Dáil debates
Thursday, 3 April 2008
Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008: Second Stage (Resumed)
1:00 pm
Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The main aims of the Lisbon reform treaty, as spelled out in its preamble, are to enhance the efficiency and the democratic legitimacy of the Union. This treaty is different from those that went before it. It was not produced behind closed doors, rather it was crafted in public. The reform treaty is not, as some would have us believe, the work of fevered minds with no mandate.
This treaty finds its origins in the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe, a body of 200 men and women drawn from the national parliaments of Europe and from the governments of the member states that did its work in public and listened to what the public had to say. It finds its legitimacy in the fact that it was uniquely constructed in a way that involved the people chosen by the voters of Europe to represent their interests.
A second and equally important point is that this is a balanced treaty that represents a particularly good deal for the small and medium-sized member states. The latter point should be bourne in mind by those who mindlessly sloganise about voting "no" to get a better "yes". There is no chance, nor is there a need, for a better "yes"; this treaty is good for Europe and great for Ireland.
I will outline what this treaty will do. It will enhance the European Union's democratic character; increase the role of national parliaments and the European Parliament; reform decision-making within the Union; and make the Union better equipped to deal with the real issues that are important to the lives of all European citizens, including every person on this island, issues such as globalisation, energy security, climate change and a more challenging international economic environment. The treaty will strengthen the voice of the European Union on the world stage; give effect to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; set out the European Union's powers and limits more clearly than ever before; and give specific powers to the Union to help combat international and cross-border crime.
The EU member states have invested years of work in producing this treaty. It is vital to the European Union's future. That fact is recognised by democratically elected governments, national parliaments and the vast majority of the members of the European Parliament.
The forthcoming referendum once again puts Ireland in a pivotal position. Without securing a "yes" vote in Ireland, this treaty will fall and the Union will be cast into a further period of introspection. That will damage the European Union but most importantly it will damage Ireland. Important as the treaty is for the European Union, its emphatic ratification is vital for Ireland.
Ireland's place is at the heart of Europe. We are a small nation that has carved a unique niche within the European Union. Ireland is seen as a member state that is fully committed to the European project. We are perceived as a player. We are viewed with goodwill. We have influence way above our size and are seen to punch above our weight.
Since joining the European Union, as was stated last night, we have made remarkable strides. Irish per capita GDP was 60% of the European average in 1973 but stood at 144% of the European average in 2007. The Single Market has opened up trade opportunities for Irish-based companies. Our exports to European Union member states increased from â¬45 billion in 1997 to â¬87 billion in 2006. We have benefited hugely from European Union transfer payments. Between 1973 and 2003 we received â¬58 billion in CAP, Structural Funds and Cohesion Funds from the Union. Membership of the European monetary union and the euro zone in a sense saw Ireland come of age.
The euro has eliminated exchange rate uncertainty for business and tourism and provided stability and protection in an otherwise volatile world. By far and away our biggest achievement within Europe has been the creation of 1 million extra jobs since 1973. Our workforce today at 2 million is twice what it was when we joined the Union. Most importantly, because Ireland is seen to be fully committed to Europe, we have been immensely successful in attracting foreign direct investment from right across the world. One recent study published in Brussels described Ireland's capacity to attract US foreign direct investment as "simply stunning". The same report made the point that as at the end of 2006 Ireland had attracted $83 billion US investment more than China, Russia, India and Brazil, which, combined, attracted $73 billion. Jobs flow from investment.
Because of the clear benefits of European Union membership, even those who initially opposed Ireland's joining the European Union must accept that our place is in Europe. We now have the bizarre situation where Sinn Féin, having fought tooth and nail against Ireland joining Europe and having urged a rejection and a "no" vote in every treaty, now proclaims itself to be committed to Europe, while again urging a "no" vote. That is an example of it trying to have it both ways.
If we were by any chance to reject this treaty, Ireland would not only create a major reversal for Europe but we would damage our reputation, we would squander the goodwill we have painstakingly built up as a nation over the years in Europe and by creating uncertainty we would send what IBEC has called "a worrying signal. . . into the board rooms" where decisions on foreign direct investment are made.
This is a good treaty. It aims to make Europe more democratic and more effective; to give us a better voice on the world stage; to enhance the rights of European citizens; to better define the limits within which the European Union operates; and to provide the Union with the capacity to deal with major challenges. I will deal with each of those issues. This more than any other treaty will improve the democratic character of the European Union. The European Parliament will have its powers dramatically increased, in terms of dramatic improvements in law-making and increased budgetary powers. It provides that the Parliament will directly elect the European Commission President. It will enhance the Parliament's role in any future treaty negotiations.
The big winners in this treaty will be national parliaments. They will be given a dramatically extended role. They will receive draft EU law at the same time as national governments; have a longer time to scrutinise draft EU law; be able to object to a draft proposal on the grounds that it breaches the principle of subsidiarity â the national parliaments are made the guardians of subsidiarity in this treaty; and have the right to veto any proposal to change an issue from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting.
The treaty contains a unique new initiative. It will enhance participatory democracy. A petition signed by 1 million citizens collected from a significant number of member states requesting the Commission to take a specific initiative must be addressed by the Commission.
A central aim of the treaty is to make the Union more efficient, more effective and better equipped to meet the challenges in the years ahead. It provides that there will be a new full-time President of the European Council who can be elected for a maximum of two renewable terms of two and a half years. The President's role will be to co-ordinate the work of the Council. The Council will become a fully-fledged institution. This new office will be more of chairman than chief; it will certainly not be that of a president of Europe to be feared by any citizen.
In the future, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, which currently rotates every six months between the member states, will be provided by a team of three member states working together over an 18-month period. This is hardly a dramatic step forward. This will share the burden of the Presidency, ensure continuity and help to integrate thinking in the Union. In Ireland's case our partners will be Greece and Lithuania. They could hardly be more advantageous. Our partners will be two other small states, neither of which has a lead role on temperate agriculture. This will be clearly to our advantage.
A new voting system will be used in the Council of Ministers. Under the new arrangements a qualified majority vote will require 55% of the member states and 65% of the Union's population. At present, Ireland has seven votes out of 345. The new voting system was selected because it is simpler, more efficient and easier to understand than the complex system of voting introduced in the Nice treaty. Under the new system, at least 15 member states representing almost two thirds of the Union's population must support a measure before it is carried. In other words, it is based on consensus. Another dramatic effect of the new voting process is that it reflects the dual nature of the EU, which is a union both of equal states and equal citizens.
To prevent the European Commission becoming too large and unwieldy, its size will be capped at two thirds of the number of member states from 2014. This is not a new idea. As Deputy Timmins observed yesterday, it was envisaged in the Nice treaty, which was endorsed by the voters. Under the new arrangements, the right to nominate a Commissioner will rotate on a strictly equal basis between the member states, large and small. When Ireland joined the EU, the large member states nominated two Commissioners while the smaller member states could nominate only one. Again, the principle of equality underlines this proposition.
Membership of the European Parliament has been capped at 751. Concern has been expressed that the Parliament was growing too large to be effective. The treaty provides that no member state shall have less than six or more than 96 MEPs. As envisaged under the Nice treaty, Ireland will have 12 MEPs. The new arrangement means that the smaller countries have proportionately more MEPs per capita than the larger states.
The EU institutions were designed for a community of six member states. The arrangements have operated for 50 years without fundamental reform. No business enterprise of any scale or importance would expect, 50 years after its foundation, to be operating on the same organisational basis that was put in place on the day of its foundation. The changes proposed in the treaty are not great but they will make Europe more effective for business and for its citizens.
A new post of high representative for foreign affairs and security policy will bring together two existing posts. These arrangements aim to enhance the co-ordination of EU activity in respect of third countries and generally improve the EU's visibility in external relations. The high representative will not replace national Ministers for Foreign Affairs or the national foreign services.
The treaty also provides for the better protection of the rights of EU citizens and raises those rights to an entirely new level. For those of us who have read it, perhaps the most admirable aspect of the treaty is the provision whereby the Charter of Fundamental Rights is made legally binding on the Union's institutions and on member states when implementing EU law. The charter sets out the rights enjoyed by the EU's citizens. These include the right to life, the prohibition of torture, respect for private and family life, the right to an effective remedy, the right to a fair trial, citizens' rights, such as the right to vote and stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament, and workers' rights, such as the right to information and consultation, protection in the event of unjustified dismissal, fair and just working conditions, and the protection of young people at work. Why would anybody object to that?
The charter draws its inspiration from the EU treaties, from international human rights law and from the constitutions of the member states. The values on which the European Union is founded â respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities â are spelled out more clearly than ever before in this treaty. Yet, a minority of Members of this House are calling for its rejection.
The treaty provides a more precise outline of the powers conferred on the Union by the member states. It makes clear that the EU has only those powers explicitly conferred on it â the principle of conferral. The subsidiarity principle provides that the EU shall only act if and only in so far as the objective in question cannot be sufficiently achieved at member state level. Under the principle of proportionality, the Union shall only act to the extent necessary to achieve the objective in question.
The balance of responsibility between the Union and the member states remains more or less as it is in most areas. However, there have been some grossly exaggerated comments regarding the number of areas that will move from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting. The most sensitive areas, including taxation, defence matters, common foreign and security policy, social security, citizens' rights, official languages and the seats of EU institutions, will continue to require unanimous agreement into the future.
Every EU treaty that has been put to the Irish people by way of referendum has become the subject of myths, distortions and untruthful efforts to confuse and mislead either by those, such as Sinn Féin, who have traditionally opposed Ireland's involvement in the European project or by the ad hoc opponents that spring up around each referendum. This treaty has given rise to a bumper crop of myths. These myths are propagated by an intriguing collection of opponents, the bulk of whom have no democratic mandate and none of whom has any record of delivery for this country. We have had claims that this is a self-amending treaty. More specifically, there have been claims about the loss of our neutrality, massive transfers of competences and powers, loss of influence through the new voting system, a reduction of our ability to prevent decisions that are not in Ireland's interests and the loss of an Irish Commissioner. Each of these myths is easily dismissed.
The self-amending treaty myth is precisely that, a myth. The treaty makes clear that any future treaty amendments "shall enter into force after being ratified by all member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". In Ireland, this means that any change of any significance at any future time will require a referendum.
The most enduring myth is that ratification will erode Ireland's neutrality. Sinn Féin has consistently peddled this myth for 35 years. In 1972, for example, campaigning against our entry into the EEC, Sinn Féin opposed accession on the grounds that the objective was "a united states of Europe with a European army". "Irish people", we were warned, would be "compelled to fight wars the European powers decide to wage". Our neutrality would be forsaken and compulsory military service for young people would be introduced. Opposing the Single European Act in 1987, Sinn Féin claimed it would "surrender power completely to the NATO-dominated EEC". Sinn Féin's opposition to the Maastricht treaty in 1992 was based on its prediction that it represented a "death knell for Irish neutrality". In 1998, Sinn Féin opposed the Amsterdam treaty with the argument that it represented "the most significant step towards a military common defence in Europe" and would "ensure that the nuclear-armed Western European Union" was integrated into the European Union structures. Opposing the Nice treaty in 2001, the leader of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams, who has been curiously absent from the current debate, said that the treaty would "bring us closer into a European army and into NATO".
