Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I said earlier, the Lisbon treaty will introduce a greater level of democracy in Ireland and throughout Europe in general, despite the impression being given that it will not. It will strengthen our democracy because for the first time a mechanism will be in place so that the Dáil will be able to signal at a very early stage its unhappiness with proposals from Brussels. The Oireachtas will be able to communicate with other parliaments and in co-operation with them can put a stop to any such initiatives. The Lisbon treaty will enable Ireland or an individual citizen to bring a case before the European Court of Justice if it is felt the European Commission is overstepping the mark. That is very important because people have a fear of the Commission opting to do what it likes. If it is thought the Commission has gone too far, there is a backup plan.

The role of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny will be copperfastened with the ratification of the treaty. This will allow for a more thorough investigation of EU legislation prior to its adoption in Ireland. That is a very important committee, which I believe does not get sufficient recognition in the House. It is especially important as regards the Lisbon treaty. I am lucky enough to have served on it for the last seven or eight months. It deals with hundreds of items of legislation annually. In the five years before I was a member, it dealt with more than 5,000 items of legislation that came from Europe. Irish people do not appear to know that this work is being done and they would be very reassured if they did. I found that when one tells people about the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, they really open up to the whole idea of Europe and are reassured that things do not just get shoved through. There is an opportunity to discuss such matters in this House, bring in people to research issues and to make suggestions to the Commission and our own people as well. Irish departmental officials go to Europe to discuss such legislation well before they are passed. It is important that this should be clarified and we need to highlight accordingly the role of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, which will have greater powers as well when the treaty is ratified.

The Lisbon treaty will foment greater EU influence for member states on the world stage. A new and purposeful approach to the common foreign and security policy will see the European Union finally strengthen and enhance its role internationally. After it is ratified, there will be one EU high representative for foreign affairs which will enable us to have a strong united voice speaking on our behalf as regards world affairs. In the past, foreign policy was implemented by the representative of foreign affairs and security policy, while the EU budget was controlled by the EU Commissioner for External Affairs. These roles will be merged to provide greater coherence and unit to EU external policy.

Europeans will have one strong united voice, which will be critical in global trade negotiations, such as the WTO talks. A strong unified voice representing a Europe of more than 490 million people puts all Europeans in a much stronger position. Remember, Ireland has only 4 million people against a global population of 6 billion. It makes common sense to be part of a stronger united negotiating hand. The new EU high representative for foreign affairs will have a dedicated diplomatic service at his or her disposal, one that will be superbly equipped to fight our corner globally, and we need that, going forward, to take on the other superpowers.

The Lisbon treaty will ensure that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights will become legally binding within the EU. This is a very positive move as it will strengthen the protection rights for citizens of Ireland and other member states. These fundamental rights include the right to life and the prohibition of torture as well as the broad range of economic rights. There are no new rights, but greater protection for existing ones. Basically, if a person believes his or her rights are not being adequately protected in a particular member state, he or she will have recourse to the European Court of Justice. This is a much clearer and stronger path. Basically, citizens will have more protection in law for the future, which is right.

I spoke earlier about the benefits for business under the Lisbon treaty. Under the treaty there will be faster more efficient decision-making in Europe, which will lead to greater value for money and speedier decisions. In the world of business, one needs to be moving fast to maintain national economic competitiveness. A "Yes" vote will see qualified majority voting introduced in more areas, namely in respect of the environment, energy, security, justice and urgent humanitarian aid. This system will speed up decision-making by ensuring that just one member state can no longer hold up the entire process for the other 26 member states. A "Yes" vote will mean a majority of states and a majority of the EU population will be required to block a process to protect the right of opinion and consequently the big states will not be seen to dominate the decision-making process. Importantly for Ireland, a vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty will ensure that we retain our veto in vital areas such as taxation and neutrality.

If the treaty is accepted, Ireland will have a greater role in peacekeeping. Ireland has been a successful participant in a number of UN-EU peacekeeping missions, such as those in Bosnia and Kosovo. A "Yes" vote to the Lisbon treaty will increase our Defence Forces' participation in conflict-prevention missions and in post-conflict peacekeeping missions. This will happen through the introduction of permanent structured co-operation between EU member states that wish to commit to taking part in EU military equipment programmes and to provide combat units available for immediate dispatch as EU peacekeepers.

The provision on structured co-operation is a long way from a provision for a European army. It negates the fear of our losing our neutrality. I hope those who are campaigning for a "No" vote will realise what is being asked of us. The treaty encourages those countries that want to co-operate and train together and pool resources for peacekeeping and post-conflict missions. The treaty does not force countries to send troops on peacekeeping missions to areas to which they do not agree to go. We still have our neutrality and it can only be changed by this House and the people.

There is a belief that acceptance of the treaty will result in new armies. There is a provision in the treaty that encourages countries to strengthen and greatly increase their armies and give them better equipment. This is correct. We would be crazy if we sent our own troops, both ladies and gentlemen, abroad with equipment that was less than perfect. Imagine if they went to Chad with equipment that is not up to scratch. Addressing this is what the treaty is about. It is a matter of equipping armies properly and not of having a European army or removing Ireland's neutrality. This issue has been twisted and turned, which is not correct.

Concerns were raised over the fact that we will not have a permanent Commissioner. We must be very clear that we will have one for ten of 15 years and this provision will not come into effect straight away. This is not the end of the world because every other member state, including Germany, France and all the big powers, will be treated in the same way. We are on a level playing field.

EU legislation involves a very slow process, as we all know, and can take three to five years to be passed. It is more than likely that if legislation is initiated when we do not have a Commissioner, we will have one when it is being passed. The Joint Committee on EU scrutiny will have the opportunity to discuss everything. The treaty will give greater powers to our MEPs and therefore there is no cause for concern.

It is important to point out that a Commissioner is meant to be independent. A former Minister and member of Fianna Fáil, Charlie McCreevy, became a Commissioner and often sends us information we do not like to hear, such as threats to fine Ireland. However, he is acting independently and that is what he is meant to do. Commissioners are supposed to wear their European hats rather than their national hats. It will not be the end of the world if we do not have a Commissioner from Ireland for a couple of years.

I have said repeatedly that politicians in this House, especially those on the Government side, very often use the European Union as a scapegoat. They blame it if a measure is being implemented that is not very nice. The charging of schools for water rates was blamed on the European Union but it was not its fault. We got it wrong and did not fight our case correctly. All legislation that comes through Europe is debated by our Ministers, officials, members of the Joint Committee on EU scrutiny, etc. We have ample opportunity to improve circumstances for Ireland.

It is not good enough to blame Europe in this House because doing so does not help our case when we try to sell a treaty. If the public is told membership of the Union is not always good for it, it will not necessarily vote in favour of a treaty. If membership failed any Irish citizen, it is because we sent the wrong people to Brussels to battle for us. There is ample opportunity for good, strong politicians to fight our corner. We should be glad to be a member of the Union.

I stated some of the negative campaigners are trying to make their case with fancy posters without using proper facts. This is not good enough. We must ask what will happen if we vote against the treaty. Will we be laughed at if we must vote for a second time, as was the case with the Nice treaty referendum? There is nothing wrong with voting again, or with voting three or four times; that is democracy and it is great. Voting is good, especially if it is the paper system of voting. We should not be worried and will not have to vote "No" but I fear that if we do not back the treaty or delay it, it will affect the goodwill of other countries towards Ireland. I do not like saying this publicly too often because I do not want to be seen to be scaremongering. Ireland is well regarded in other member states but they will lose some respect for us and their good-will will be eroded if we continue to say "No" to positive developments in Europe. It is therefore important that we vote in favour of the treaty.

If we delay the treaty or vote "No", we will have a less efficient European Union, still moving along under old treaties in a haphazard way that could have been made more efficient. We will not have new initiatives in respect of cross-border crime prevention, climate change and energy security. Progress in this regard will be slower. If we vote against the treaty, I fear other member states will claim there is no point waiting any longer for Ireland. They will get together and work on initiatives themselves, leaving us behind. We would be much better off as a major player at the negotiation table, fighting to make progress at every chance we get.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's time has expired.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was to share time but it has expired.

The treaty is very good for Ireland and I will certainly be voting "Yes" and encouraging everybody I know to do likewise. There is misinformation being circulated and a lack of leadership. While there have been other events taking place today and over the past few weeks, they are now over. We therefore need to get real about the treaty, circulate the relevant information and have a proper debate. It is fundamentally wrong of politicians of this House to circulate untruths about the treaty. I have no problem with them advocating a "No" vote for genuine reasons but to claim to find provisions in the treaty that are not contained therein is wrong. That is telling lies to the public. It is a shame we cannot do anything about it because it is fundamentally wrong and could have serious consequences.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I need not remind the Deputy about particular words that should not be used in this Chamber.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They should be used more often.

