficiency" in the European Union, reforms that would bring the Union "closer to citizens" and the possibility of "restoring tasks to the Member States". The draft constitution does not propose restoring a single power from Brussels to the member states.

Article 1.10 of the constitution states: "The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States". This has never been stated in an EU treaty before. Moreover, it applies to all areas of government, not just the mainly economic areas covered by previous EC-EU treaties. This provision abolishes the political independence of the member states. Constitutionally and politically they become like provinces of an EU state, with their national constitutions and laws subordinate to the EU constitution and laws.

In this short contribution I have presented a different view of Europe. I like to have an international view of the world. I fully support countries co-operating and working together internationally. However, I do not support nor do I understand countries which want to interfere in the internal affairs of nation states.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Debate on the future of the European Union is always welcome, but a debate on the White Paper submitted by the Government on the future of the constitutional European Union treaty is a surreal event. This is a dead treaty. It is no more.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs may protest as much as he likes about being a democrat and say that two states have indicated support in referenda, but two other states have not. If we aggregate the four countries, the people have dramatically said "No" to this treaty, not to the European Union itself. The difficulty in the progress of the European Union is not with the idea of a European Union or whether it could and should progress, it is about the vision being imposed by too small a group of people that did not involve the wider populace of the European countries involved in membership. If that lesson is not taken on board by the elites which are involved in the decision-making processes in the 25 member states, further progress will be very difficult, if not impossible.

The Green Party has been constantly misrepresented as being anti-EU, even though it favours further integration and the continued development of a European idea. It does not want to see the development of a European Union that is not democratic and people-centred.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Gormley did not say that.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am in total agreement with Deputy Gormley. The Minister of State, his party and the Government refuse to listen to the Green Party's alternative vision of what the European Union can and should be. Rather than listening to the Green Party's ideas and working towards a better version of the European Union, those who have been making the decisions and advancing this process like a juggernaut have chosen to run a steamroller over people's opinions.

It is no coincidence that more often than not, people in EU member states have chosen to say "No" when EU treaties and other EU matters have been submitted to them for their opinions. I refer to the Danish vote on the Maastricht treaty, the French and Danish votes on the proposed European constitution, the Swedish vote on the European currency, the United Kingdom's attitude to EU matters and this country's vote on the Nice treaty. The involvement of the general populace in such decisions tends to happen too late in the day for people to feel any identification with the matters under consideration. Voters do not have a sense of ownership of what the European Union is and what it could be.

The Government White Paper on the proposed European constitution has been made even more ridiculous by the events of the last week such as the IFA sugar protest in Mallow. Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas were briefed yesterday on the position being adopted by the European Commissioner, Mr. Mandelson, at the World Trade Organisation talks. It is likely that any future referendum on an EU treaty will not receive the substantial level of support from the farming community that similar proposals have received in the past. The current circumstances of such people are far removed from the promises which were made to them in the past when the benefits of EU membership were being sold to them.

Many of us involved in the environmental movement are disappointed that the opportunity to remove the EURATOM treaty, which is an element of the European Union that is a relic from a bygone age, was missed when the draft European constitution was being written. The Green Party has argued that ensuring once and for all that the EURATOM treaty does not have anything to do with the European Union is one of the reasons we need a better constitutional treaty and a better way of organising the Union. It has even been suggested the proposed constitution could insert a sunset clause in the EURATOM treaty if it cannot be removed immediately.

Our failure to take action in this regard has allowed the Prime Minister of our neighbouring jurisdiction, with which we have had perennial nuclear safety problems, to say the United Kingdom needs to renew and extend its nuclear programme if that country is to comply with greenhouse gas targets and become more environmentally friendly. Ireland could make a better case for its opposition to the United Kingdom's approach if there were no EURATOM treaty, if Ireland were not a party to the treaty or if Ireland were not making a financial contribution as a result of the treaty being in place. Will the Minister of State clarify in his contribution to this debate whether he accepts that we need to address the realities I have mentioned when considering the future of the European Union? Such changes are needed if we are to bring about a better Union.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Despite or maybe because of what I have heard from Deputies Finian McGrath and Boyle, there has been a greater meeting of minds about the future of the European Union and the discussion on the European constitutional treaty in this debate than there has been in the House for quite some time. I do not doubt that the past 12 months have been quite traumatic and controversial for the European Union and the concept of further enlargement of the Union. Voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the constitutional treaty within days of each other. The sense of uncertainty that resulted from those referendums was compounded by the failure of the June European Council to reach agreement on the European Union's financial package. It is a great pity that it was not possible to reach such agreement. The uncertainty I have mentioned has been a feature of the UK Presidency. It is extremely unlikely that any significant progress will be made in the areas of budgetary procedure and financial perspectives in the near future.