The truth is that our Constitution prohibits participation in any common defence. It is a pity that Sinn Féin, having reluctantly and only recently recognised Bunreacht na hÃireannn, would not take the time to read it. The second referendum on the Nice treaty provided that Ireland may not accede to any common EU defence arrangement without the specific consent of the people in a referendum. This is part of our Constitution and will not change. Arguments that Ireland can somehow be involved in a common defence are without foundation.
The focus of EU policy is not warmongering but peacekeeping, crisis management and humanitarian tasks that are entirely consistent with Ireland's values and best traditions. The treaty does not require member states to increase military capacity. Some of its opponents would have us believe that the EU is about to undertake military adventures. Nothing could be further from the truth. The types of operations in which the EU is involved are based on peacekeeping efforts. In Aceh Province, for example, a monitoring mission was established to help build peace in a troubled region. The EU mission to the Western Balkans has stabilised an area that saw grotesque human rights abuses in the last decade. The humanitarian and peacekeeping operation in Chad, meanwhile, was requested by the United Nations.
The move to majority voting is another of those areas that has attracted an encrustation of myths. Not to be outdone by anybody in making false claims against the treaty, Sinn Féin charges that it provides 105 new competences to the EU and that a further 68 areas will move to majority voting. The reality is different. The treaty provides for 22 existing areas to be transferred to qualified majority voting. None of the changes is earth-shattering. The list was published in a recent parliamentary reply to Deputy Timmins. More than one third of the areas will apply to Ireland only if we opt in on a case-by-case basis. Sinn Féin has been asked repeatedly to publish its list of 173 changes but refuses to do so.
Another myth is that the new voting system halves Ireland's voting strength. Under the new procedures, as already mentioned, a proposal requires support from 55% of the member states, representing not less than 65% of the population of the EU, to be enacted. Sinn Féin and its fellow travellers in Libertas take into account only one element of the voting mechanism â population â in their criticism. This is like discarding the points scored in deciding who has won a hurling match.
The claim has been made that we will lose control over key decisions. This is also false. All of Ireland's key interests are protected. Taxation, defence and foreign policy will continue to require unanimous voting. Member states can veto any proposal by withholding support. We are retaining our protocol on abortion. The treaty does not give rise to any new barriers on Ireland's capacity to attract foreign direct investment.
Much is being made of the supposed loss of an Irish Commissioner. The members of the Commission have no national representative role â they give an undertaking to represent the interests of the EU only. Therefore, critics are telling just half the story in this instance. They omit to mention that this deal was struck in the Nice treaty, which the Irish people have already endorsed. I accept that the Commission will be smaller and more focused from 2014, but that is a good thing. Every member state will be treated equally when the Commission is being formed. The rotation system will be applied on the basis of strict equality. Under this treaty, all appointments to the Commission will be made on the basis of equal rotation among the member states. This is a demonstration of the equality of all member states. The myth that makes my cat laugh is that Sinn Féin is somehow pro-Europe. As I have already said, Sinn Féin has called for a "No" vote in every Irish referendum to date.
A huge amount depends on our decision, which will have an impact far beyond our shores. It will affect the lives of almost half a billion people across all 27 member states. The idea that we can "Vote No for a better Yes", which is a vacuous slogan, is a dangerous delusion, as is any suggestion that a "No" vote is cost-free. A "No" vote comes with a massive price tag. It would be seen in Europe as a rejection, serving no purpose, of almost a decade's work by the member states. If Ireland were to vote "No", we would not be kicked out of the European Union. The EU will not come to a halt in such circumstances â it will struggle on. The danger, however, is that a balanced treaty which gives huge benefits to small and medium sized states, will be lost. If we vote "No", we will squander the goodwill we have painstakingly built up since we joined the EEC 35 years ago. We will damage Ireland's reputation as the "can do" member state â the small country that gets things done. We will undoubtedly send what IBEC has called "a worrying signal" into the board rooms in which decisions on foreign direct investment are made and will continue to be made. That would have a dire economic effect on this country.
A further real danger, which has not been discussed very often, was identified in a recent series of perceptive articles in The Irish Times. I refer to the possibility, in the event of a "No" vote here, that larger member states will conclude that after ten years of trying to reform the EU, their efforts have produced no results. In such circumstances, stasis will stare the Union in the face. If such countries become frustrated, they may decide to fall back on bilateral arrangements. This would produce the two-speed Europe that small and medium sized member states fought long and hard to prevent when the Convention on the Future of Europe was being drawn up. One of the underlying themes within the convention was the need to create a Europe that is based on equality. Another concern that ran through the debate was the idea that a two-speed Europe might develop. Such an approach would destroy the "community method" and ultimately undermine the Union itself. The European project is underpinned by the essential principle that member states are seen to be equals and act as equals. To undermine that principle would have a high cost.
I believe this country will vote "Yes" for a variety of positive reasons. Not only do we want to avoid the pitfalls associated with a "No" vote, but we also want to show that we have a positive view of the EU. The Irish people will vote "Yes" because they value the peace the EU has fashioned on a continent that has frequently torn itself asunder with conflict. We recognise the generous role played by the EU in fashioning peace on this island. We will vote "Yes" because we value a more democratic EU that stands for the ideals and values we espouse. The Irish people are practical enough to vote "Yes" as a means of recognising that the best way to deal with major problems like globalisation, energy security, criminality and climate change is to pool our resources as we have done in the past. Above all, I believe Ireland will vote "Yes" because the vast majority of Irish people can see and are convinced that our development, our place as a nation and our future economic well-being are best served by keeping Ireland at the heart of the European Union.
Deputy Costello asked last night about the wording of the proposal to be put to the people on polling day. In essence, the people will decide on 12 June whether the wording contained in the Schedule to this Bill is to be included in the Constitution. I believe the answer to that question can, should and will be "Yes". Ireland has found its feet in Europe. Our future is in Europe. The best way to ensure that our future is good and positive is to vote "Yes" for Europe.
Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House and making a logical and informative speech. It can be difficult to get the message across, at local, national and European level, during referendum campaigns. I suppose that is the challenge we all face over the coming weeks. We will have to get the message across by transmitting the relevant facts without being seen to dictate to people. We will have to ensure there is an informed debate. I always welcome the opportunity to hear both sides of any debate. There is a great deal of information out there.
We have been through quite a turbulent time. There was a general election less than a year ago. Governments have fallen across Europe. The Taoiseach announced his retirement yesterday. It is now time to focus on the EU reform treaty. It is nice to see that people are uniting to get the facts across. I do not detract from those who oppose the treaty when I say that those of us who support it need to transmit the correct facts.
The Lisbon treaty was signed in the Portuguese capital by the leaders of the 27 EU member states in December 2007. The Government has been asked to ratify the treaty in 2008 with a view to bringing it into force in 2009. I will comment on some of the issues which arise from it. A politician will be chosen to serve as President of the European Council for two and a half years. That new structure will replace the current system whereby countries take turns in the Presidency role for six months. The existing system was all very well when there were just 12 member states. We were proud to excel ourselves when Ireland held the EU Presidency a few years ago. The current structure needs to be addressed, however, as it has become a little topsy-turvy since the Union expanded to 27 member states.
I am pleased that a new post, combining the jobs currently held by the existing foreign affairs supremo, Javier Solana, and the existing Commissioner for External Affairs and European Neighbourhood Policy, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, will give the EU more clout on the world stage. Such a position is needed in the context of the EU's dealings with major economic blocs like the United States and China, which is starting to come into consideration. I have always said that the US made huge sacrifices to bring a certain level of stability to the continent of Europe in tougher times, certainly during the First World War and the Second World War. However, a counterbalance to the US is needed. Just as President Bush is able to speak on behalf of a continent, there should be an individual who can speak on behalf of the European continent. While I do not suggest that the person in question should act as a dictator, it is important that one voice is heard. This development is to be welcomed. Restrictions are in place to ensure we will not have a dictator.
The treaty will establish a smaller EU Commission, with a smaller number of Commissioners than the number of member states, from 2014. There will be a redistribution of voting weights among the member states between 2014 and 2017. These aspects of the treaty represent a logical response to the expansion of the European Union. They are designed to ensure that the 27 member states work together more effectively. Ireland was to the forefront in supporting the enlargement process earlier in this decade, which has transformed the country. It has transformed the countries of eastern and central Europe and brought enormous benefits to established member states and the EU as a whole. The enlargements have fundamentally altered the shape, nature and direction of the European Union and reforms are certainly needed.
When we joined the EEC in the early 1970s, it could be argued that Ireland might have done better between achieving its independence in 1922 and that time. Our nearest neighbour, Britain, was fair to this country, but we were too dependent on the UK bloc. Any downturn in that economy was felt in Ireland. Many of us had parents, brothers, sisters and even grandparents who emigrated to the UK and indeed the United States. Membership of the EU has helped Ireland become a competent, vibrant nation and we can move on from there. We have been a beneficiary of European funds since accession to the EEC in 1973 to the tune of some â¬60 billion. Because of the Structural Funds investment one can leave Dublin now and be in the west of Ireland in under two hours. This would have been unheard of 15 years ago, certainly with the volumes of traffic we have. Ireland is a place in which to do business and the open market economy has helped. Completion of the Single Market has placed the emphasis on competitiveness, with the prospect of greater economic security for all. Certainly in these difficult times, economic security is a very good reason for seeking a stronger economic Union.
I am aware the reform treaty will allow Ireland to continue with its well-established tradition of military neutrality. We should be able to build on the work of our Defence Forces, as regards international peacekeeping. I was very proud during the Easter parade, 18 months ago, to see the great capacity of the Defence Forces on display for peacekeeping. It highlighted for most politicians present the great resource Ireland has in its Defence Forces. The constitutional prohibition on Ireland joining an EU common defence force remains in place and a triple lock means that no Irish troops may be deployed without Irish and UN approval, which is vital.
I read an article in The Economist recently which indicated another bloc is now on the horizon, namely, China. Within the last three weeks I have been approached by five different agencies as regards funding for various charitable works in Africa â housebuilding in South Africa, schools in Chad or whatever. Such initiatives are worthwhile and serve to illustrate Irish generosity. Europe should assist Africa in the development and utilisation of its resources. The United States has lost the concept of charity. It has gone into Iraq, I accept, but the â¬1 billion it spends every three days on that war could have meant an end to poverty in Africa if it had been spent there instead over the last five years. That point was made to me by an aid worker who is based in Africa. Money on its own will not solve the problem, but together with goodwill and a strong European Union, it will certainly help the situation inordinately. Europe colonised Africa and we plundered most of that continent's resources. It is now time that a strong Europe tries to help amend the harm that has been done there. There are huge opportunities and a stronger Europe can help sort out the situation in Africa.