Seán Haughey (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Michael Mulcahy.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Seán Haughey (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to express my views on the EU reform treaty. I support strongly a vote in its favour in the referendum as I do the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. It is the Government's desire that the referendum will result in the ratification of the EU reform treaty by the Irish people.

My late father had what he once referred to as "total dedication to Europe" and a desire to see Ireland playing a positive and central role in its affairs. As Minister for Finance in 1967, he published the White Paper on entry to the EEC, as it was then known, and visited several of the EEC capitals with the Taoiseach of the day, Jack Lynch, with a view to facilitating Ireland's membership. While addressing this House in 1967 following the introduction of this White Paper, he stated we were facing a great opportunity not to be missed to "give our people, and especially our young people, access to new horizons" in the stimulating climate of the new Europe. Some of the issues and "new horizons" we will address in the next decade may be different from those envisaged in the 1960s but the aims and aspirations are as relevant today as they were then.

Many of the improvements envisaged by those supporting a "Yes" vote in the 1972 referendum have come to pass, often in spectacular fashion. These include the doubling of our workforce to 2 million, twice what it was before we joined the EU; a marked improvement in national income per head to well above the EU average; and increased trade opportunities through the completion of the Single Market. In 2006 the value of our exports to EU member states was a staggering €87 billion. We are now attracting billions of euro in foreign direct investment which in 1972 was a mere €16 million. We benefit greatly from various EU transfer funds and the stability and protection that membership of the European monetary union provides. There has been support for the farming sector and rural communities through the Common Agricultural Policy. I also strongly believe that our future prosperity lies in Europe and that our nation can continue to play its role as an active, committed member at the centre of its affairs.

The reform treaty is a relatively short but vital piece of legislation for Ireland and for Europe. It incorporates to some degree the substance of the draft treaty agreed during Ireland's EU Presidency in 2004. The treaty aims to increase the roles of the national and European parliaments, to reform decision making within its institutions, to give legal effect to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, to make Europe more effective on the world stage and to prepare Europe for the major challenges which all member states will face, both individually and collectively.

Some of the issues Europe will need to address in the next decade are climate change, the possibility of a global economic downturn, demographic change and immigration, and problems in the developing world. It is in Europe, as part of a grouping of 500 million people, that we can best help address these issues rather than as individual member states. The creation of the post of high representative for foreign affairs will allow a more coherent EU voice in the external aspects of the Union's affairs. It is also through Europe that we will continue to make our own distinctive impact.

The reform treaty proposes changes designed to make the European Union function more democratically and more effectively. Among the new initiatives proposed is the citizens' initiative whereby a petition signed by 1 million citizens from a number of member states may request the Commission to take a specific initiative. There will also be a new full-time elected president of the European Council who will chair and take forward the work of the European Council. There is also provision for a new voting system which means that 55% of member states representing 65% of the EU's population must support a measure before it is carried.

It is true that both the European Commission and Parliament will be capped. However, capping is considered necessary to ensure that they do not become too large or unwieldy to be effective. In effect the original institutions, designed for a founding community of six member states, have operated for 50 years without rudimentary reform, but also, it might be stressed, without losing any of the 27 member states in the interim. The introduction of the enhanced role for the Houses of the Oireachtas is a further positive development. The national parliaments are given an enhanced role in evaluation of measures in a number of areas, which parliamentarians must surely welcome.

It must be recognised, however, that not everyone is in favour of this treaty. This is nothing new and has been the case during previous referenda. To listen to some detractors it might appear that the Irish had, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, recently said, somehow "abandoned their good sense and their national interests during the negotiations". It did not, and will not happen. Any fair assessment of the treaty must recognise that the changes envisaged are for the better, reflecting the changing circumstances in which the Union finds itself.

Ireland's place lies at the heart of Europe. Ireland has been a major beneficiary as a member state over the past 35 years. Ratification of the reform treaty will continue to see Ireland play its role at the centre of European affairs. For these reasons I am urging people to vote "Yes" in the forthcoming referendum and to continue the central role of our nation at the heart of Europe. I firmly believe this treaty is in the best interests of the people and demonstrates our desire to continue to be a committed member of the European Union.

Michael Mulcahy (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to be able to contribute to this debate and speak in favour of the Lisbon treaty, the reform treaty. It is worth remembering how we got to this stage. With the accession of the eastern European states and others, the European Union became much larger and now consists of 27 member states. We had the famous convention, which was composed of members of national parliaments, representatives of governments and representatives from the European Parliament. They came together and drafted a treaty at the convention. It was very difficult to negotiate between all the governments. As we heard this morning and as we well know where others had failed our current Taoiseach and Tánaiste successfully negotiated the final text of an agreement for a constitution for Europe, a copy of which I am holding. We all know what happened to that proposed constitution. It was passed by many national parliaments but was rejected in plebiscites in the Netherlands and France. We then had a period of reflection for one or two years, followed by the Lisbon treaty.

If I am to be totally honest I must admit that despite the fact that this constitution was a remarkable achievement and despite the fact that it took enormous work, I share the view that there was considerable wisdom in the outcome of those plebiscites in France and the Netherlands. Perhaps this constitution represented a step too far. Perhaps the constitution was regarded as being the work of the super-staters and the federalists who wanted to see the whittling away of the nation state in Europe and wanted to create a united states of Europe. I certainly do not count myself among those people. I count myself among those who are strongly pro-Europe and who agree the European project should be advanced within the machinery where member states pool their sovereignty but sit around the table on an equal basis while maintaining their national status. That is what happens and is thankfully encapsulated in the Lisbon treaty.

I have in my hand a consolidated version of the treaties amended by the Lisbon treaty, which is another treaty that weaves into all the existing EU treaties. Unfortunately it is a complicated text. Somebody suggested — I agreed at the time — that every person should get a copy of the consolidated text. Of course it should be available to everybody should they wish to read it. However, in reality one would want to be a very good European lawyer to tread one's way through it sentence-by-sentence and paragraph-by-paragraph. It is not an easy document to read and there is no point in trying to say it is. That does not mean it is not important. Those of us who believe in the European project also believe that European partners sitting around that table must be able to make decisions. Of course with 27 individuals representing all the member states, if there was the right of veto on every single point, progress would be impossible. It would be impossible to move the agenda that many speakers have mentioned in this debate.

Some people might claim this is a great treaty or a perfect treaty. I do not agree with that and I do not believe there has ever been such a thing as a perfect treaty. I do not believe the Congress of Vienna was perfect, I do not believe the Treaty of Versailles was perfect, I do not believe the Good Friday Agreement was perfect and I do not believe any of the EU treaties is perfect. However, they fit their purpose, were as good as it gets and are only man-made creations.

I do not think people who support the treaty should overstate its perfection as a text. It is a working document and is the best we could do in trying to get 27 governments to agree. A similar compunction of honesty applies to those who are against this treaty, particularly members of Sinn Féin and its allied organisations. They have consistently opposed every treaty involving Ireland and Europe, without exception. They have never said what they would support or what would amount to a good treaty. Their contribution to the debate is always negative and destructive and I find this particularly unhelpful. I call on groups that are genuinely pro-Europe but oppose this treaty to emerge from the shadows and state clearly what they object to. What in this treaty is not good for Europe?

Many other speakers have referred to the increase in democracy that will result from this treaty. I am a member of both the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and the Joint Committee on European Affairs and have been since the last Dáil. I welcome the fact that the Lisbon treaty gives a hugely enhanced role to national parliaments in scrutinising legislation proposed by the Commission. As we all know, the Commission has the sole right to initiate legislation in the EU and it is criticised by many of us because it does so with great zeal and may create too much legislation. If this treaty is passed there will be a hugely important role for European affairs committees and scrutiny committees. They will be able to talk to each other to formulate a reasoned opinion to give the Commission on why a certain proposal may breach the principle of subsidiarity or proportionality. We must beef up the resources of both the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and the Joint Committee on European Affairs if we are to tackle the challenge the possible passing of this referendum could present in the coming months. Despite the excellent staff that support both committees, the reality is that the burden of work that will fall upon the committees, if the new scrutiny proposals come to pass, will be too great for their staff. I am glad the Minister of State is here because more resources, in terms of European lawyers and experts from line Departments, must be made available to these committees so that the Oireachtas, independent of the European Commission and the Government, will have the staff and resources to properly scrutinise what can, at times, be a mountain of European legislation.