I reject the view that the developments to which I have referred constitute a rejection of the European Union. I do not think that is what the Deputies opposite are saying, to be fair. It is time for us to listen to the wake-up call we have been given.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Vive la France.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Vive l'Europe.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tiocfaidh ár lá.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will tell Dessie that Deputy Carey said that.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The French did not take the opportunity they were given to make a contribution. I do not doubt that public confidence in the European Union has been damaged. Perhaps it was somewhat premature to try to agree a European constitutional treaty almost in parallel with the assimilation of ten new member states into the Union. Having spent 16 months watching what Deputies Finian McGrath and Boyle and others have described as the European elite trying to get their way, I think there may be some validity in what is being said. While it is true that all the documents, etc. were available on the Internet, I do not think they became bedtime reading for citizens in Ireland or any other member state. While a great deal needs to be done to restore credibility in the European vision, it is still possible to do that. National parliamentarians like the Members of this House have a responsibility to do something to assist that process.

The European constitutional treaty, as it should be called, has been parked and it is unlikely that it will be resurrected in its current form in the foreseeable future. However, national parliaments should take some aspects of it on board. I was in the Chair last Thursday when Deputy O'Flynn, who is the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, spoke in this Chamber about the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill 2005. Many of the Deputies who spoke about the Bill expressed amazement at the decision-making process that allowed the relevant EU directive or legislation to emanate from Brussels. This Parliament should do something about this.

The draft constitutional treaty provides that national parliaments should be informed about the origin of directives as soon as possible. We are talking about a six-week period. I do not understand why the Government and its EU partners cannot introduce such a provision at EU level, separate to the constitutional process. If such a provision were in place, Members would be unable to blame the so-called EU bureaucrats for something they know nothing about.

I have served with Deputy Allen on the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Some directives were referred to the sub-committee after they had been ratified, which meant that the Oireachtas had no opportunity to examine them. Even when we were able to assess various directives, we did not have a great opportunity to make an input. I do not think the process has improved since then. We should examine this aspect of the matter.

It has been proposed on many occasions that we should try to improve the level of understanding of the debate on EU matters by introducing a European week in the Oireachtas. There is huge merit in the concept of debating in the House the wide range of issues which form part of the EU debate. I accept that the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny of the Joint Committee on European Affairs does great work; there is no doubt about that. With the best will in the world, however, the media does not pay any great attention to the work of the sub-committee other than when the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, or the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Treacy, appear before it. The proposal I have mentioned would represent a way of doing something concrete about the lack of public understanding of EU matters.

There is a high degree of consciousness of EU matters among certain people in this country. I compliment the work of the National Forum on Europe which cannot be faulted for the level of energy it has shown in its efforts to ensure that people talk about EU issues. Young people from the National Youth Council of Ireland spoke about such issues in Dublin Castle some weeks ago as part of the process. Deputies like Deputy Finian McGrath and I, who come from a teaching background, spend a good deal of our time visiting schools. There is a greater awareness among young people of European issues now than there was. That is because young people travel, European issues are part of the transition year programme and organisations such as European Movement Ireland are able to provide awareness and training programmes on European issues. I thank the Minister of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs for securing a significantly increased contribution in this year's Estimates for European Movement Ireland. It will make a great different in increasing its capacity to make a serious input into debate on Europe.

As a small member state, our Presidency of the European Union was, by any standards, superb. The Department of Foreign Affairs officials, our diplomatic staff, the Ministers and the Taoiseach deserve to be complimented. Unfortunately, there has been a serious slowdown in the pace of progress. Perhaps that was inevitable but it is regrettable that the European Commission President does not always take a proactive role in ensuring that there is ongoing significant and wide-ranging debate on Europe.