Also, there is a new China, The Economist argues, which is putting serious money into infrastructure. China may seek to exploit African mineral resources. I have some knowledge of the mining industry and believe that China is investing in every small mining company around the world. It needs energy. Europe should be at the forefront, however, not in exploiting that continent's mineral resources but rather in working with the African nations. The Fair Trade coffee model might be employed, for instance, to enable Europe to work with these nations as partners to try to ensure they get the best possible return from their mineral resources.
The reform treaty will, I believe, improve Ireland's ability to attract foreign direct investment and increase access for Irish business to international markets. We have a growing vibrant economy and many Irish people have purchased property in Europe and are investing where they see opportunities. Some very good opportunities are to be found and indeed there are bad opportunities on offer, too, as I know from personal experience. I was one of those who bought property in Bansko. However, there are great opportunities for a resurgent Irish economy within Europe. That can only be helped by liberalising markets and ensuring more business opportunities. There is a young vibrant market there that we can tap into.
The Council of Ministers new voting system will make decision making more efficient and provide a greater role for national parliaments as regards how the Union works. It will mean we will be much more accountable to Europe and that is to be welcomed. Also, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is to be given binding legal status. Europe has edged Ireland towards a much better form of democracy. There are problems and people can say all that is being done is making green bananas yellow or whatever. However, membership of the EU has made a fundamental difference to this country and that is to be welcomed. If the treaty is passed it should come into force in 2009. However, its different parts will come into effect at various times. I urge the Irish people to examine the questions and perhaps look at the answers we are able to give. We have had a positive 35 years within Europe, we have much to offer and I am very willing to support the treaty. Ireland and the United Kingdom can opt out of EU policies on asylum, visas and immigration. Under the new treaty, they will have the right to opt for or against any policies in the entire field of justice and home affairs. This is welcome. Poland is due to sign up to the guarantees and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The treaty is cumbersome but comprises an effort to involve every country and make every country happy therewith.
Ireland is the only country committed to holding a referendum, which is to take place in June. The Irish voters rejected the Nice treaty in 2001 â I will not use the term "setback" in this regard. As politicians we did not get the message across and were very ambivalent about it. We must not tell people how to vote but give them the facts. The Irish electorate is quite sophisticated and I hope it will take on board our contribution.
It is claimed that Ireland will lose an EU Commissioner but making such a claim is to misunderstand the nature of the Commission and its relationship to the Parliament and Council of the European Union. There is no such being as an Irish Commissioner although there is a Commissioner from Ireland. It is too tribal to state the former. The 166 seats in the Dáil do not belong to individual Members, such as myself or the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, but to the people of Ireland; this is what democracy is about.
I am glad I had the chance to speak on the reform treaty. The bottom line is that it is good for the European Union, including Ireland. It certainly gives the European Union structures that can make it efficient in the 21st century. Business and life evolve and in this regard the treaty builds on what we have achieved over 35 years. It can make the Union better for all.
Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am very pleased to participate in this very important debate on the future of Europe, and more particularly the future of the entire island of Ireland. The treaty is designed to ensure that the European Union will become more efficient and effective in carrying out its business and making decisions. Any good company, after 50 years in existence, will always update its organisational structures and the European Union is no different.
Since 1973 the Union has enlarged. It emerged first and foremost from the European Coal and Steel Community and then from the European Economic Community. In 1957, when the founding fathers established the European Economic Community, it did not comprise six large countries but three large countries and three small ones. These were the large countries of Italy, France, Germany and the small Benelux countries of Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland. The interests of the three small ones have always been protected, as have the interests of our own small country.
Key changes will be effected by the reform treaty. One welcome development will be the appointment of a President of the European Council. The President will co-ordinate the work of the EU leaders at European level. He or she will not have any power as the power will rest with the Council. A new High Representative will have responsibility for foreign affairs and security policy and will only be able to act with the agreement of the 27 member states of the Union.
The Council, representing the Governments of the Union, and the European Parliament, will have just 33 new powers and not over 100, as some are suggesting. These powers, by and large, will pertain to justice and home affairs issues. They will help the Union to tackle issues such as illicit drug trafficking into Europe. All of the 33 new powers will not necessarily pertain to Ireland because of our opt-out clause in respect of justice and home affairs.
National parliaments will be consulted on all new EU legislative proposals. This is a very welcome development and it will afford Members of the Oireachtas greater input into the development of the Union.
The treaty is to ensure that the Union will become more structured. It sets out how it will deal with the new political challenges, be it climate change, the protection of energy supplies or the tackling of illegal immigration. There is nothing hidden in the treaty. A more effective and efficient Union will further the development of the European economy, including that of Ireland. This in turn will help to implement the Lisbon strategy, which is designed to ensure the Union will become the most competitive body in the world by 2010. It is in our own best interest politically and economically to vote in favour of the treaty.
As an island economy, we have depended on and will depend on inward investment. One of our key selling points in attracting industry is that Ireland is at the heart of the European Union, punching above its weight, at the same time as being on the periphery. We attract companies that use Ireland as a gateway to the EU market of 500 million people. Locating here offers free access to a market for goods and services. I refer not only to inward investment but also to indigenous industry.
Companies from around the world want Ireland to be active and a leading and central member of the European Union. A "Yes" vote will ensure this. A "No" vote would send out the wrong message and investors globally would take the view that Ireland is moving away from the European project and establishing a more distant relationship with the Union.
There is no valid economic argument to vote against the treaty. When we joined the Union in 1973, the value of foreign direct investment was the equivalent of â¬16 million. In 2006 alone, we exported goods and services valued at over â¬56 billion to the other 26 member states without having to pay any tariffs. In 2007, 136,000 IDA Ireland jobs generated over â¬3 billion in corporation tax, helping our major spending programmes. It was suggested time and again that the higher the taxes, the more income we would have, but of course the opposite is the fact. We in this country have seen that the policy of lowering taxes, whether income tax, corporation tax or whatever, adopted by the Government over the past ten or 11 years has led to greater income to finance our various ambitious, yet realistic, plans.
When we joined the European Union in 1973 there were only 1 million people employed in this country. Now there are 2 million people employed in Ireland. Had we not joined the European Union, had we not played an integral part in the European Union, I venture to suggest that we would be well off that 2 million jobs mark.
Regardless of the part of the country from which we come, we all have witnessed the benefits of the single European currency, for consumers and businesses alike, with the elimination of the exchange rate risk. When I went to the European Parliament in 1974 to represent the constituency of Connacht-Ulster we had to carry various currencies with us. If I went through Northern Ireland, I needed sterling. Depending on where I was going, I needed currencies for Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, whereas the introduction of the euro eliminated all those currencies in the best interests of the citizen and, more particularly, in the best interests of the economy of Europe.
It is only because we embraced globalisation that we achieved success. Today the most objective observers, even those who might be critical, would agree that we have a successful country, a strong economy, low unemployment, sound public finances and a major programme of investment. Of course we face challenges, but we have faced challenges in the past and we will face challenges in the future, and I believe we will overcome them.
The European Union is a cause for peace in Europe and, indeed, here on our island. When the founding fathers met in the early 1950s they took the view that Europe had been ravaged by wars dating back to the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, the First World War from 1914 to 1918 and the Second World War from 1939 to 1945. They took the view that they did not want successive generations of Europeans to experience this and arch enemies sat down and decided that they would strive to unite Europe. We are well on the way to achieving their objective to have a peaceful Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.
Speaking of the importance of the peace process, the European Union has played a key role in helping the peace process in Ireland. The Single European Act removed the economic border in this country and that was one of the major steps in the overall peace process. The European Union has contributed â¬1.6 billion in support of the peace process in this country since 1985.
I remember well being in Europe when the cessation of violence was announced here. Jacques Delors, then President of the European Commission, stated that Europe would respond in a positive and pragmatic way, and he and Europe did that. The only vehicle that was available at that time was the International Fund for Ireland and, with unanimous approval from the European Parliament, Europe's contribution towards the International Fund for Ireland was immediately increased. That fund has created thousands of jobs with hundreds of projects on both sides of the Border.
Through the years of violence and division, European leaders and the institutions played a key role, sometimes behind the scenes, in encouraging a move towards peace and a shared future based on equality and fairness. The public face of the European Union in Northern Ireland and in the Border counties has been the EU peace programme. I was privileged to be a member of the European Parliament at that time representing the Border counties, when we had unanimous approval for funding towards the European Programme for Peace and Reconciliation, with 75% of those funds coming from the European Union and the other 25% coming from both Governments.
As one who comes from a Border county which has suffered economically, possibly more than any other countyââ
Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
ââbeing geographically North and politically South, with the Atlantic Ocean on one side, Northern Ireland on the other and a border of seven or eight kilometres with the South, I remember in those days it was very difficult to attract tourists and industry. I remember when Senator George Mitchell played such an important role in the peace process a business conference was held in Washington and I did an exercise on inward investment which showed that very few American companies were located in the Border counties and Northern Ireland. I believe that will now change because of the peace process and the stability in this country, and I wish well the business conference that will take place in Belfast in early May of this year.
As I stated, the European Union has played an important role in the International Fund for Ireland set up under the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the mid-1980s. Through that fund, the Union has promoted economic growth on the island. It has encouraged contact, dialogue and reconciliation between Nationalists and Unionists in Northern Ireland and on both sides of the Border, and has gone a long way to achieving the objectives set out by those responsible for the International Fund for Ireland and of course the European Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.
It is important to remember that prior to the European Programme for Peace and Reconciliation, we in the Border counties received INTERREG and the mainstream funds such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the European Social Fund, but the then Members of the European Parliament such as myself, Joe McCartan, Mark Killilea and, in the North, Ian Paisley, John Hume and Jim Nicholson made clear at that time that we wanted this to be additional, and it was. Too often new funds substitute for others, but this did not happen and that made a real impact.
In addition, funding has been provided through the European Regional Development Fund for general cross-Border co-operation projects between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland under the INTERREG programme. Total INTERREG funding for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland from 2000 to 2006 was â¬182 million. As the House will be aware, INTERREG has been mainstreamed for the period 2007 to 2013 under the financial perspective which will be known as territorial co-operation.
I realise from the debate that has just started throughout the country that there will be scaremongering during the course of the referendum campaign. We will be told that a vote for the treaty is a vote for Peter Mandelson and an end to the Common Agricultural Policy. We will be told that by signing up to the treaty, Irish agriculture will run into difficulties. These allegations are wrong and dishonest. I appreciate there are concerns about the WTO and the attitude of Peter Mandelson, but he takes his brief from the General Affairs Council. Our Ministers at the General Affairs Council and the Ministers in agriculture and trade will do their utmost to ensure the outcome of the WTO will be fair and balanced and that there will be no major detrimental consequence for Irish agriculture.