Some parts of the media and some politicians should be a little more honest regarding Irish neutrality. I read a headline in a newspaper that said "Lisbon treaty could take Ireland to war". That is absolute poppycock because Ireland's position on neutrality is guaranteed. We have the Seville Declaration, our protocol and the triple lock, which means only a decision taken by the United Nations, the Government and the Dáil will see Ireland partake in a military exercise. Ireland's neutrality is guaranteed and, in fairness to some of those opposing the treaty, they have not used the neutrality angle as an argument against the treaty. That argument is now, rightly, off the table.

The question of our tax regime, specifically our low level of corporate tax, is of great and legitimate concern. I believe some countries in Europe are considering introducing an element of common taxation policy for their own benefit but I feel this is not playing by the rules. It is quite clear that under the treaty each country has a veto on taxation measures and Ireland will exercise this, if it must, against a change to the tax regime. The European Commission President, Mr. José Manuel Barroso, made it clear that there would be no change to Ireland's corporate tax regime and I welcome this.

My colleagues mentioned important institutional changes, including the right to make a petition of 1 million citizens, the new Presidency of the European Council, the new high representative for foreign affairs and a new rotating Commission. We complain that we may only have a commissioner for ten out of 15 years but this will also apply to Germany and France. There will be periods when Germany and France will not be represented by a commissioner at the table, which is a great sacrifice for them. If it is a big sacrifice for Ireland, with a population of 4 million or 5 million, the sacrifice is a lot greater for countries with populations of 50 million, 60 million and 70 million. They are saying that they trust the other commissioners to look after their interests and move the European project forward.

In general, I believe this treaty is extremely important for Ireland and Europe. We all want a dynamic Europe that is not constrained by vetoes over every decision and that can move forward on the important issues the Minister of State alluded to in the past ten minutes. For all these reasons I urge the people of Ireland to vote "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty. I again ask those who genuinely oppose the treaty, but are pro-Europe, to come forward and explain how it should be improved.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Broughan.

Most of the arguments in this debate have been well thrashed out and I will not repeat points that have already been made and that I support. I am in favour of the Lisbon treaty and will vote for it. I worked in the European Parliament for three years and, though it is an august institution, the first 12 months of my time there were spent seeking to interpret the Byzantine language that emanates from it. This is an issue for ordinary citizens of the European Union who find it hard to interpret national legislation at the best of times, never mind European treaties and some of the language used therein. This has negative consequences for the relationships citizens have with the European Union and terms like "co-decision" and "subsidiarity" may be examples of language used in a manner that is sometimes deliberately designed to obfuscate or confuse people. Be that as it may, my experience of the European Union has led me to see it as a positive force.

I grew up in Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s and transfers from the European Union helped members of families like mine to attend college and benefit from the European Social Fund. I was able to get a grant for third level education. The investment in education through the fund helped thousands of people of my age who, otherwise, may not have benefited from a third level education. Neither would we have seen the resultant economic benefits derived by this country. This is, however, more of an historic context.

What is needed is a simplification of the language used in EU documents. The treaty should be voted for if for no other reason than that it incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a simplified document that codifies the rights of EU citizens. Whether one is from Ballyhooly or Budapest, one is a citizen of the European Union and, therefore, one's rights are guaranteed by this provision. The problems encountered by people in this country are exactly the same as by those in other countries. Our rights should be as inalienable as those in other member states.

I speak as a republican and subscribe to the ideals of this republic. No provision in the treaty is at variance with any of these ideals. Everything enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights gives succour to those ideals of egalitarian principles and seeks to ensure every citizen has a defined set of rights. That is the most important issue.

The farming organisations have stated a position on the referendum vis-À-vis the WTO negotiations. While I am sympathetic to their arguments, I would not advocate a vote against the Lisbon treaty on the basis of an argument over the WTO negotiations. The treaty will broaden the powers of the European Parliament through enhanced co-decision procedures. The Council of Ministers it would seem has sway over agricultural decisions affecting this country. If the powers of the agricultural committee of the European Parliament are broadened and national parliaments are given a greater say in transposing EU legislation, the voice of Irish agriculture will be strengthened and have more power on decisions affecting it.

It is important to note we have had little in transparency on the decisions made at EU ministerial council level. I would bet any money that if the attendance records for EU Council meetings were checked, Irish Ministers would be noted for a fair degree of absenteeism. Little information is available publicly as to what goes on at these meetings. Returning to the demise of the Irish sugar industry, a deal was hammered out at European level yet we do not know what happened on that fateful night in November 2005 at the relevant EU Council meeting. We do not know what Minister took what decision or what was said. The treaty will make every Council of Ministers meeting more transparent. I welcome this and it will allow us to know what our Ministers and the Permanent Representation are doing in Brussels.

When the Convention on the Future of Europe was held first, the imposition of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing probably set a negative tone. There was a large-state view on how the proposed EU constitution should proceed with the larger member states seeking to control the agenda. I do not blame smaller member states for kicking over the traces. There was a clear modus operandi of seeking to impose a certain set of values in the constitution. I am glad this has been rolled back and its replacement is a treaty.

The ideals of the constitution have been simplified in the treaty. If the treaty gives more power to the European Parliament, it gives more power to the people of Europe. If it gives more to national parliaments, it gives more power to us as Irish citizens to have a say in how the European Parliament proceeds on any legislative matter, which can only be welcomed.

The treaty also puts in place further checks and balances against the Commission, a necessary mechanism. EU Commissioners such as Frits Bolkestein have been hell-bent on a liberalisation agenda. Some from a left-wing perspective will oppose the Lisbon treaty because of that very agenda. I contend we should agree with the treaty so that checks and balances can be put in place against that neoliberal agenda. It is also an agenda for which our own Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, has been a strong advocate and has done us no favours in that regard.

I support the Lisbon treaty. While it is not perfect, on balance we will derive far more benefits than negatives from it.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Lisbon reform treaty is a significant legal document, although some of its proponents have erroneously tried to dismiss its importance or its impact on Irish society if it is accepted by the Irish people and adopted into law. For this reason, I welcome that the Irish people have the right to exercise their democratic right to vote on this treaty. It is extremely regrettable that none of our fellow citizens in any other EU member states will have the chance to do this.

It was disappointing and rather perplexing that one of our most celebrated aviation entrepreneurs recently admitted that he simply could not understand the treaty document after reading it four times. I wonder if he checked the Government's White Paper, the consolidated version of the treaties, edited by Peadar Ó Broin and supported by Brendan Halligan, documents produced by Deputy Costello for the Labour Party or the various helpful websites. Even after a cursory reading of the treaty, several key measures are striking and highlight its importance.

Since the Maastricht treaty established the European Union in 1993, the Union has operated on three distinct pillars — the European Communities, the Common Foreign and Security Policy and police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Significantly, the Lisbon reform treaty provides for the merging of these three pillars and establishes the EU as a legal political identity. It provides for EU citizenship, a permanent Council President, an EU prosecutors' office and, importantly, the new Charter of Fundamental Rights. Even from this brief list of some of the treaty's measures, it is obvious it will fundamentally change key structures of the EU.

The core of the treaty — and a core reason for voting "yes" — is the series of innovations that represent positive moves in the better governance of the EU. This is particularly important given the expansion of the Union to 27 member states. The EU is not a perfect construct or organisation, far from it. For those of us who want an EU that is more effective, more democratic and more responsive to the needs of its citizens, the measures contained in the reform treaty will contribute to achieving these aims. Most significantly, the new measures include the extension of the co-decision powers, particularly in terms of the European Parliament and the budgetary area, the proposed election of the President of the Commission and enhancing the transparency of European Council procedures by having public Council sittings. The citizen's initiative must also be welcomed because it allows EU citizens to act and I note the term "significant group of states" in respect of the necessary 1 million signatures, but in any serious consideration the reform treaty is an important constitutional development.

The reform treaty strengthens the weight of national parliaments within the overall EU system of governance and proposes a new orange card. All Deputies and Senators would be interested to know how that system will work in practice because we find managing certain European legislation, such as that currently before the Joint Committee on Transport and to which I shall return shortly, difficult. We need more supports and resources to invigilate European legislation.