We can talk about the reasons the Lisbon Agenda is beyond the understanding of most people. It is regrettable that when we talk about the Lisbon Agenda, we tend to talk about competitiveness and the influences of globalisation. The other side of that strategy, which is equally important, is the need for us to provide for those who are least able to provide for themselves and to ensure that the jobs of those who have them are protected and that they get better ones. The services directive derailed the debate on Europe throughout mainland Europe to a great extent and that was not addressed. The indications are that Commissioner McCreevy is now at least attempting to draw together the threads of that debate which were unravelling.

Despite what some people say, ratification of the constitutional treaty would significantly simplify the way that Europe works. In many respects whenever we revisit the question of the constitutional treaty, substantially the same measures will be contained in it.

I want to refer briefly to what Deputy Boyle said about the EURATOM treaty. Lack of progress on it was not for the want of trying. He will recall the work on it done by the Minister, Deputy Roche, and during the Intergovernmental Conference to try to reach consensus on the insertion into it of a sunset clause. I agree with what the Deputy said. We would not be in the lacuna in which we find ourselves if that had been addressed, although with the demise of treaty we would be back to square one as we are in other areas.

Ratification of the constitutional treaty will require us all to make an input by going around the country and persuading the persuaders that there is great deal in it to be gained by us all. People have referred to the greatly expanded customer base we would have, but I prefer to concentrate on issues such as the western Balkans. Whatever future there is for that part of Europe lies in the European Union being able to engage proactively in settling it down, for want of a better phrase. I do not want to divide further an already very divided part of Europe but I want to try to ensure that it can benefit from the same successes from which the rest of Europe has benefited.

This has been a useful debate probably more wide-ranging that we have had in a long time. The idea of European week might be explored on an all-party basis perhaps through the Joint Committee on European Affairs or some other mechanism. As a small member state committed to the European ideal, Ireland could significantly advance that idea. It would not be difficult to do that. With the exception of the member state next door which might not take on board such a proposal, I believe that otherwise it would be agreed with open arms.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. I am glad such prominent Opposition members are present to hear me speak. I am always happy to welcome such support.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are here just to hear the Deputy.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad the mood in the House is much quieter than it was this time yesterday, and I am sure the Ceann Comhairle is also pleased about this.

When I was elected to this House three and a half years ago, I took the view, and I ask Members not to hold this against me, that I would probably have a parochial enough view of politics and I would do little other than represent my constituency and its component parts.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That never occurred to us.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am often accused of mentioning Tallaght every chance I get. One of the benefits of being a Member, and I say this genuinely, is the opportunity to mix with colleagues from all parties as a result of which one discovers, as I already knew, that there is a big wide world out there.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What one is that?

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Such exchanges help to formulate one's views and it makes for good politics. I have also particularly enjoyed meeting politicians from other jurisdictions during the past three years. We had the opportunity to meet politicians from Switzerland today.

All Members have taken the odd opportunity to travel to other countries, observe the way in which other parliaments work and listen to what their politicians have to say. As the Ceann Comhairle will be aware, when one travels abroad as a member of a delegation from the Oireachtas, one discovers the great esteem in which Ireland is viewed abroad, particularly in the European Union but also elsewhere. That is something of which we should all be proud.

I am sure the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Treacy, will not mind my reminding him of the time we were in Shanghai together and our having a sense of Ireland having a very good image in China. Irish people living there were delighted to meet Irish people who had just travelled there from Ireland and were able to tell them what was happening at home. The image of the country abroad is superb. We should not be ashamed to stress that in a debate such as this.

I view myself not only as proud to be Irish but proud to be European. I come from a generation when the war was only over when I was young. People still had ration books and were poor. As I was growing up in the inner city, my family told stories about the war which was only over a few years. I bring to this debate my image of that time. In a world which to some extent has been turned upside down with all the conflicts and wars taking place, much has been learnt by European leaders and European countries during the past 60 years. That is significant and a point to which the Taoiseach has often referred. We should be clear about and proud of that, and long may it continue.

Colleagues will always have political points to make about the development of the European Union and I do not have a problem with that in such a debate. People are entitled to have those views. I am simply telling Members where I am coming from.