If we turn our back on the Union and vote "No", I do not believe we will be cut off from regional and cohesion funding. However, if we do that, it will be extremely difficult for us to travel to Brussels and negotiate preferable treatment for Ireland in a Union of 27 with competing interests and demands.
2:00 pm
Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Over the years we have punched above our weight and have been highly regarded in Europe. I think, in particular, of the periods when we held the Presidency, in 1994-95 when Deputy Quinn was a Minister and more recently when we negotiated this treaty. There is no major change in the treaty. Why would the Government negotiate a treaty which would be anti-Ireland?
Much depends on our decision, which will have an impact far before our shores. If we vote "No", that decision will have a detrimental impact for future generations and they will never thank us for it. Our decision will have an impact on the lives of approximately 0.5 billion people in the European Union. We must ask ourselves, as we face into the referendum, whether we should listen to those elected by the people of Europe to speak on our behalf, to people with a track record, to leaders who have made a positive contribution or to other voices or people who, although probably sincere, have been wrong in all their predictions about Europe. In every referendum since 1973, Sinn Féin has told us we were taking the wrong decision. It has said the same this time. I believe the Irish people will prove them wrong.
Let us vote in the referendum on the basis of the treaty and not on any other basis. People may have local or national grievances, but this is not the time to express their views by voting "No". This is the opportunity to vote for the future of the country and to vote for future generations.
Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on Second Stage of the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 on the Lisbon reform treaty. I am delighted also that the Taoiseach named the date for the referendum, Thursday, 12 June 2008. This gives all parties the opportunity over the next few months to go to the people and explain the treaty to them. The people need to have it explained.
The Fine Gael Party supports the Bill and we will encourage a "Yes" vote over the next few months. As a party, Fine Gael has taken its responsibility seriously and will take the campaign to the people. We have already commenced this with meetings in Sligo and Cork. We had a large attendance at those meetings and found the meetings constructive. We had expert speakers who explained the treaty to the audience.
We will have approximately 30 meetings throughout the country at various venues. The meeting in my Clare constituency will be on 6 May, next Tuesday. Our party leader, Deputy Enda Kenny, who is a committed European, will attend many of these meetings. I am delighted he has invited the European People's Party, EPP, group to Ireland and it will attend a summit meeting in the Shelbourne Hotel on Monday, 14 April 2008. We expect there will be a number of European leaders at that summit meeting, including the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Some 11 heads of Government are members of the EPP group. It is the largest group in Europe and is a very committed group.
The meeting will have nothing to do with the reform treaty as it is an extraordinary meeting to deal with other European affairs. It is a matter for the Irish people to deal with the referendum themselves. However, I am sure party leaders who will attend the summit will have a keen interest in the Irish situation. As many previous speakers have said, Ireland is the only country out of the 27 European Union members that will put the treaty to the people in a referendum. All eyes will be on the Irish over the next few months to see whether they will ratify the treaty.
I am confident the treaty will be ratified. We have an educated electorate and they will realise that Europe has been good to them and that by ratifying the treaty, Ireland will play its role. I congratulate the Polish Government on its ratification of the treaty this week in Warsaw.
Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It did so by an overwhelming majority of 80% to 20%.
Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, and it is a country that has just joined the European Union. It is the seventh country to have ratified the treaty. We already had Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Malta, Slovenia and recently France, at an elaborate ceremony in Versailles.
What are we asking the people to vote for in June? Many of the people do not know the provisions of the Lisbon treaty or for what they are voting. The outcome of our vote in June will affect the lives of almost 500 million people in Europe. We all remember what happened with the Nice treaty. It was rejected and not ratified at first, and much of the blame for that goes to the political parties who did not do their job. We ratified it second time round, but what would have happened if we did not? Our ratification gave countries like Poland and other post-communist east European countries an opportunity for a better life. Now we have many of these people working throughout Europe and in Ireland and playing an important role in building our infrastructure and providing for our future needs.
Referenda are complex, but not very exciting. The Lisbon treaty is no different in that respect from previous treaties and must be explained in simple terms to the electorate. Since the formation of the EEC in 1957 when there were six members, the EU has changed significantly. We joined in 1973 with Denmark and the UK. EU membership has been good for Ireland and since joining we have created approximately 1 million jobs and received almost â¬58 billion in transfer payments. That amounts to approximately â¬15,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Irish citizens have the right to move, work and reside freely in other member states. Many of our young people are doing that and vice versa. Many people from Poland and other post-communist countries are moving to this country and playing their very important role here. Of course, the introduction of the euro has made travel within the EU more convenient and much more effective.
A total of 960 foreign companies employing 960,000 workers have set up in Ireland. We also enjoy free health cover when we travel to other countries. Irish is now an official language in the EU. Average wages have increased from 60% of the EU average in 1973 to 138% today. Over that period, we have built nearly 500 km of motorway. We have come a long way. I would certainly like to see more motorways built throughout the country but it will happen. Europe has played a very important role in building those motorways through finance from the European Structural Funds.
These are just some of the benefits of our EU membership. There have been many treaties over the past 50 years since the formation of the EEC. These treaties are designed to improve the Union. In 1986, we voted "Yes" in a referendum on the Single European Act, which established a single market and improved our competitiveness. Look at the international markets that have opened up to us. In 1992, we voted for the Maastricht treaty, which paved the way for monetary union. In 1997, we voted for the Amsterdam treaty, which added to the previous treaties. In 2001, we voted for the Nice treaty, which dealt with the enlargement of the union to cater for the 25 new members at that time. Since then, two more countries have been added to the Union.
These treaties are necessary to cater for expansion in the way the EU operates. It is quite obvious that since 27 countries are now members of the EU, it is much harder to operate than it was back in 1973 when we joined and there were only nine countries in the Union. Therefore, these changes have to be made from time to time in order to enhance efficiency and the way democracy works in the Union.
The main provisions of the Lisbon treaty, as explained by the Minister last night and Deputy Timmins, will provide national parliaments, including the Dáil, with a new wider role in EU affairs. It will develop the role of the European Parliament and introduce a citizens' initiative which gives EU citizens a direct role in EU matters. Under this rule, a person with one million signatures from a number of member states can request the European Commission to bring forward proposals for new laws. It will reform the decision-making process within the Union and will set out the EU's powers and their limits. The EU reaffirms its commitment to consensus in decision making and respects the rights of smaller member states. That is the key in this treaty and the EU itself. Under the new proposed voting rules in the Council of Ministers, a double lock will operate which requires proposals to get the support of a majority composed of 55% of EU member states representing at least 65% of the EU population. In addition, even if all large member states voted the same way on a particular proposal, the support of at least nine small member states would be required.
There has been concern for some time that the European Commission is becoming too large and difficult to operate. There are 27 Commissioners and each country has a Commissioner. Under the new treaty, the Commissioners will be limited to two-thirds of the number of member states. If there are 27 members at the moment, we will have 18 Commissioners. That would make it more like our Cabinet. I know the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, knows that 15, 16 or 17 is more than enough people at a Cabinet table. Where one has 27 members, it is much more difficult for decisions to be made and for consensus to be reached. It is much more efficient and effective to have a Cabinet-type Commission. It will be stronger and much more cohesive. Membership of the Commission will be organised on a strict rotation basis. Each member state will have a Commissioner for ten out of every 15 years. Importantly, this will apply to the large countries as well as small ones. Countries like Ireland and Luxembourg will be treated in the same way as the bigger countries. We all know that in the past, Germany, Italy, France and Great Britain had two Commissioners, while we had only one. All these countries will now be treated in the same way. This demonstrates how small countries are being looked after by the EU and the treaty and that they are being protected. The same can be said for the European Parliament where no country, no matter how small, can have fewer than six MEPs and where the larger countries can have no more than 96. We have 13 MEPs, a number that will be reduced to 12 for the next European elections.
The treaty also contains provisions on fundamental rights. It gives legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and allows EU ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is also very important in light of what is happening throughout the world in respect of human rights in areas like Zimbabwe, Tibet and Burma. On the external role, a new permanent President of the European Council, who will be elected for two and a half years by the Heads of State and Government, will drive forward the EU and will report back to the European institutions. A new high commissioner will ensure consistency in the EU's dealings with foreign countries and international bodies. It is very important that we have someone like that to represent and have the backing of the 27 member states.
For the ordinary person, the Lisbon treaty is not exciting. Ordinary people do not see millions of euro coming to the country as a result of it. However, it will improve efficiency and create better and more open procedures. When one has 27 countries, one has different styles of government, economies, cultures and aspirations. One must have a new treaty to deal with those challenges and that is what the Lisbon treaty is all about.
I have no doubt that those who oppose the treaty will come out with the same arguments they produced during other referenda debates in the past. They will claim that the treaty will raise taxes, create a superstate, cost us money and lead to free availability of abortion and stem cell research. The other argument is that we will be forced to join a European army. These are just some of the arguments these people will come up with. Of course, they have a right to oppose treaties. That is what democracy is all about. However, I firmly believe that their arguments must be valid, based on fact and relate to what is contained in the proposed treaty. Their arguments must not be based on exaggerated and untrue claims that are intended to scare the electorate and create an atmosphere of fear.
Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The treaty will not raise taxes because it contains no reference to a common tax policy. Ireland will retain control of its own tax policy and tax rates. The treaty does not create a superstate. It safeguards our sovereignty and sets out the areas for which the EU has responsibility and its limits. It will not lead to abortion and stem cell research. The opposite is the case. Health policy is a matter for each individual country. We will not be forced to join a European army. Our neutrality is fully protected. European military activity is directed at peacekeeping and crisis intervention and participation is an option for any country. We have heard this argument over the past 40 years and it is not true. We must bring that debate to the people. I have attended a number of meetings on the treaty and this is the story that comes up all the time. I am asked whether we will have a super state and be conscripted into an army. That debate must be brought forward by all the political parties.
The treaty also gives a legal basis for combating climate change. This is the first time this issue has been included in an EU treaty and it is most welcome considering what could happen to our environment over the next decade. It is much easier for a European Union of 27 countries to deal with climate change on a broader basis than for one small individual country to deal with it. I welcome that part of the treaty.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is present in the Chamber. In the area of justice and home affairs, particularly combating international terrorism, drug and human trafficking, the reform treaty provides for majority voting in the fields of criminal law and police co-operation. While there is scope for all people to cross borders freely, there is also scope for criminals to cross borders freely. There must be police co-operation in all areas to prevent drug trafficking in the free movement area.
The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, referred briefly to the farming community. For the first time, the European Parliament as well as the Agriculture and Fisheries Council will have a say on agriculture issues. Farmers will be able to lobby and influence their MEPs on matters of concern in agricultural policy. These are just some of the facts in the Lisbon treaty.