An important element of the reform treaty is the enhancements to the social Europe agenda, which will prioritise new social objectives for the EU in terms of full employment, social progress and inclusion, justice and tackling poverty. The social clause ensures that these objectives must be given full consideration in any EU policy. A critical innovation contained within the treaty extends the qualified majority voting, QMV, system to social services for workers, which will hopefully benefit temporary and migrant workers. The expansion of the new QMV system to include 40 new policy areas will strengthen EU-wide efforts to tackle a range of issues such as climate change, asylum, immigration and border issues and the important areas of crime and justice.

Undoubtedly, some elements of the developments approved by the reform treaty raise concerns. It is regrettable that Ireland will lose a European Parliament seat under existing legislation, most likely in the Dublin region, even though the citizens of Dublin are probably already under-represented in the European Parliament. From 2014 on, the reform of the Commission will also see Ireland without a permanent commissioner for five years out of every 15 years. As a small country and irrespective of party, we have always believed the presence of an Irish commissioner at the table was beneficial because the person would know our issues. Last week, we marked the passing of our first distinguished Commissioner.

The new double majority voting system of 55% of member states and 65% of the EU's population raises concerns, particularly for smaller states. On many issues, the Union divides into three main blocs according to the size of member states, namely, the six large states — often, one or two differ with the others vigorously, such as in the current case of France and Germany — the ten middle-sized states, such as Holland and Sweden, and the 11 smaller states, of which Ireland is one. The six large states have a combined population of approximately 350 million, 70% of the EU's population of 500 million. It is true, however, that four states will be able to constitute a type of blocking minority under the so-called Ioannina clause, but there are concerns for a small state of 4.25 million people, constituting less than 1% of the EU population under double majority population rules.

The changes to representation and voting structures have some logic in the context of an expanded EU of 27 member states. However, I have listened with interest to the contributions of some of the more thoughtful advocates of a "No" vote and accept that there are three areas in which Ireland needs to be constantly vigilant in terms of the reform treaty and beyond. The EU has a strong defensive element. The treaty refers to a common defence. The incorporation of the Petersberg Tasks in the 1997 Amsterdam treaty and the subsequent establishment of the EU battle groups programme have raised grave concerns among many people. It is also an unassailable fact that, for many states, particularly the newer members from central and eastern Europe, NATO membership has preceded EU membership. For some of those states, NATO and the EU appear to be two sides of the same coin. The EU must not be allowed to become interchangeable with NATO or become in any way its political wing. Instead, it is important for the European project that the traditions of countries such as Ireland, with our strong commitment to neutrality, should be given complete equality within the culture and governance of the EU. To be fair, our negotiators attempted to achieve this in the document.

However, it is also true and must be celebrated that one of the EU's outstanding achievements in the past 50 years has been the creation of the largest zone of peace and security in European history between countries that were riven by war and strife for centuries. Recently, some historians compared the peace and stability zones of the United States and Europe and rightly called them two of the greatest achievements in political history.

We must be vigilant of the effect of EU policy on Ireland's fiscal well-being. The euro has been a successful currency and we have become used to the idea that monetary policy is decided in Frankfurt and that the ideal of a strong currency seems to take preference over states' employment needs. None the less, the euro is flourishing and has achieved much in economic terms. However, the right to set taxes is a core and exclusive privilege of a democratically elected national government. This right must be protected by every means possible. The recent comments by the French Minister of Finance, Madame Christine Lagarde, on this matter displayed an unwarranted and unacceptable breach of the national rights and prerogatives of EU member states. We have safeguarded our taxation rights in treaties to date and it will be necessary to continue to do so to the advantage of our people.

Ireland and our neighbour, the United Kingdom, have a common interest in enhanced legal and security issues as regards crime, but there are question marks over the operation of the common asylum policy. The development of the prosecutor's office must take into account differences between the Irish common law tradition and the Roman civil law tradition that is common in many other EU states.

Taking into account these serious concerns, EU involvement in the past 35 years has benefited Ireland considerably and the reform treaty will strengthen the ability of the EU as an institution to govern effectively and to address the social and economic concerns of its citizens. On balance and after intense consideration of all the issues involved, a "Yes" vote is the right choice, which is the recommendation I make to my constituents and supporters. I was first asked this question last December by a new Chinese-Irish citizen. The referendum may be the first time he will vote here. I examined some of the documents to which I referred and reverted to him. The points I am making today are my considered opinion.

Given Europe's difficult history and the recent East-West division, the achievement of the EU is unprecedented and undeniably great. The EU constitutes the successful working together of an unparalleled number of nations, cultures and 21 languages, in which Gaeilge is proudly included. Recently through a series of parliamentary questions and my membership of the Committee of Public Accounts, of which the Acting Chairman is also a member, I asked the Secretary General of the Department of Finance about the exact figures for Ireland's contributions to and funding received from the Union. He informed me that Ireland has received just less than €60 billion in payments and made contributions to the EU budget of €20 billion. While we will become a net contributor, this may not occur until 2011-2013.

I will remark on the benefits of that funding, particularly in areas such as the north side of Dublin and in my constituency. The EU's Social Fund has played a critical role in providing funds and support for many local and community programmes. The Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, and I are long-standing directors of the Northside Partnership and other local bodies, such as the Coolock Development Council. We could not have run the types of training and jobs programmes undertaken without the fund. Hopefully, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and his colleagues will introduce other initiatives in light of the economic downturn towards which we are moving and during which such projects will again become significant. We depended on EU support considerably. An area of my constituency — the Acting Chairman was made aware of this matter when it was discussed at Dublin City Council level — is that of the Darndale-Belcamp village centre. The key seed money for the centre came from the EU Urban programme through a people's initiative, which I supported at city council level. When European officials visited, they went to Ballymun and Finglas in the constituency of the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, and Deputy Shortall and also decided to include those areas. For us in Dublin North East, Darndale village was a major achievement.

Having noted the continuing grave concerns and the fact that we must be vigilant — Commission President Barroso recently told my colleague, Deputy Quinn, that this treaty will probably not be the last — in defence of fiscal and taxation matters, we are still better off in the heart of Europe. I support a "Yes" vote.

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

May I share time with Deputy Flynn?

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed. There are 20 minutes in this slot.

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill at a critical juncture for both the EU and Ireland. The Irish people must make an important decision, not only about the reform treaty but also about the future of this country. I strongly believe that a "Yes" vote will pave the way for Ireland to continue to benefit from EU membership as it has done successfully for the past 35 years. Ní gá dúinn ach féachaint siar ar an méid atá bainte amach againn mar thír agus mar bhall den Eoraip. Smaoinigh gur tír iargúlta í Éire ar imeall na hEorpa agus gur éirigh linn aitheantas agus airgead a fháil ón Eoraip. Idir an dá rud sin d'éirigh linn dul chun cinn an-mhaith a dhéanamh. Féach ar an tír atá againn. Tír í a bhfuil daoine an-bhródúil aisti, mar a bhí i gcónaí. Ach tá dóchas anois ag daoine óga gur féidir leo a n-áit agus a bpáirt a ghlacadh go hiomlán i sochaí na tíre seo, i sochaí na hEorpa agus ar stáitse an domhain.

Féach freisin ar an méid atá bainte amach ó thaobh na Gaeilge de. Ba mhór an dul chun cinn don nGaeilge aitheantas oifigiúil a fháil don teanga cúpla bliain ó shin. Tugann sé spreagadh iontach do dhaoine óga go bhfuil an t-aitheantas sin faighte ag an nGaeilge. Nuair a chualthas an Tánaiste, an Teachta Brian Ó Comhain, ag labhairt neart Gaeilge cúpla seachtain ó shin, thug sé níos mó spreagadh do dhaoine. Tá 160 teanga le clos in Éirinn inniu. Cuireann sé sin dúshlán os ár gcomhair chun ár dteanga féin a labhairt agus a chur chun cinn. Tugann an Eoraip cabhair dúinn chun é sin a dhéanamh.

The reform treaty was brought about as a result of long discussion on the EU treaties and agreement on it was reached last October. It provides for a settled set of structures with which today's 27-member Union can operate effectively for the foreseeable future. The Irish Presidency had a major role to play in the formulation of this treaty because it is largely similar, albeit with some changes and improvements, to the EU constitution that was agreed during the Irish Presidency in 2004. Tribute was paid in this House today to the role of the Taoiseach in bringing about agreement in this regard. However, the reform treaty also has its origins in the Convention on Europe, a body of more than 200 public representatives from the member states, civil society and the EU institutions, which met throughout much of 2003 and in which several Oireachtas Members participated.

As the voice of the Irish people participated in the making of this treaty, it is no wonder that it is now seen as an integrated and well balanced package of key changes that will improve the manner in which the Union does its business, provide for greater democracy and transparency and enable the EU to tackle major issues, such as climate change and globalisation, which no individual country can do alone.