I want to talk about my town of Tallaght in a few minutes because it has benefited greatly from our membership of the European Union, about which I am pleased and proud. I am disappointed the Minister is not here but I know he is under great pressure——

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are discussing the EU draft constitutional treaty. Is the Deputy in order in having referred to Tallaght?

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am following the example of others. I listened to the Deputy's contribution and I am following his example. If I was out of line, the Ceann Comhairle would tell me very quickly.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He sure would.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know that is true. Colleagues have praised the work of the Minister and he has a broad remit. He made a fine contribution on European issues in this debate. I want to make one parochial reference, if I may.

One of the issues in which I have shown an interest in recent times, which is as much as European as a national issue, is the circumstances of Irish prisoners aboard. I have raised this issue on a number of occasions with the Minister recently. This issue obviously involves other countries, including member states of the European Union. We should be concerned about Irish persons who, for one reason or another, are detained in prisons abroad. I am glad the Minister has taken a particular interest in this subject. He agreed recently to arrange for the carrying out of a research project to identify the number of Irish prisoners abroad and their need for services. He informed the Dáil recently that the terms of reference for that study had been agreed. I single that out for special mention because the study will be carried out by my friend and colleague, Mr. Chris Flood, a former of Minister of State and a person whom I am proud to have succeeded in the Dáil. This is the first opportunity I have had to record my welcome for that appointment. It is right that we should do this. To keep on the right side of Deputy Finian McGrath, it is very much a European issue and I am sure he will support me in that regard. I would expect our views to be quite compatible.

I look forward to next Tuesday when we will have an opportunity of meeting the President of Cyprus. I have consistently raised the issue of Cyprus in the House because I have a particular interest in this matter. We all have an opportunity to meet the ambassador on a regular basis, and to meet other Cypriot citizens who inform us of the difficulties. I had an opportunity to visit both sides of the Cyprus divide 20 years ago. I saw for myself how such a division can affect people. It presents particular challenges for the European Union, especially in regard to the accession discussions with Turkey. The Minister of State should understand that this is something that draws a response from representatives on all sides of the House. Like other colleagues, I look forward to welcoming the President of Cyprus next week.

As other colleagues have said, any debate about the European constitution will obviously deal with European issues. As Deputy Finian McGrath and others have said, that is what happened in France and it will also happen in all the other countries of the European Union, which is fair enough. It is somewhat unfortunate that people would use a debate on the constitutional referendum to respond to politics as they see it, but they are entitled to do so.

I wish to refer briefly to Tallaght. I have often said that I was not born a politician. I am lucky to be a Member of the Dáil and I am delighted about it. Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle would tell the leader to lay off me and I might get a second term. Tallaght has benefited hugely from Ireland's membership of the European Union, as have other towns and counties throughout the country. I am very pleased and proud about this. Those Members who know Tallaght will know that European Union moneys were used in respect of the development of the institute of technology there which is now a tremendous facility that is drawing a great deal of praise not only from around the country but from abroad. Tallaght Hospital was opened seven years ago. Although I am not supposed to say so, the Ceann Comhairle was one of the Ministers involved at the start of the prolonged fight for that hospital who was so helpful to us. I was delighted to get to know him in those times. Europe has helped the third largest population centre in the country, which is Tallaght, in its development, not only with its roads but also in terms of the two institutions to which I referred.

The Tallaght person of the year award was held for the 22nd time recently. The guest of honour was the Dublin MEP, Deputy Eoin Ryan. As one would expect, he got a tremendous reception.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Were there flower petals on the streets of Tallaght?

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

His speech not only referred to Tallaght but it also referred to the European Union and the European constitution.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Marino, Clontarf and Donnycarney.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy O'Connor should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was late on a Friday evening and even though people invariably wanted to get on with their dinner, dancing and singing — as people do on these occasions, and Tallaght is no different to anywhere else in the country — Deputy Eoin Ryan got a very positive and warm response from the ordinary people of Tallaght, including community leaders, to his message about the European constitution and Europe in general.

It is good that we are having this debate and that counterpoints are being put forward. I am happy to debate those at any time. I appreciate the help the Ceann Comhairle has given me during my contribution.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is cúis áthais dom go bhfuil an deis seo agam freagra a chur faoi bhráid na Dála ar an ábhar an-tábhachtach seo, an tAontas Eorpach.