I am a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, which is chaired by Deputy Bernard Durkan. Many groups have appeared before that committee in recent months, including the social partners and other groups with an interest in the treaty. The committee has a role to play. Next week we will meet some of the opponents and it will be interesting to hear what they have to say. The social partners have a very important role to play in actively promoting the treaty, particularly those in favour. Sometimes people do not have confidence in politicians which is why organisations like the IFA and IBEC have a very important role. The Joint Committee on European Affairs will take the information campaign to the electorate and will visit five or six different venues in the next three months. We will have speakers and will give information on the treaty. We hope that those meetings will be well attended. This is a good treaty that is ambitious, balanced and looks to the future. I commend the Bill to the House.
Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak on this debate on the reform treaty. It is an important development in Europe and there are compelling reasons for Ireland to support it. My favourite definition of Europe has always been that of General de Gaulle, that Europe should extend from the Atlantic to the Urals. We have gone a long way in that direction since we became members of the European Economic Community in 1973.
Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not sure we want to go that far.
Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am surprised at the Deputy. Of course I am not suggesting that under this treaty we will go that far. However, I am making the point that we have gone a long way in that direction. Therefore it is important that we look at the European institutions to ascertain how they can be more efficient and responsive to their citizens and to the national parliaments in the member states.
Throughout our membership, we have been asked at regular intervals to approve treaties which have been the building blocks of the Union as it evolved. Each major step taken by the Union now seems self-evidently to have been the right one. However, that was not always appreciated at the time. The prospect of change intimidates even to the point of stopping us from taking the decisions that are needed and from looking in an objective way at where the best interests of both Ireland and Europe lie. Each major advance by the Union took courage and a belief in the future of Europe. The reform treaty represents the latest stage of the evolution of the European Union. It paves the way for a more effective EU which can serve the needs of Europe, and thereby the best interests of Ireland, in the decades ahead.
The treaty is long and technical in nature and as such does not easily lend itself to campaign slogans and soundbites. In general, EU issues do not generate the kind of excitement and enthusiasm often associated with the cut and thrust, and adventures and misadventures of domestic political debate. I am reminded of another great Frenchman, Jacques Delors, who once said: "You cannot fall in love with the single European market." The French, after all, are the great authorities on love in the modern world. While it may be difficult to form a passionate attachment to the terms of a treaty, we cannot deny its importance to the development of the EU and its internal workings for the foreseeable future. The treaty will give the Union the flexibility and the capacity to face many major challenges that Europe faces in the decades ahead. There is no doubt that there is a need to restructure the workings of the Union to take account of its enlarged membership and the various issues now confronting Europe.
Opponents of the reform treaty use a number of lines of attack. It is suggested that they are not against the Union even though they campaigned against every previous referendum on the matter. It is acknowledged that Europe has achieved for Ireland and I am glad that that grudging admission can now be wrought out of those who oppose the treaty. However, it is then suggested the treaty will take the Union in a negative direction. Deputy Breen spoke about this in his contribution. I was very interested in his contribution, particularly in the later stage where he listed a series of false suggestions that are commonly propagated about the European ideal. It is disturbing in our domestic debate on Europe that every time we have a European referendum the same issues are produced: neutrality, abortion, a military super state and conscription. All these subjects are raised even though they have nothing to do with the treaty. While of course we have full sovereignty in these matters and it is important that we debate them as a Parliament, it seems extraordinary that these subjects are only debated when we have a referendum on Europe and are no longer debated on their own intrinsic merits and demerits. That is as it lies and is the system with which we must argue.
There will of course be the argument that has been made in every referendum since 1972 that there will be an erosion of national sovereignty and the emergence of a European super state. We have argued all this before and we have had all the warnings in predecessor treaties and they have all been proved baseless in time. Had we listened to the doubters on previous occasions, we would never have had the euro, which was provided for in the Treaty of Maastricht. It has been a key element in our recent economic success and a major convenience and ease for the travelling public.
The arguments against the European treaties have not changed and are broadly the same as those used to argue against joining the Common Market in 1972. Deputy Quinn is sitting very easily in his seat. I remind him that then Deputy Conor Cruise O'Brien at the time expressed grave unhappiness at the fact that the Labour Party was constrained to provide the "no" argument in the then European campaign.
Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
However, Deputy Quinn was not a Member of the Oireachtas and was not as constrained as then Deputy Cruise O'Brien was at the time. Those who oppose the treaty and opposed previous treaties have a duty to explain what future they see for this country. They seem to be offering a march towards isolationism and economic decline â an Albanianisation of Ireland, so to speak. There is no doubt the Union has brought great economic benefits to the Irish people. States are clamouring to join the Union. Many of them cite Ireland as an example of the road they wish to follow. We need to bring it down to this question for the people in the referendum: is Europe to be viewed as a threat for Ireland or an opportunity? We must put across to the people that our experience in the past 35 years shows the opportunities that can be availed of in Europe. There are major opportunities for us in the Europe of the future also.
Our command of the English language is a huge advantage to us in the Europe that is now evolving, where English, in effect, has become the lingua franca â if Deputies will forgive the phrase â of the modern Europe.
Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Brian Lenihan is the first Fianna Fáil Minister I have ever heard articulate that self-evident fact.
Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is extraordinary. I must say I have a great attachment to our ancestral language and speak it. It is very appropriate on some occasions but as far as Europe is concerned, it is a fact that the members of the European family are increasingly using English as their common language. I realise that the French tradition does not welcome that particular development but the reality is that the central and eastern European states that have joined the EU, which spoke French in the inter-war period and Russian after 1945, see English as the international language of the future.
Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The European Central Bank has one working language â English.
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Daniel O'Connell promoted the use of English in the nineteenth century.
Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I could be even more heretical for a Fianna Fáil Deputy and confess that I have always had a secret admiration for Daniel O'Connell in this respect. He was a very good Irish speaker, by the way. He did not lose his Irish by speaking English but he did believe that English was the language of the world. It is certainly the language of the European world and that is something to which we should attend.
The treaty will help the European Union to become more democratic by strengthening the role of national parliaments and giving them a direct say in European legislation. That is very important because one of the difficulties with the European Parliament is that it does not derive its mandate from a regular election in the national electoral timescale. As a result, with the best will in the world, European parliamentarians are often seen as detached from the concerns of domestic electorates. I believe it is a good move in this treaty to associate the national parliaments more closely with the legislative process in Europe.
The treaty also gives national parliaments a right of veto on any proposal to change the voting rules in the European Council or the Council of Ministers from unanimity to qualified majority voting. There is also a citizens initiative and it is important in a block the size of the European Union that everything possible is done to link the citizen with the Union. A very significant element in this regard is the provision to give legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This means that, just as in our Constitution where the duties and powers of the Government are circumscribed by the fundamental rights of the citizen, in the European arrangement, the duties and rights of the European institutions are circumscribed by a respect for the fundamental rights of the European citizen.
This is one of the most positive features of this treaty but it will be misrepresented. It will be suggested that this is an erosion of the guarantees in our Constitution but it is not. In fact, one of the main objectives of our diplomacy in the negotiation of this treaty was to ensure that the text leaves no equivocation or doubt on the point that the European guarantees are in the European legal order and we will continue to have national guarantees in our national legal order. That is a fundamental point in relation to this treaty and it is right that a community that will be based on the rule of law should allow its citizens to invoke fundamental rules of law to invalidate decisions of that Union that infringe the basic rights of the European citizen. That is a very positive development in this treaty and is the one development that does bring the individual citizen closer to the European Union because it allows the individual to challenge, on his or her own, a decision of the European Union which he or she believes has fundamentally trenched upon his or her rights.
When one looks at the arguments that we are faced with in the referendum â it is a good exercise to hold a referendum because it forces us to engage with the public and their concerns about Europe â so many of them relate to fundamental rights. People argue that they should have the right to cut turf, catch fish, harvest seaweed, obtain planning permission and so forth, but that there is a European rule which obstructs this. However, under this treaty, people will be entitled to challenge the European Union on the basis of their own individual rights. Intellectually, that is a very important change for Europe to make because at present the difficulty is that the power arrangements are seen as remote and bureaucratic as far as the individual citizen is concerned. At present, the European citizen in the European legal order does not have the right to invalidate a decision taken within the European legal order by the authorities. Our citizens do have that right under our Constitution in relation to decisions we take in this House. That, along with our electoral system, has brought the citizen very close to the Irish State. It is worth looking at this as a positive feature in this campaign. It is not one we should skirt around. We should be open about it.
I regretted very much the fact that the United Kingdom decided to opt out of the Charter on Fundamental Rights. There was no reason to do so, but it did. We did not follow the United Kingdom in that respect, even though we were offered that facility. I would have been very saddened if we had exercised that option because it is one of the most crucial reasons for voting "Yes" in the context of bringing Europe closer to the citizen. It makes the Union more democratic and more effective.
During the negotiations, Ireland ensured that certain national vital interests were secured in diplomatic terms, including the issue of unanimity on taxation and the question of our possible involvement in military matters. On all of these matters we were essentially given the right to say "Yes" or "No" under this treaty. Other Ministers have dealt with that issue already.
I wish to turn to the area of justice because there was some debate about it in the process leading up to the ratification of the treaty. Ireland has consistently and strongly supported EU measures to tackle organised crime and terrorism and to strengthen law enforcement co-operation. That will continue to be the case when the reform treaty is ratified. I assure the House that Ireland will be participating in European measures in police co-operation and in justice to the maximum possible extent. Examples of the benefits of EU membership in the justice area include the development of the European arrest warrant, which ensures criminals cannot escape justice by fleeing to another member state, and the establishment of Europol, the European police agency, which gives practical support to national police forces in tackling cross-border crime. The European Union is also active in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, including drug trafficking.
The reform treaty provides generally for majority voting in the field of criminal law and police co-operation. However, because of the especially sensitive nature of criminal law co-operation and the fact we have a distinctive common law system, we decided to avail of a special arrangement which would allow the State to participate in EU criminal law and police co-operation measures on a case by case basis.
It is correct that in the original draft treaty, both the United Kingdom and Ireland bound themselves to qualified majority voting in this area. The United Kingdom, however, secured in the negotiations last year, at the initiative of the German Chancellor, a concession whereby, in effect, it was allowed to opt out of qualified majority voting in this area. That put us in a very difficult position in a European context. We were happy with qualified majority voting with the United Kingdom on board because we both share a very similar legal system and legal culture. However, it would have been a big ask for Ireland to participate in qualified majority voting on legal questions with the United Kingdom outside the room and Ireland left in the invidious position of being the only effective common law jurisdiction left, with the other 26 member states. It would not be legitimate for me, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to depend on an Irish Taoiseach to raise such an issue under the emergency brake mechanism. That is not the kind of issue that is important enough for Ireland to entrust to a Taoiseach to raise with other member states. The United Kingdom was in a different position and certainly the defence of the common law could be a legitimate diplomatic objective for a British Prime Minister but it is certainly not one I would wish to foist on a future Taoiseach.