Each main feature of the treaty, which has been well rehearsed in this debate, represents positive improvements in the manner in which the Union conducts its business and in how that business will affect the lives of the citizens. It is important to remember that in the treaty negotiations, Ireland succeeded in achieving its key priorities, including maintaining unanimous decision-making on tax matters, protecting its traditional policy of military neutrality and ensuring balance in the Union's institutions and equality with regard to membership of the Commission.

The reform treaty will provide a renewed sense of direction to the EU, a more effective institutional framework, an explicit recognition of the equality of member states, a strengthened human rights base and a greater capacity for national parliaments to influence EU legislation. This latter element is particularly important because it will give the Oireachtas a new role in EU affairs. This will enhance further the democratic legitimacy of the Union by bringing national parliaments more fully into play. This is an important opportunity for the Oireachtas and is one of the many reasons the reform treaty deserves Members' full support. The reform treaty makes a real attempt to respond to the concerns and interests of citizens. In recent times, the focus of the EU's work increasingly has been on creating a Union that delivers results for its citizens in their capacity as consumers, workers, employers, parents and members of civil society. The reform treaty provides the political and institutional basis to meet the expectations of our citizens.

EU membership has significantly underpinned Ireland's economic, political, social and cultural development in the past 35 years. The economic changes that have taken place since Ireland joined the EU have been remarkable. In 1973, our wealth was barely 60% of the EU average while it is above the EU average at present. In 1973, total employment stood at a little more than 1 million, while 2.1 million people are now in work. In 1973, Ireland had a trade deficit of €340 million while it now has a trade surplus of more than €30 billion. Since 1973, EU funds totalling approximately €58 billion have flowed into Ireland. These resources have made an enormous difference and we have made good use of them. The Single Market allows us unhindered access to a market of almost 500 million people. It is no coincidence that Ireland's period of dramatically enhanced prosperity began in the early 1990s, at approximately the same time as the Single Market's creation.

The impact of our membership on the education sector has been hugely significant. The foundation stone of the European Union's approach to education policy is that while each member state retains full responsibility for, and control of, the content of teaching and vocational education, as well as for the organisation of its own education system, it is acknowledged there is much to be gained from working together, whether to share experiences, co-ordinate approaches to the significant common challenges facing member states or highlight their common European cultural heritage, together with celebrating Europe's cultural diversity.

The Education, Youth and Culture Council of Ministers has provided an important framework to achieve these goals by facilitating co-operation between member states and allowing the free exchange of information and experience on matters of shared interest at ministerial and official level. The open method of co-ordination is a fine example of how this type of co-operation works in practice and how it is grounded in the real concerns of those who work and participate in the education system. It has provided a crucial method for discovering what challenges are common to us and identifying solutions which can feed into the national domestic policy-making process. These relate to real issues, such as indiscipline in classrooms, the integration of migrants or the challenges posed by social inclusion.

The tangible benefits of EU membership to Ireland's education system extend far beyond those policy dimensions, however. It can be seen in practical terms across many aspects of the education area. EU programmes for education, training and youth have created exciting opportunities for young Irish people to study, undergo training, enhance their personal development or work on social projects in other EU countries. For example, the Erasmus programme for university co-operation and student mobility constitutes one of the great success stories of European higher education. In the past 20 years, 24,000 young Irish people have participated in the Erasmus programme and have studied at institutions throughout Europe. This tradition will continue and will strengthen in the next few years as the European lifelong learning programme will provide opportunities for educational partnerships and exchanges involving schools, higher education institutions and the vocational training and adult education sectors.

In recent years, there have been more places available to Irish young people than there has been take-up and I encourage young people to avail of the opportunity afforded by these scholarships under the Erasmus programme. In the next five years, Ireland will receive nearly €81 million from the European Commission-funded lifelong learning programmes to facilitate education and training mobility. This will allow more than 18,500 Irish third level students and lecturing staff to participate in Erasmus educational exchanges, more than 4,000 Irish trainees to benefit from European work placement and approximately 900 schools and 300 adult education organisations to participate in various European partnerships.

The need to enhance qualifications recognition to enable people to move between different countries in Europe has been identified as the key implementation challenge for education and training in the Lisbon process of making Europe more competitive. I recall that many years ago, while on a stagiaire scholarship, the project on which I worked concerned the mutual recognition of degrees and diplomas. Much progress has been made and the process has benefited from Ireland's role in this regard because it has been to the fore in Europe in developing and implementing a national framework of qualifications and in participating in the development of the European qualifications framework. The implementation of the European qualifications framework will lead to enhanced mobility for students and workers across Europe.

In the area of education and training, the European Social Fund has contributed significantly to the development of Ireland's workforce to ensure that it has the requisite quantity and quality of trained and educated people to meet the needs of the labour market and the growing economy. It also has been crucial in tackling unemployment and social exclusion, with a particular focus on the needs of groups facing barriers to participation, such as early school leavers, people with disabilities, women and ethnic minorities. In the last programme for 2000 to 2006, the Department was allocated €450 million in European social funds which were used inter alia to combat early school leaving, implement adult literacy programmes and back-to-education initiatives for vulnerable groups, broaden access to third-level education and meet the skill needs of the high technology sector. In the period from 2007 to 2013, the Department will receive ESF aid of approximately €130 million. In total, Ireland has been allocated €901 million in European social funds and €750 million for regional competitiveness and employment. Projects for which this aid can be used include activating groups outside the workforce, addressing early school leaving, supporting people with disabilities and enhancing the employment of young persons facing social exclusion.

Our EU membership has seen transformational growth and development in Ireland's higher education system, including the development of institutes of technology from their origins as regional technical colleges. This week, credit was given to the late Dr. Paddy Hillery for his role in developing the regional technical colleges, which also owe much to the availability of European social funds. These colleges have been the main catalyst for the widespread access to higher education which is now our major source of national competitive advantage.

These far-sighted investments in higher education capacity made possible by EU membership have created the enormous opportunities enjoyed by the present generation of young Irish people and laid the foundation for the innovation on which our future prosperity will rely. When we joined the EEC in 1972, foreign investment amounted to just €16 million but 35 years later foreign direct investment in Ireland is measured in billions of euro. Foreign companies in Ireland employ more than 135,000 people, account for exports of more than €73 billion per annum and generate €15 billion expenditure in the economy annually. This would not have happened without EU membership. A signal from Ireland that we are somehow reluctant to commit to a future in Europe would inevitably damage our standing in the eyes of foreign investors, which is all the more reason why a "Yes" vote is crucial.

Our experience in the EU shows that small countries can prosper and make their voices heard. By sharing our sovereignty, we have joined others to strengthen our case on many issues of national importance, including agriculture and foreign and economic policy. Without EU membership, we would have been unable to advance or protect our interests to the same degree. By operating collectively with our European partners, we have been able to achieve much more than we could have done by standing alone. It would not make any sense for us to turn our backs on Europe, which is why it is vital that Ireland ratifies the treaty.

Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. It is more than 50 years since years since the original six countries sat down to form what would become the European Economic Community. Europe was still recovering from the scars of wars, wounds were still open and mutual hostility and suspicions were still rife, yet the statesmen who signed the first agreement had the vision and courage to realise a united Europe was the key to peace, prosperity and a new way forward. That European Community has changed dramatically in the past fifty years, both internally in terms of its present membership of 27 compared to the original six and externally in the context of a changing world order. New economic powers which were unheard of in 1957 have emerged and the power balance has shifted so that the east-west divide is no longer the fulcrum. No single country has the solution to the new threats facing the community. Climate change and globalisation, the divide between rich and poor and the depletion of the world's resources mean that no country is an island or is able to shirk its responsibility to the common good.

Few would deny that Ireland has benefitted substantially from our membership of the European community. Our status as one of the poorest members of Europe is a thing of the past and we are blessed with a strong economy which is the envy of many of our neighbours. This would never have happened if we did not have the courage to do the right thing at the right time. It should not be forgotten that on the day Jack Lynch put pen to paper and tied us irrevocably to Europe, dissenting voices warned that we would reap a whirlwind of economic and political disasters. We are now Europeans in the fullest sense of the word but this is a status which brings its own duties and obligations. We are once again faced with an opportunity and a challenge. We can either play a constructive role in the future shape of Europe or we can get left behind on the outside forever, while more purposeful and motivated newcomers take our place.