Just over a month ago I had the privilege of participating in a Seanad debate following the publication of the White Paper on the European Constitution, which is part of Ireland's engagement in an EU-wide period of reflection and national debate. That day I was struck by the depth of commitment and knowledge exhibited by Members of the Seanad. Today, it is clear that the same situation also applies in the Dáil.

It is evident from today's statements that there are differences among us. Some of these relate to macro issues such as the appropriate level of European integration while other concerns are more specific relating, for example, to particular economic or foreign and security policy issues. It is obvious too that there is one thing on which we all agree, whether we are pro-European Union, anti-European Union or somewhere in between. It is simply this: Europe really matters. It matters to every single person in Ireland, throughout the European Union, in our neighbouring countries and across the globe where many people view the European Union as a source of support and inspiration. Europe matters because every day brings new decisions and actions at a European level that impact positively on the lives of citizens and communities throughout Ireland and the European Union.

It has been said that although the European Union is critically important, we appear to only take it seriously when a crisis or a problem emerges and grabs our attention. The European Union makes the front pages when talks collapse, rows break out, or a national government has what is always described as a "dispute with Brussels". It is no wonder awareness levels are often low, while cynicism is frequently all too high.

As Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, my top priority is to raise awareness and communicate "with" rather than "to" the Irish people about what our membership of the European Union is doing for them. So much in our daily lives is better, thanks to the many measures agreed at a European level. A few tangible examples are lower telephone bills due to increased competition, compensation rights for delayed or cancelled air flights, food safety, environmental protection measures, free-to-air sporting events and free ATM withdrawals across the eurozone. This is not to mention the invaluable external work of the European Union around the world in the fields of foreign policy, trade and development, as outlined by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, earlier today.

These are the kinds of policies that cause people to say it is good that this is being done. They should give the people confidence in their legislators here in Ireland and in Europe. All of these policies have been negotiated in EU Councils by Irish Ministers and in the European Parliament by Irish MEPs. A record of up to 80 pieces of EU legislation was steered through under Irish leadership during our EU Presidency last year, most of them directly related to the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives of sustainable growth leading to a more dynamic and competitive Europe.

As I stated, Europe matters. It is without question a force for good in our daily lives and one of the key catalysts behind this country's transformation in recent decades. However, one cannot be blind to the challenges ahead. I have already mentioned the first challenge, namely building and maintaining awareness, confidence and engagement on the part of our citizens. Already, our EU colleagues look to Ireland as an example to follow in this area, with our successful introduction of parliamentary scrutiny and the excellent work of Senator Maurice Hayes and the National Forum on Europe that operates throughout the country. The Communicating Europe initiative continues to develop with recent projects, including the provision of assistance to the National Adult Literacy Agency for the production of Know your EU learning materials.

With the publication of the White Paper on the European constitution, the citizens of this country have an opportunity to become more familiar with the EU constitution's provisions. I hope they will do so. On this and on EU issues in general, I appeal to those of us involved in political life, Members of the Oireachtas and members of local authorities, to inform and engage with all of the people who elected us to represent them.

As I stated in the Seanad, we need to foster greater awareness of the European Union in schools, third level institutions, business organisations, voluntary bodies and political movements. Another challenge for the European Union as a whole is the need to take tough, courageous decisions on the big issues facing the Union in the short to medium term. As the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, have outlined, one such decision will be on the financial perspectives for the period 2007-13. As has been mentioned, we will work for the best possible outcome for Ireland and for the European Union as a whole. I sincerely hope the Government will be in a position to report to this House next month that final agreement has been reached at the December European Council. That is our goal and our wish.

The enlarged European Union needs a deal now. This is of particular interest to the new member states which rely on cohesion funding to help drive their individual domestic economies forward. This point was brought home to me at many meetings of the cohesion countries where I represented Ireland, to underline our continuing commitment to the principles of economic solidarity which lie at the heart of the European Union. These include the protection, preservation and sustainability of the Common Agricultural Policy which is a real policy pillar of the European Union and will be critical to its farmers and our farmers in the years ahead.

The European Union and its member states have many challenges, some ongoing, some immediate. Our job as legislators is to represent our country and secure the best outcome possible. On behalf of the Taoiseach and the Government, I thank all the Deputies for their contributions to this important debate on the European Union in Dáil Éireann.