Having examined the whole question, we decided the best course for Ireland, at this stage, was to avail of the facility which Chancellor Merkel offered us, after she had offered it to the United Kingdom and to Prime Minister Brown. The Government went through this issue very carefully. We had a considered debate on the issue, examined two points of view on it and came to a conclusion as to where we should go on it. However, I wish to emphasise that we made a strong declaration, published in the treaty, underlining our firm intention to participate to the maximum possible extent in justice proposals and, in particular, those relating to police co-operation.
We also decided that the arrangements agreed will be reviewed three years after the treaty comes into effect. This will give us an opportunity to examine how the new arrangements operate in practice. While I think we made the right decision at this stage, it is possible to envisage circumstances in the future where it might be in our best interests to accede to qualified majority voting in this area. Suppose, for example, from a justice perspective, a group of member states emerged which was recalcitrant in regard to effective co-operation in matters of border control or essential security that affected our State and we believed we were in a diplomatic position to rally a majority of the member states behind us. In those circumstances it would clearly be in Ireland's best interests to participate in a qualified majority voting arrangement. We will, therefore, not totally close the door on that but we will ensure the right to say "yes" or "no", the essence of sovereignty, is preserved in this context for the reasons I outlined. I am satisfied the Government's position on justice matters is the best to ensure our legal system is protected and, at the same time, our strong co-operation with our European partners is maintained in tackling serious cross-border crime. I have made it clear to Commissioner Frattini since my appointment that Ireland is very much committed to co-operation in the justice area to the maximum extent.
I do not have a dogmatic view that the common law is superior to the civil law.
Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Unlike some of the Minister's predecessors.
Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Both systems have their characteristic strengths and weaknesses. Both often arrive at the same conclusion in resolving a particular legal dispute but both use different characteristic procedures and substantive legal rules to arrive at the conclusion and that is why there is a difficulty in this area. We must understand that we have a great deal to learn from civil law jurisdictions as they have to learn from common law jurisdictions and, therefore, we should not put ourselves in a dogmatic position on this issue. However, we should safeguard our vital interests and not leave the Taoiseach or myself having to have a major row with our European partners on a drafting matter. That is how I view the justice issue essentially.
Generally the treaty will make the Union more democratic, provide a more effective system of making decisions and ensure the rights of the Union's citizens are better protected, which is very important, especially if the rights, powers and competencies in the justice area are extended. Along with the competencies and powers given to police forces, a culture of respect for rights must be ensured. The charter will foster a culture of respect for rights in the Union. This is the key element we are putting into the European equation in this treaty and for that reason, and because it equips the Community to deal with the many challenges Europe faces, I am delighted to support the treaty.
We must vigorously campaign to secure a "Yes" vote. As a politician, I prefer field research. I am a great believer that politics is a flesh and blood business and, on the basis of such research, I believe at heart the people are sympathetic to this proposal but we must get them out to vote. That is the major task facing us over the next few weeks because there is a determined minority who like to wreck referenda on this subject. However, the broad mass of the citizenry understand what this is about. We must bring the information and the persuasion to the people and talk to them. It is a matter of engaging with them, addressing their legitimate concerns and explaining how this is good for Ireland and Europe and it is not a matter of dropping leaflets in letter boxes.
Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to share time with Deputy à Snodaigh.
I am a former spokesperson on European affairs and I have had the honour and privilege to represent Ireland at European Councils. I am also the chairperson of the Irish Alliance for Europe, an organisation representing all political parties and the social partners, which is dedicated to achieving a "Yes" vote. I am pleased to follow the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform because he has assured the House, about which I am delighted but not surprised, that the common "lawists" of St. Stephen's Green have at last a Minister who is prepared to recognise the positive benefits of both the common law and civil law traditions. That has been a difficulty for many people in the past who were not trained lawyers, including myself.
The Lisbon treaty represents five years of concentrated work beginning with the Laacken Declaration and the convention that preceded it where for the first time a treaty of reform of the Union's institutions was formulated, not by an intergovernmental conference comprising civil servants and politicians but by a much more representative body comprising members of national parliaments, the European Parliament, social partners, governments and prospective Union members. The constitutional treaty was defeated by the French and Dutch but it was ratified by 18 other member states, which is often ignored. The Lisbon treaty is the constitutional treaty in reverse. A total of 95% of the provisions of the treaty were contained in the constitutional treaty. Commissioner Wallström, who is responsible for communicating information about Europe, was challenged by a stern commentator on this when asked what was the difference between both. She was asked if the reform treaty is 95% the same, why it was being proposed again. She responded that scientific research proves 95% of our DNA is the same as that of a mouse but that is not to suggest there is no difference between us and mice.
The Lisbon treaty, therefore, is different in a number of respects and it is the only treaty on offer. A better Europe is not around the corner if Ireland votes "No". There is no suggestion that if we could somehow force people back to the drawing board again, we would achieve an improved treaty. Patricia McKenna and others have made this point. The treaty is plan Z, not plan A or B, in implementing the operational pillars for decision-making. Some people will say they will be made to vote again and another referendum will be held if a "No" vote succeeds.
However, the past 20 years must be put in context. When the Maastricht treaty was trundling through negotiations before being referred to member states, the Europe in which we lived was a different place from the Europe that emerged following the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989. When Ireland joined the EEC in 1973, it comprised nine members. The number increased to ten when Greece emerged from dictatorship and it was followed by Spain and Portugal. However, four sophisticated and prosperous states â Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway â decided for various reasons not to join the Union. Only when the Berlin Wall came down did a new geopolitical landscape open up. Nobody predicted that not only would the wall come down but communism would collapse and the bipolar superpower world, which we had all grown up with and took as a given, would disappear. As a consequence, we had to consider a new Europe that, unforeseen by any of us, could potentially be reunited in a way none of our generation had experienced.
We have been struggling with a 20-year project and not just the constitutional and reform treaties. Next year will be the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Since then, we have struggled with how to consolidate the Union in legal terms under the Treaty of Rome and the European Court of Justice while, at the same time, co-ordinating foreign and justice and home affairs policies, maintaining the sovereignty necessary for nation states and ensuring the integrated co-operation required. The House and the public should recognise the treaty is the conclusion of a particular project. This is the fifth attempt to finally put in place a constitutional arrangement for the Union, which makes it fit for purpose in the 21st century.
The story of the Union has two parts, one of which is the history of the 20th century and how Europe was continually at war. As Deputy Pat Breen said, three generations, if not more, continuously went to war against each other. If the Irish people think we were neutral in this particular set of conflicts, they should walk into any Church of Ireland church in the country and look at the plaques on the walls. They will see that generation after generation of Irish people fought, Protestants as officers and Catholics as foot soldiers.
It is the same in most countries. We have been engaged in every war Europe ever fought going right back to Fontenoy. To suggest that somehow or other we stayed out of wars is a nonsense. It is only that reconciliation in Northern Ireland has enabled us now to validate and recognise the history we share and for some families to come out of the closet and state they had relatives who died honourably on behalf of small nations, as many did in Flanders.
The history of Europe is in two parts. The 20th century version of Europe is how to deal with the problems which borders create, such as the divisions of nations and peoples, the antagonisms, and the excessive nationalism which brought generation after generation to war against each other with the ensuing slaughter. Perhaps the worst victims were not those who died, but those who survived. What the European Union did in the 20th century was to remove the problems of borders and create an internal market, a single currency and a space in which we could get on with our own business.
This is the history which belongs to my generation. My 13 year old son sees Adolf Hitler, Napoleon and Julius Caesar in the same timeframe, as history. It is of interest to me because I was born a year after Berlin was liberated by the red army. However, it is history to my children and my grandchildren and to subsequent generations.
The second part of the history of Europe is the history of the 21st century, which is how Europeans can cope with problems which do not recognise borders and how they can combine their strengths and confront those issues which do not recognise frontiers, custom posts or border police. These include trafficking of women and children, drugs, crime, armaments, climate change and negotiating with strength with the new globalised economic powers of India and China, not to mention dealing with the declining empire of the United States whose currency is in freefall and whose institutions need to be radically re-internationalised. The settlement at Bretton Woods which was designed to construct a new economic order after the end of the Second World War is no longer a valid settlement. The use of the dollar as an international reserve currency on its own for commodity pricing whether it is coffee or cotton is no longer sufficient.
I will not go into the detail of the Lisbon treaty as it will be dealt with elsewhere and by other people. The emotional engine for the Lisbon treaty is the completion of this process since the collapse of the Berlin wall and the creation of a Europe for the 21st century which is fit for purpose. It is not the best treaty around. It is not the type of Europe that I would like to have seen. However, it is the only Europe around. Those who state, "Vote No for a better Europe" are actually stating, "Vote No to stop Europe in its tracks".
We are at a time when the world has changed and after 15 years of positive economic growth we are now confronted with a slowdown over which we do not have much control. We are confronted with the price of oil being more than $100 a barrel over which we do not have control. We are confronted with the sub-prime crisis from unregulated greedy capitalism which has created a field of landmines in our now globalised financial institutions, the consequences of which we simply do not know the extent.
In the midst of all this uncertainty which has only occurred since last July, if we were to deliberately and consciously vote "No" to making Europe fit for purpose for the 21st century, what message would it send to ourselves and to the rest of the world? We have the most open globalised market economy within Europe. We need as much certainty at a time of uncertainty we can possibly get. In the areas in which we do have control, such as the referendum on the Lisbon treaty, we must resoundingly vote "Yes". I support the Bill.
3:00 pm
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
FáiltÃm roimh an deis páirt a ghlacadh sa dÃospóireacht seo ar chonradh na Liospóine, cé nach bfuil ann ach an dara lá den dÃospóireacht agus nach bhfuil guth i gcoinne an chonartha cloiste sa Teach seo go fóill. Is ait an rud é ar bhealach amháin agus ar leibhéal eile is truamhéileach é nach bhfuil aon ghuth i gcoinne an chonartha cloiste go fóill. Is ait an rud é freisin nach dtuigeann tromlach Baill an Oireachtais, inar chuir an pobal a mhuinÃn, cé chomh dainséarach is atá an conradh seo do flaitheas agus todhchaà na tÃre.
Ireland has a place in Europe. Co-operation with our European partners is essential if we are to meet the challenges facing us in the time ahead. Contrary to what the Government has claimed, no matter how many people vote "No" in the referendum Ireland's future place in the EU will be secure. The fact is that one can support the EU and be against the Lisbon treaty.
This debate is about the implications of the Lisbon treaty for Ireland, Europe and the wider world. My party believes the Lisbon treaty is a bad deal. It was badly negotiated and is a bad result for the Irish people. It gives the EU too much power and reduces Ireland's ability to stop decisions that are not in our interests. It is shameful that the Government has signed up to and is now advocating ratification of a treaty which undermines the interest of the Irish people. The Government has a responsibility to protect the interests of the people and once again on this occasion it has failed to do so.