One of the most striking aspects of the Lisbon treaty is the determination to give smaller member states equal footing in the new Europe. Those who rail against the dominance of the bigger powers seem to forget that since 2004 the larger member states have surrendered their right to a second member on the European Commission in order to make the institution more viable. Even with that concession, however, the Commission could still be regarded as unwieldy, so the treaty recommends a rotation system which, while limiting Commission numbers, will also protect the right of each member state to nominate a commissioner on a strictly equal basis.

The Lisbon treaty has also gone into considerable detail in achieving a balance between a top heavy concentration of elected members and the need to retain a fair representation for member states. From next June, Ireland's representation will decrease from 13 to 12 MEPs but this must be viewed in light of the need to put a cap on parliamentary membership while still accommodating the member states which have acceded since our allotted membership was set at 15. No country can have fewer than six or more than 96 MEPs, regardless of population, and smaller countries will have more seats than their population would warrant. With this numerical reform will come important new powers for the Parliament which will give it shared authority with the Council of Ministers through the co-decision process. Thus, while countries like Ireland may lose out in terms of seats, we stand to gain substantially by way of increased influence in decision making.

A reassuring theme of the Lisbon treaty is its adherence to the ideal of representative democracy, that basic tenet which upholds the right of every citizen to participate in the democratic life of the Union. The fear held by many people is that as the European Union gets bigger and as they become further removed from the centre of power, so too will individual rights be diminished. This treaty is at pains to ensure that the values and democratic principles on which the EU is based will be respected. To that end, national parliaments will have a direct input into European legislation. More importantly, the EU must share power and give precedence to the principle of subsidiarity, which sets out that decisions should as far as possible be taken at local, regional or national level. Far from usurping the power and authority of national governments, the Lisbon treaty seeks to ensure power remains with the people, to be exercised by them as best they see fit.

It is important to emphasise that the European Union is not now a state nor will it be one after the Lisbon treaty comes into effect. The Union is a creation of its member states and the only powers it commands are those which have been conferred on it by its members. It has no primacy unless freely given by its constituent members. Its role is to serve the community rather than disempower national parliaments, where power ultimately resides. Like our predecessors of three decades ago, the Irish people are being asked to stand at the gate of history and say "Yes" or "No" to Europe's destiny. We are being asked to show the same courage and vision as those who first embarked on the voyage to create a stable, peaceful and prosperous Continent. We owe it to ourselves and the generations to come to show that we are not afraid to be counted as citizens of a Europe in which democracy and freedom will be the cornerstone.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy McHugh.

Deputies:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is important that we hold this debate. Other speakers have highlighted the importance of putting the treaty to the Irish people and the decision which must be made in the forthcoming referendum. Our constituents are asking many questions on the Lisbon treaty. We should not run away with ourselves in this House because a considerable number or people simply do not understand the treaty. Politicians of all major parties have decided to support the treaty and campaign for its ratification and I will be doing my part in my constituency. However, I give warning to the Government that significant concerns have arisen.

People are wondering whether they should ratify it when they are finding it increasingly difficult to do business in Ireland and Europe. Last Monday, I attended a meeting in Dundrum at which business people and farmers spoke about the paperwork, red tape and other issues they must confront in operating and running their businesses. There is a question being asked and we in this House have a duty to in some simple way explain what we are doing with regard to the treaty. We must remind the people of how we in this country have benefited.

I come from a rural constituency and can remember my first real education on Europe, European agriculture and the benefits joining the EU would have for each and every one of us in this country. It happened in Tralee in 1967 or 1968 when the then Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Mansholt, came to Ireland on a tour and addressed the Macra na Feirme conference in the town. I was told about the benefits we, as young farmers, could expect and I believe we have benefited, although perhaps this did not take the road Mr. Mansholt promised. There was to be an abundance of jobs for farmers and an abundance of people to buy the products, and, while that did not happen, the reality is that Ireland prospered and rural Ireland in particular changed.

On leaving that conference and walking up the street in Tralee, we were confronted by members of Sinn Féin. At that time, they were opposing Europe and running a strong campaign claiming we should not join Europe and should stay as we were. Now, many years later, when Ireland has gone through total change and we are one of the wealthier countries and the envy of Europe and the world, in part because of joining the EU but also because of the way we managed our affairs and economy, the same people are opposing this treaty.

I want to send out a warning that we should not be complacent about the treaty, which it will be difficult to have passed. The reality is that the campaign against it seems more motivated than the campaign for it. While the major political parties have the resources and support it, there are questions among the people with regard to their lives moving forward and changing. We have a duty in this regard. Not alone should we explain what is contained in the treaty but we must also point out how this country has benefited in recent years. These benefits can be outlined in the areas of agriculture, education and infrastructure, including EU funding for roads, which were in a very poor state 15 to 20 years ago. The benefits came because in this institution, Dáil Éireann, all of the political parties were of the view that Europe was good. No matter who was in government, we negotiated hard over long hours to get benefits for Ireland and we achieved good deals on behalf of the Irish people.

With regard to the farming organisations, there seems to be a huge mix-up with regard to the WTO talks and their connection to this treaty. I wonder what Padraig Walshe was saying last Thursday when he addressed the farmers. He has a duty as a leader of the largest farming organisation — I admit I am a member of that organisation — to come out and support this campaign more publicly than he has done. The truth is that the major farming organisations committed themselves at the beginning but they have not gone further because there is a protest in regard to the WTO talks, which is another issue, although it is related to agriculture and a cause of huge fear. If the treaty is not to go down, the major farming organisations must come out clearly in the coming days and ask their members to vote for it.

If we do not vote for this treaty, the other European countries will not look kindly on Ireland. They are looking at us because we are the only country that must have a referendum on the treaty. It has been asked in recent days whether we actually need a referendum and I understand there is a view that we do not need it. I ask the Minister of State to clarify whether the Government asked the view of the Attorney General on this serious matter. We are putting a treaty to the people and whether the Government has obtained the view of the Attorney General is a valid point.

This campaign involves huge money and huge worry. There are major campaigns but we do not seem able to get to the nitty-gritty of the matter. Views were expressed in yesterday's newspapers that we do not need a referendum and I want to know whether we do. Why should we go to the expense of having a referendum and go through weeks of debate if we do not need it? To be fair to the Government representatives — the Ministers, the officials and others who have gone to Europe for any type of negotiations, particularly with regard to this treaty — they did their job to the best of their ability and it could not have been done better. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State could clarify this point.

Jimmy Devins (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been informed that the Attorney General gave advice in early December that we were required to hold a referendum to ratify the treaty.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yesterday I visited Termonfeckin in County Louth, joined by the esteemed Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, to attend a meeting of the Irish Countrywomen's Association, the ICA, as it is more familiarly known. It is good to see this debate is taking place. I commend all the organisations that are taking the initiative and encourage other organisations within the voluntary and community sector, and even State bodies, to show initiative and get the debate going. I welcome the fact there is a "No" camp because it certainly adds fire to the debate. If the debate really gets going, the facts will emerge. I also welcome last weekend's announcement by a high profile businessman of his "No" candidature.

The complexity of the document is and will continue to be an issue for many people. However, the issue is complex. We are talking about 500 million people, institutions, politics and 27 independent states trying to work in harmony towards greater gain on policy issues. At the same time, we are trying to hold onto our individuality and independence, which is enshrined in our Constitution. The biggest myth in this debate is that we would lose independence, which is a nonsensical argument. There is a view that we will not be able to have a referendum on another European treaty. That is nonsense because it is sacrosanct in the Constitution that we are independent on this issue.

I have come across many people who are indifferent towards politicians in the "Yes" camp who advocate all that Europe has done for us. It reminds me of the question in the film "The Life of Brian" when someone asked what did the Romans ever do for us and the reply came that they built the roads and bridges and provided sanitation. We could also ask what Brussels or Europe has ever done for us. There is a mindset that they did not do anything for us but the reality is that much has been achieved, yet the only aspect the public are tapping into, and I am being reflective of my own neck of the woods in the north western corner of Europe, is that there is a degree of imbalance in terms of European funding spend on infrastructural projects. One only has to travel to Dublin to see the European investment in the M50.

I realise it is a chicken and egg situation in that investment follows critical mass but the people living in the west argue that the only way to build critical mass is to invest money in the region. An issue the people in the west will acknowledge when they vote in June is whether we have got our fair share of the pie from Europe. The danger is that they will blame Europe, but Europe did not design our policy. This is national policy. It is an issue about which we should be upfront and the people in the "Yes" camp should acknowledge we have not distributed the fair share of infrastructural spend throughout the country.

On another element, we must acknowledge the positives in terms of the social inclusion measures including, going back to our joining of the EEC in 1973, the social economy project and in later years the empowerment of women projects, the active social inclusion measures for people with disabilities and people who are on the margins. We have to acknowledge that much of that came from European policy and it is something we should advocate. We should not be arguing in the past. We must make ground in the future because inequities and imbalances remain. We only have to consider the different wage scales. Women are still not on a par with men when it comes to top industrial wages and the top jobs. We must continue to explore those issues and by being part of Europe and buying into this Lisbon treaty we can achieve more in terms of creating more equality.

Regarding disabilities, we are still not complying with our own legislation in terms of inclusion in the labour market. At local authority and Government level and throughout our State mechanism we must put up our hands and acknowledge that we are not complying with the 4% requirement for people with disabilities in employment. That measure stemmed from Europe and it is an issue on which we should keep a sharp focus within the Lisbon treaty.

Regarding our international duties as a European Union, we have a role in that regard. It is unique that an Irishman, Pat Nash, is leading the peace troops to Chad. It is important that we get across the point that Irish people are not in the business of going to war for the sake of it. There are displaced people and people who are hungry who need help. They need the independent forces to give them some sort of assistance and there are no better people to do that than the Irish because of our history over 800 years, going back to colonisation, of achieving peace. We are in the business of being peacemakers. We are not in the business of going to war. The argument that we will not have a say in terms of an EU army is nonsense because it is enshrined in the Lisbon treaty that there must be unanimity and an opt-out clause.

I referred earlier to regional development. The element in the Lisbon treaty about subsidiarity stemmed from the Committee of the Regions and the Assembly of European Regions where regions have to get autonomy. We must bring power back to the regions. That is enshrined in the Lisbon treaty and something I welcome. It is something we must aspire towards. The Minister of State, Deputy Devins, will be aware that Sligo got a range of new carriages and rail services, which I very much welcome. It is great for the region but Derry city, for example, is the fourth largest city but there is no direct rail connectivity with Dublin and there are no plans to have direct connectivity for rail. Government on both sides of the Border agreed to an integrated transport strategy through the Good Friday Agreement. They bought into that but in the policies North and South there is no mechanism or policy to consider connectivity between Derry city and Dublin up to the north west region. We must examine that issue because by being part of a workmanlike European Union they will assist us to ensure that happens.

Regarding enlargement, there is a serious issue in terms of our peripherality. We are moving further away from the centre of Europe. With the eastern European bloc we are more on the periphery now than ever before from a geographical point of view. That is something that is settling into the psyche of the Irish electorate. They can feel that distancing and that we are further on the periphery, but that does not mean we should opt out. We may be further isolated but we will still have a pivotal role in terms of the United States and an enlarged European Union. We cannot take our eye off the ball in that regard. We must be careful in setting ourselves up in terms of competitive standards. There is a role for us to play in terms of a working collaboration between the United Kingdom and Ireland. From his experience in the British-Irish committee, the Minister of State is aware that goodwill exists. Deputy Brady is a member of the British-Irish committee now and we are looking for a mechanism for that British-Irish committee to evolve. We should examine that collectively because in being part of that grouping we will be a more formidable force in terms of increased competition.

The EU is too bureaucratic. There are too many layers of bureaucracy and the Lisbon treaty will try to peel back those layers. I welcome that and the fact that a citizens' charter will give more democracy to the people. There is provision for a direct petition for 1 million signatures. I am aware those in the "No" camp are disregarding that but it means something. It is direct access to Europe on particular issues.

It is important we do not take our eye off the ball on this issue. I do not know about Members on the other side of the House but I meet many people from Donegal who say they will vote "No". They are not yet convinced and will vote "No" at this stage. They will keep an open mind but we must keep the campaign going in terms of information and clarity on this issue.

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputies Niall Collins and Barry Andrews have 20 minutes between them.

Niall Collins (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the EU reform treaty. At the outset I wish to refute some of the criticism levelled at this side of the House by our colleagues in the "Yes" campaign, particularly in regard to their perceived view that this party and Members on this side of the House are not committed to mobilising a campaign early for a "Yes" vote. In my part of the country, Country Limerick and the wider mid-west region, we have been holding a number of meetings. I was personally involved in organising a public meeting last week and sent out over 8,000 communications not just to party supporters, but to the wider public inviting them to an information evening. We did not ask them to come to a meeting to hear the reason they should vote "Yes". We billed it as an open public information session to hear about the upcoming referendum and we engaged in a full and interactive two-way discussion. There were people in attendance who had not made up their minds, others who were committed "Yes" voters and others still who were committed to voting "No". I thank the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, for being present on the night and putting in a very strong performance in espousing why we should mobilise and use every opportunity to promote a "Yes" vote.

Similarly, earlier this week in Limerick city there was an interactive debate between the Minister for Defence, Deputy Willie O'Dea, and a member of the "No" movement, which garnered wide publicity. Credit must be given to the Minister for putting out the reasons we should vote "Yes" in a very succinct, plain and simple manner. It received widespread publicity. I reject criticism that we were not involved in promoting a "Yes" vote from an early point in time as we certainly were.

I will confine my comments to a number of areas which directly affect the constituency I represent in Limerick and the wider mid-west region. These relate particularly to the farming industry, although issues have also been raised with regard to neutrality and representation at EU level. There is quite a wide industrial base within the broad mid-west region of the country.

I will knock the issue of our representation at EU level on the head. It is important this House sends out the message that all 27 member states of the expanded Europe will have equal representation at EU Commissioner level on a rotational basis. No particular power bloc or country, such as Britain, France or Germany, will have a permanent EU Commissioner with us being left with rotating smaller states.

This is probably a good compromise. To have 27 Commissioners sitting around a table with what would have to be vastly diminished responsibilities and portfolios would not make sense for practical working of the new institutions for a wider Europe. At every point in time we must take the opportunity to send out the message that we are really streamlining the institutions of Europe to work for the expanded European community.

On the tax code, it is welcome that IBEC has been to the forefront of the "Yes" campaign from early on. Over the past decades in my part of the world, the tax code available to foreign direct investors and multinationals has made it possible for them to come into the Shannon free zone and wider mid west and County Limerick areas to promote industry. We have done quite well and we now have companies such as Dell, Wyeth, Kostal and Vistakon. Some of the biggest foreign direct investors in the world have located many of their manufacturing and headquarters offices in the wider Limerick area, which is quite welcome. That is down to our attractiveness from a tax point of view and it is important we maintain our tax independence and the complete autonomy we have now, which we will always enjoy, to control our tax regime. We should not be subject to any outside influences from that perspective.

Our neutrality has been commented on by various speakers and most people are quite comfortable that the triple lock mechanism exists. We have suffered no diminution in our neutrality.

Farming is very relevant to the constituency I represent. A "No" vote for the EU reform treaty will weaken Ireland's negotiating hand at EU level and seriously harm farmers and rural communities. Ireland has always had issues to deal with of national importance in Europe and we must deal with these from a position of strength rather than weakness. A "No" vote on this treaty would weaken Ireland's future negotiating capacity at European Union level.

I state this for a number of reasons. For example, the Common Agricultural Policy for 2009 to 2013 is being reviewed over the next six to eight months under the forthcoming Presidency of the European Union. From an Irish viewpoint, there are a number of serious issues in the context of this CAP review and we want to deal with this during the review process. A "No" vote against the European treaty will weaken our negotiating hand during this CAP review process. A "No" vote would also weaken our negotiating hand as CAP is being reviewed at EU level at a later date for the period from 2013 to 2021.

I point out that Libertas, which is leading the "No" campaign against the treaty, wishes to destroy the Common Agricultural Policy in its entirety. I am not satisfied Mr. Peter Mandelson is adequately dealing with the concerns of Irish farmers in the context of the World Trade Organisation talks, and his negotiating approach has been unbalanced. The Irish beef industry is the fourth largest in the world, after America, Brazil and Australia, and we must continue to impress upon Mr. Mandelson that his negotiating strategy is simply wrong. At the last meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers, 20 from 27 Ministers spoke against his negotiating strategy.

The round of talks has been going on for the past six years in Geneva, and it goes without saying these are not without difficulty. No World Trade Organisation deal can be secured unless there is agreement on what is known as the non-agricultural access market. The EU has asked Brazil, China and India to open its markets to imports of goods and services from the developing world but the efforts of the EU have been met with strong opposition from the other three countries to date.