We are told that all countries are being treated equally. However, Ireland's voting strength is being cut in half while the voting strength of larger countries such as Britain and Germany is nearly doubled. That is equality, Government-wise. I have listened to the Government and Opposition benches â if it is Opposition - and they have told us that it is not practical or efficient to have 27 Commissioners. Let us make a quick comparison with the other side of the Chamber. We have 15 Ministers and 20 Ministers of State for a population of just less than 5 million people. It seems more than credible and necessary to have 27 Commissioners to represent more than 500 million people.
Let no one be fooled by the limited monitoring powers extended to member state parliaments or by the citizens initiative. These gestures, no doubt intended to take the bad look off the treaty, do not address the democratic deficit or the loss of sovereignty. It is irresponsible to undermine parliamentary democracy at home by ceding more powers to the EU Commission and the Council. However, this is exactly what we are being asked to do.
Previously, the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, argued that we have not outlined the 105 areas with additional or altered powers under the treaty. He is basing his figures on a British institute, the Schumann school of economics, which states it is 33. I have a list which I can present to any Minister or Member of the House which outlines exactly, word for word from the treaty, 105 areas which will be altered. A total of 68 areas which currently require consensus will be transferred to QMV.
Our position as a military neutral has been systematically undermined by the Government. The use of Shannon airport by US troops on their way to sustain the brutal occupation of Iraq is just one example. There is no mention of the military neutrals in the Lisbon treaty. The Government did not even try to secure recognition of the rights and responsibilities of EU neutrals. However, it agreed to compatibility with NATO. It also agreed to a substantial expansion in the range of Petersberg Tasks in which the EU battle groups can engage. In previous referenda we were told we would not have an EU European army and the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, is in denial. Its military adventures in Chad will cost the Irish taxpayer â¬40 million this year.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is an EU army.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is; it is called the EU battlegroup. If Deputy Quinn, like the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, wants to be in denial, so be it. The army exists.
Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
An army can go to war; the battlegroups enforce peace.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They have gone to war.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Taking sides in a conflict is going to war.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We know that from our history on this island; there have been wars.
Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy is simply wrong.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ireland is now involved in a war.
Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy à Snodaigh claims to have been in a war.
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Where has war been declared by Europe?
Conor Lenihan (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Nobody legitimised his war.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Europe has taken the side of a Government which is at war with rebels in Chad. That is the purpose of the expanded EU, the Petersberg Tasks.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputies should allow me to continue; my time is limited. Deputies are not giving me an opportunity to speak.
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy à Snodaigh should speak the truth.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have spoken the truth. The Deputies are in denial.
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy à Snodaigh voted against any debate of the Bill. Why then is he referring to it?
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I did debate the Bill.
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy opposed a Second Reading of the Bill last night.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputies should speak through the Chair.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have spoken out against the Lisbon treaty at every opportunity in this House.
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy sought to have no debate on the Bill last night.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have spoken out about it continually at the European affairs committee. I did not see Deputy Timmins at the committee when we discussed the EU constitution.
Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy à Snodaigh opposed a Second Reading of the Bill last night.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Do not shout me down. I will speak in this House and outside, if required. The Lisbon treaty also contains a mutual defence clause. It allows for many alliances of states with greater military hardware to undertake more ambitious military missions. While we cannot be forced to participate in these missions, is anyone seriously suggesting that we can distance ourselves from actions by these alliances operating with EU authority and in our name?
Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have the triple lock.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, I said that we will not be forced to participate but the EU, by virtue of this treaty, will operate the battlegroups and missions in our name regardless of whether we have signed up to them.
Article 28.A.3 of the Lisbon treaty requires states "to undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities". This costs money.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy has one minute remaining.
Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is something the Deputy's party should know about, they got money in arms.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That money comes from the taxpayer. The Minister is denying that this provision exists in the treaty. Perhaps he would like to have the record corrected in respect of the misleading announcement he made earlier. Unlike the Danes, the Irish Government did not seek or secure an opt-out from the European defence agency. It is disappointing that the Green Party, so vocal on these issues in the past, has remained quiet now. I can think of many schools, hospitals and community groups that would like to receive a small portion of the â¬8 million per annum spent by Ministers on the promotion of nuclear power through the EURATOM Treaty, another matter on which the Green Party has remained silent.
There has been a great deal of scaremongering during this debate in respect of the economy. Some of my colleagues will return to prove this treaty will affect our economy in the future and to deny what the Minister, the Labour Party and Fine Gael have said. It is not too late for us. Even at this late stage, the Government can withdraw from this process. It can turn around agus impÃm ar an Rialtas a rá leis an Comhairle Eorpach gur shÃnigh an lacha bacach sin, an Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, an conradh in éadan tola muintir na hÃireann agus i gcoinne leasa an phobail agus go bhfuil muid sásta anois tarraingt siar go dtà go ndéanfar na hathruithe suntasacha atá de dhÃth orainn. Muna ndéantar sin, beidh sé de chrógacht ag pobail an Stáit diúltú don mhuc i mála atá an Rialtas ag cur iachall ortha a cheannach.
Léireoidh seo féiniúlacht, dánacht agus flaitheas muintir na hÃireann don domhan, agus seachas caitheamh anuas orainn nó tromaÃocht inár gcoinne, beidh meas orainn dá réir. Tá a lán daoine san Aontas Eorpach ag braith orainn an cinneadh ceart a ghlacadh chun todhchaà na hEorpa a chosaint, is é sin Aontas Eorpach ina bhfuil leas an phobail mar ceartlár, aontas forásach, sÃochánta agus cothrom, seachas Aontas Eorpach santach, mÃleata, cúngaigeantach atá á mhúnlú conradh i ndiaidh conartha.
Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I call Deputy Mansergh. The Deputy has 20 minutes.
Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the Bill and the White Paper, which I look forward to studying. Membership of what is now the European Union has been, during the past 35 years, a vital factor enabling Ireland, following centuries of vicissitudes, to make dramatic progress fulfilling its destiny as a nation.
According to Dr. Hillary, Emile Noël, former Secretary General of the European Commission, once described Ireland's joining the EEC in 1973 as our second declaration of independence. Our European commitment is entirely consistent with and a working out of our religious, cultural, nationalist and republican traditions. Some of the European founding fathers sought to make St. Columbanus the patron saint of a united Europe as demonstrated last August by an exhibition in Rimini.
In 1627, as the late Cardinal O'Fiaich was delighted to discover, Eoghan Ruadh O'Neill wrote to Philip IV of Spain proposing that an independent Irish Republic be placed under Spanish protection. Thomas Davis, in private a conservative as opposed to a militant or radical republican, wrote:
Foreign alliances have always stood among the pillars of national power. Again, it is particularly needful for Ireland to have a foreign policy. Intimacy with the great powers will guard us from English interference.
He had in mind countries such as France and the leading German states. This was echoed in the 1916 Proclamation with its reference to gallant allies in Europe.
Today, EU partnership is able to embrace Britain and continental Europe and to transcend the conflicts and oppositions of the past. We have different allies according to the subject under discussion â Britain and Sweden on tax sovereignty; France and Poland on the CAP. We are part of the inner eurozone circle but not of Schengen. When Seán McDiarmada was asked in 1916 why a republic, he referred to the examples of France and America. The former, he stated, had been a firm friend of Ireland for generations while millions of Irish people had played a central role in the latter.
Thomas Addis Emmet, later attorney general of New York, told a secret parliamentary committee into the causes of the 1798 rebellion in answer to a question from the Archbishop of Cashel about the economic viability of an independent Ireland: "America is the best market in the world and Ireland the best situated country in Europe to trade with that market." It is a remarkable prophecy of our present geo-economic situation with many US companies choosing Ireland as a base to trade into the European market. His brother Robert â they were both grandchildren of a Tipperary doctor â looked forward in his famous speech from the dock to Ireland taking its place among the nations of the earth. For us, the most intensive concert of nations takes place in the European Union to which practically every European country belongs or wishes to belong with rare exception.
Since Ireland joined what is now the European Union, employment has virtually doubled, emigration has been reversed and our living standards have been raised from under two-thirds of the EU average to above it, even on the most conservative measure. It has helped us to make enormous economic, social and environmental progress. Ireland has received â¬40 billion in subsidies which has enabled us to transform nearly every sector of our economy.
The policy of successive Governments to place Ireland at the heart of Europe has been a highly successful diplomatic strategy. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy told his British hosts recently, "If you are a full member of Europe, you have more of a say than if you are on the margins". That is the nub of the argument. We need to maximise our influence on decisions of concern which are being taken and deliberated upon practically every week in Brussels. No one would understand why a member state which has done so well out of membership in terms of radically improving its position, a major success story of the EU, would rebuff and try to block the organisation that has made it all possible. Politicians and diplomats from countries such as Denmark that were forced by referendum in 1992 to opt out of European policies deeply regret that marginalisation and want to reverse it.
The treaty makes no dramatic changes to the way the EU is organised. The former Latvian president, Mrs. Vike Freiberga, was right when she told the forum on Europe that most countries felt it did not justify a further referendum which was optional for them, particularly as the referendums in nine of the 12 accession states had been able to take many issues arising from the convention report of 2003 into account. The French have reversed their decision on the treaty and ratified it. The French rejection was not a lasting one; it has been reversed in a perfectly acceptable democratic manner according to their rules by the representatives of the French people and representative democracy is just as valid as direct democracy. The Dutch will soon do the same.
The British Eurosceptics are well on the way to being defeated in their own country and their own parliament but would love a proxy victory here, even though they have nothing to offer this country and never had and we, not they, would pay most of the price. It would be monstrous if Britain, with its level of scepticism, ratified the treaty, while we who have always been loyal, constructive and committed Europeans, chose to reject ratification. People who ask to do this have not thought through how deeply damaging it would be to the national interest. If the claim is that the treaty was badly negotiated from Ireland's point of view, that sort of diplomatic strategy would be absolutely appalling.
Every party with experience of Government, practically every representative organisation among the social partners, is advocating a "Yes" vote and they know what they are doing. With the level of financial turbulence in the world today, it is no time to take unnecessary risks or to damage the confidence so important to investors that we are well placed in Brussels to influence and shape the decisions that are important to us and to them.
Arguments about sovereignty are like ones about personal freedom. In theory a person with no job, no fixed place of abode, no family ties, is freer than someone who has all of these things, but that is to confuse freedom from constraint with the positive freedom to achieve which is generally possible only through ties and co-operation networks. Cuba, Burma, Albania and North Korea may be the most sovereign countries in the world with few ties to anywhere else but they are also among the most impoverished.
Ireland has an interest in being part of an effective European Union that works, not an minimalist intergovernmental structure with nobody to look after the community interest. A Commission of 30 members and more would not be an effective functioning body and needs to be streamlined, otherwise all the real work will be done in committees. There need be little fear of a super-state, a Thatcherite phrase, confined to a budget of around 1% of GDP. The President of the European Council will only be able to speak on behalf of the Union when so mandated. He or she will not be more powerful than the German Chancellor or the French President and it is notable that neither of them is applying for the job.
What are some people afraid of? Where is the actual evidence of the increased militarisation conjured up at each referendum campaign? On the contrary, all the evidence and all the figures would show reduced military budgets over the past 20 years across Europe, reduced personnel and the phasing out of conscription in the few countries where it remains. What is wrong with increased international engagement? Are we not all, but especially those on the left, meant to be internationalist in outlook? De Valera strongly advocated this in 1946 in a debate on membership of the United Nations and in particular on the enforcement of obligations and the enforcement of rights. He added, "If there is ever to be a rule of law nations must make up their minds they will take part in such enforcement." Since when has abortion arrived in Ireland? The principle of subsidiarity still holds. Socio-moral legislation is a matter for us. The EU Charter of Rights, an extension of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which we are already party, does not change the position nor replace the constitution of member states, which it cannot be used to override. Is it not true that the European Union has been the most effective instrument of regional peace that the world has ever seen, and also one of the most pro-life organisations, in that since 1945 generations of young adults have not been slaughtered on the battlefields of Europe?
Church leaders, including successive popes, well understand the big picture and have always been supportive of the European project. In an address to diplomatic heads of mission in the Vatican before Christmas, Pope Benedict XVI said that the Lisbon treaty, "gives a boost to the process of building the European home".
Is there not something deeply incongruous about a party, whose deputy leader, who is also Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, recently went to Europe with the First Minister, Dr. Paisley, jointly seeking increased EU aid to underpin peace and stability, yet whose policy requires it to campaign against this treaty? It has campaigned against all EU treaties. If, as Deputy à Snodaigh acknowledged on a previous occasion, Europe has done a lot of good things, then which of the treaties should Sinn Féin have supported in order to make these good things possible? As Karl Marx once said, "If you will the end, you must will the means." A leading member in the North acknowledged to me some years ago that Sinn Féin has not updated its European policy in 30 years. One could argue that it is at least 50 years out of date. The marginal short-term political advantage of saying "No" will be as illusory here as it has been for the Tory Party across the water. Anti-Europeanism could be a serious barrier to future participation in Government. Sinn Féin claims to champion a united Ireland which can only come about with consent, not realising or wishing to acknowledge that one of the most significant attractions of the Republic to the Northern business community is our deeper involvement in Europe. I have to smile when I hear that party present itself as a champion of sovereignty, neutrality and parliamentary democracy. Is that the same parliamentary democracy that Deputy Morgan a few weeks ago called "a partial parliament in a little semi-statelet"? The following morning on radio, when I was debating with him, he declined to say that the Government of the Republic was not the army council of the Provisional IRA. This is talk of neutrality from a party whose comrades only declared their war with Britain over in 2005. It is a pity this was not thought about for 30 years when hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money that could have been spent on developing this country were spent on Border security.
The European Union operates on a balanced political philosophy. It is neither excessively neo-liberal, nor hardline socialist or state interventionist. I would be equally distrustful of ultra-leftism and of the visceral Thatcherite hostility to Europe commonplace in certain sections of the British media which a millionaire-led organisation called Libertas would like to import into Ireland. Its running away from cross-questioning at the forum on Europe this morning speaks volumes for the incoherence and incredibility of its case against the treaty. I am sure Fine Gael Deputy Lucinda Creighton welcomes the publicity of being on a Libertas poster in her constituency and would be rightly dismissive of the politically naive attempt to damage her.
The treaty is in essence our treaty, one which the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, negotiated with great skill in 2004, much to the admiration of his peers in Europe. A lot of good preparatory work was also done by Irish members of the convention from all parties. Enlargement means we have to share, that our part will slightly diminish. Our influence does not depend on our isolated voting strength in any of the institutions, but on our alliances and partnerships with like-minded countries that have similar interests. Larger states until recently had two Commissioners but from 2014, like us, they will have none from time to time. At least on that point they are making the bigger sacrifice. As a mature member state of 35 years, we have many ways of bringing our influence to bear on or within the Commission in which there are very experienced senior Irish officials. It would make no diplomatic sense to vote down a treaty desired by the governments of all our partners. A vote by one country, large or small, is not sustainable or tenable beyond the very short term as the interests of the individual country and the union would suffer. In the 1970s a very small state, Malta, was in the habit of vetoing progress in the CSCE, or the Helsinki negotiations, a form of sore thumb diplomacy. It did nothing for it or anyone else.
Which threats to our interests, and there are some, under existing treaties would be removed by advocating a "no" vote? Ireland would gain nothing from such a manoeuvre and no one has explained what the short, medium or long-term gains from such a strategy would be. People say we would remain full members of the Union, that is as it may be, but we would be much diminished. Could people who are advocating a "no" vote spell out what we or the Union, of which we are part, would gain from that? Do we not have a certain interest in the prosperity and strength of the European Union of which we are members? We know the gains we have made from European Union membership and for putting Ireland at the heart of Europe. Let us stick to a winning strategy and vote "yes".
John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the publication of this Bill. The Lisbon reform treaty is an outcome of a long negotiation process. Much of the substance of the reform treaty was negotiated under Ireland's EU Presidency in 2004. I congratulate our negotiation team on a job well done. On the issues of particular national interest, it was able to shape the outcome in ways that fully respect our interests.
When Ireland joined the Union, the EEC as it was then, in 1973 there were nine members. Today there are 27 EU member states, 12 more than there were five years ago. The EU has trebled in size since we joined in 1973. Now that the Union has expanded to 27 member states, common sense dictates that a larger organisation needs to revise its rule in order to advance the common good. Streamlining the decision-making process of the EU institutions will make them more effective, efficient and flexible. The Lisbon treaty is fundamentally about modernising the EU's institutions to ensure they work better for EU citizens.
Fine Gael is firmly pro-European and we have demonstrated our commitment to Europe through vigorous and energetic campaigns in favour of a strengthened European Union. I regard EU membership as a cornerstone of Ireland's success. I have always urged people to vote "yes" for a better Europe and "yes" for a better Ireland. Our citizens should vote "yes" in the Lisbon treaty referendum because it offers the best deal for Ireland and for Europe.
In the treaty referendum each voter will make a once off decision based on a simple "yes" or "no" choice. This treaty represents the best balance of interest between good co-operation with other EU member states and the protection of our national interests. However, for some, the decision might be seen to involve a degree of future uncertainty and risk.
As a businessman and entrepreneur, I believe an important aspect of voter decision-making is to be optimistic for the future. The entrepreneurial approach to decision-making has to do with vision, imagination, enthusiasm and self-confidence. The entrepreneurial thinking process understands that if new opportunities are to be successfully grasped it is important not to act based on yesterday's logic. With an entrepreneurial approach, the voter will select the plan that is proactive and positive on the optimistic assumption that the benefits flowing from the plan will be achieved while the possible risks will be managed and any perceived downsides will be avoided. With a positive, self-confident outlook to the future, the entrepreneur will vote "yes". From a business point of view and having regard to the advantages of a "yes" vote in attracting business to Ireland, hopefully a "yes" vote will be secured, given its potential to create jobs and attract investment from the US in particular.
For the entrepreneurial decision maker, the issues of likely reward and possible risk go together. On the reward side, all past experience points to the fact that being a full and active member of the EU has brought substantial economic and social benefits to Ireland and its citizens. This outcome is demonstrably quantified. One only has to think of the euro in one's pocket to understand that the EU has been beneficial for Ireland. On the possible risk side, there is a confidence that specific actions for the management and mitigation of potential risk factors can be taken to ensure the risk element can be avoided into the future. There is a clear understanding that the risk factors can only be managed from a position of influence within the process of the implementation of the decision. One cannot manage potential risk factors as a spectator looking on.
The choices available to the voter in the treaty referendum are a simple "yes" or "no". The simplicity of choice could possibly mislead the voter in the sense that a "yes" vote is for the treaty and all its future change implications while a "no" vote represents the status quo. In many significant ways, this perspective is misleading. In some ways, it is easier for a "no" vote to sound warnings about the future. Arguments around the perception of maintaining the status quo can be superficially attractive. A "no" vote in the referendum is essentially a negative assessment. It is an act based on the premise that the worst will happen and, therefore, voting "no" will give the best protection under such adverse conditions. Leaving things as they are does not ensure that the current position will be kept the same, rather it subjects it to a torrent of uncontrolled and perhaps uncontrollable change. A "no" vote can be reasonably represented as a strategy of evasion in the unreasonable expectation that given some time, things will sort themselves out.
Many of the arguments against the Lisbon treaty are simply recycled versions of "no" arguments put forward during every EU referendum held since 1972. These negative arguments were ill-founded then and they are equally so now. According to Mary Lou McDonald, MEP, Sinn Féin opposes the Lisbon treaty not because its members are eurosceptics but because they are ambitious for Europe and because they believe that, collectively and democratically, Europeans can achieve great things. They claim to be pro-European while at the same time opposing this treaty.
The argument that we should reject this agreement and go back and negotiate a better deal must sound familiar to Sinn Féin leadership. It would have heard a great deal of that type of argument during and after the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement. As a democratic political party, it must know in its heart and intellect that this is a barren, fruitless and irresponsible strategy. Telling the negotiation team to go back and get a different deal is not how international agreements are concluded and honoured.
The Lisbon treaty contains a real and meaningful response to concerns regarding the perceived lack of democratic accountability within the EU. The treaty contains a number of provisions aimed at reinforcing the national parliamentary dimension in the EU by extending national democratic control over decisions at EU level and ensuring greater transparency in the decision-making process.
A recent eurobarometer survey showed that while a large majority of Irish people support EU membership, only a quarter of us believe that our opinion counts when the EU makes decisions. This is an indication of how disconnected citizens feel between their everyday lives and the EU institutions. The reality is, however, that EU legislation, in the form of directives, regulations or decisions, has a real impact on the everyday lives of all EU citizens and it is negotiated on behalf of citizens by their governments. The primary legislator in European society is the national parliament, the true democratic expression representative of the citizen. In this context and in recognition of the growing importance of EU legislation and the need to hold the Government accountable for the negotiation of this legislation, the Oireachtas has established a Joint Committee on European Scrutiny.
The central task of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny is to act as a watchdog, scrutinising every item of proposed EU legislation, which on average numbers more than 500 documents annually. It can decide to scrutinise in-depth proposed EU legislation which it considers holds significant implications for Ireland. This detailed examination of legislation can, where appropriate and necessary, involve detailed discussions with all affected stakeholders, including Ministers, senior officials, interests from industry, business, agriculture and consumer society as well as NGOs. It also invites the views of the other expert committees within the Oireachtas. On the basis of those detailed examinations, the joint committee produces timely scrutiny reports which make recommendations to the Government on negotiation positions to be adopted in Brussels. The reports also act to alert the Oireachtas to any proposal for EU legislation that may have a significant negative impact for Ireland.