We should bear in mind that no debate about the EU reform treaty is possible without taking a good look at ourselves, where we come from, where we are now and where we are going. Most commentators would agree Ireland has benefited from its engagement in Europe. I am unsure the parts of the Irish electorate campaigning for a "No" vote in the forthcoming referendum are aware of just how much the country has benefited. Ireland in 2008 is unrecognisable from the small, inward-looking country that first joined the EEC in 1973.

I will conclude on that as we should remind ourselves of how immensely we have benefited from membership of the EU over the years. If we take a negative approach to the referendum and campaigning, and if we find ourselves beaten on the issue, we will find ourselves on the bottom of the pile in Europe in terms of credibility and negotiating strength. The issue is paramount.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree very much with the sentiments of Deputy Collins and thank him for sharing his time. I will begin by making a few observations about the legal framework in which we are holding this referendum and have held previous referendum campaigns. They are minor comments and do not really involve the big issue.

The McKenna judgment governs, to a large extent, the way in which balance is required. It goes on at length about the requirements of the Government to achieve balance in the way it deals with the sharing of information with members of the public. It does not state what the Oireachtas is meant to do. There should be a strong distinction between the Oireachtas and the Government, which is certainly reflected in the Constitution.

As a result, I find it slightly absurd that the European affairs committee, of which I am a member, is required on its current trip around Ireland to present a balanced view taking in "Yes" and "No" sides. This is in spite of the fact that almost all members of the committee are in favour of a "Yes" vote. We are nonetheless required to provide this balance, which is not in the least reflective of our opinions.

The Oireachtas, and the Dáil in particular, is a constituent assembly. It has an inbuilt balance in that we were all elected by the people, and our opinions are reflective of the opinions of the people. We should not be required to carry out what is an absurd exercise. The McKenna judgment is Judiciary-made law and it is our own fault we have not legislated on the issue or set down the requirements.

Another example of judge-made law is the Kelly judgment, which deals with how we, as Deputies and Senators, must behave in the three weeks before a general election. We must close our offices to ensure balance and that we do not have a competitive advantage over people who are not Deputies. The next thing we know, Patricia McKenna or somebody like her, will go to the High Court seeking that in a referendum campaign, our Dáil offices should be closed because they give a competitive advantage over "No" campaigners who are not Members of the Dáil. It is our own fault because we have not done anything in the context of clarifying what is required. Equally, the Referendum Commission will be required to painfully set out the "no" side of the matter even though no one in the Government and very few Members of the Oireachtas are opposed to the treaty. That is the corner into which we have painted ourselves by not being active in this area.

To illustrate the absurdity, I wish to make one observation. The Joint Committee on European Affairs is currently holding meetings throughout the country on the treaty. If it provides speakers to represent the "Yes" and "No" camps for one of its meeting and if, during proceedings, the speaker for the "no" side has a lucid interval and decides that he or she is going to vote "Yes" on the basis of all the arguments that have been put to him or her, the meeting which began in compliance with the McKenna judgment will end up being in contravention of it due to the absence of a speaker for the "No" side. That is how ridiculous matters have become.

As many speakers stated, the EU has been a fantastic project for Ireland and Europe. However, that fact will not win the referendum for us. Eaten bread is soon forgotten and that is particularly true in the European context. My view is that the European Union has been responsible for a radicalisation of the middle ground and has created a revolution in consensus building. Ireland has done well out of the building of consensus. Evidence of this can be seen in the social partnership model, developments in Northern Ireland and the work of the Government and the Civil Service in the context of the expansion of the EU. The European Union represents part of the way politics has moved away from the adversarial model of one country being pitched against another.

The European project involves three phases. The first was people trying to bury the hatchet, the second related to monetary union and the expansion of services and the next phase will involve the EU taking its place on the global stage in order to address major global issues. The major issues I am bringing to people's attention when I am campaigning in respect of and trying to explain the treaty are climate change and energy security, which, for the first time, will become shared competences for the European Union. The latter is to the intervention of Irish delegations at various IGCs and European Council meetings. We deserve much credit for that.

On the expansion of the Single Market, I wish to refer to two reports. The Forfás report published in February, which the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy McGuinness, had a role in welcoming, outlined the great benefits to Ireland, particularly, Irish consumers, of the expansion of the Single Market during the past ten to 15 years. Much remains to be done and the flexibility built into the Lisbon treaty means that Irish consumers will benefit from a more flexible and efficient European Union. The EU has many new member states and it must adopt new decision-making systems. The latter are contained in the treaty.

I accept that the treaty is complicated. I am amazed that Ulick McEvaddy's great argument is that he does not understand it and, therefore, he is going to spend a fortune on calling for it to be rejected. There is a great deal more to that than meets the eye.

IBEC has made an interesting observation, namely, that American corporate interests invested €83 billion in Ireland in 2006, which is more than the combined figure invested by such interests in Brazil, India, China and Russia in the same period. Foreign direct investment is clearly facilitated by the Lisbon treaty and our membership of the European Union, the eurozone and the Single Market.

The next phase of European Union development relates to its role on the global stage. When the Rwanda crisis arose in 1994, there was an extremely limp response from the European Union, the UN and the international community in general. What happened in Rwanda is a stain on the reputations of everyone who was involved in those days. However, we have moved on. Ordinary people want us to give them something on to which they can cling and say "That is what the European Union has done".

Ireland has sent troops to Chad and is playing a large role in the leadership of the overall force. This will be of major benefit to those of us who continue to support the European project because it stands in such stark contrast to what happened in Rwanda. We completely failed to respond to the enormous humanitarian crisis that arose in that country or to the genocide which preceded it. There has been a virtual genocide in Darfur and there is a humanitarian crisis on the borders of that region to which we are finally responding. That is to our credit and it is something that members of Fianna Fáil have trumpeted as one of the indicators of the direction in which Europe is going. Events in Iraq have shown that America's star has waned to some degree. As a result, the European Union has been offered an opportunity to direct the way the international community deals with crises such as those to which I refer.

On energy security, Ireland is more dependent on outside energy supplies as a result of its geographical position off the coast of England which, in turn, is located off the coast of Europe. There is no doubt that the elevation of energy security to a position as one of the shared competences of the European Union will be of great benefit to Ireland. To me, that major change represents the most attractive part of the treaty. In my view, this change is comprehensible for people. There is enormous political will which is beginning to catch up with that of the people to develop better policies on climate change and energy security. The European Union is, in turn, through the treaty, catching up by elevating energy security to a position of importance.

Another element of the treaty is the Charter on Fundamental Rights, which will be elevated to the status of the two treaties that exist side by side. The potential for the charter to play a central role in the expansion of social and economic rights is unknown at this point. Many people are stating that it will be as important as the Convention on Human Rights in the context of its overall impact on the decisions that will be made in the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Joint Committee on the Constitution, of which I am a member, discussed the effect of the Convention on Human Rights, which seems to have an almost greater gravitational pull than the Constitution. Some commentators predict that the Charter on Fundamental Rights will have an equal impact on Irish jurisprudence. That is a development I welcome. I commend the Bill to the House.

Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Like most speakers and on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, I will do everything possible to convince people to vote "Yes". I will do so out of sheer conviction. I did not decide today, yesterday or ten years ago that the European experience is good for Ireland.

There has been much adverse publicity regarding the treaty. Many "No" campaigners are beginning to paint pictures that were never painted before. I accept it is not always good to look backward but there is no harm in connecting with where this great experience began and trying to anticipate the direction in which we hope it will go. There is a much bigger picture relating to this matter which many members of the electorate have not yet seen. Perhaps that is my fault or that of others, I do not know.

Deputy Treacy and I were previously members of Macra na Feirme and we campaigned for a "Yes" vote at the end of 1972 and the beginning of 1973.

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

We did it together.

Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Neither he nor I had anything to do with party politics at that stage. We were of the view that the future of Ireland would be best served by joining the six countries that had been members of the then European Economic Community since 1957.

I recently noticed that the names of some of those involved with the "no" campaign on this occasion are the same as those who were in the "no" camp in 1972. They never changed the disc. They are the very same people, although there are newer models out now.

Deputies:

In everything.

Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some of them are saying that, because 27 countries are involved, our small country with 4 million people will be smothered. They forget that one of the smallest countries of all joined in the original six. What did European Union participation do for Luxembourg, for instance? It went in with the big boys at the time, including Italy, France and Germany, and it prospered. Luxembourg did no more or less than we did. It is to the eternal credit of all Governments and to the permanent Civil Service, which represents us in Europe, that we have punched above our weight over the years. In fairness to everybody concerned, we should take note of that.

In 1973 we joined the EEC with two other countries, bringing the total to nine. It was a quantum leap for Ireland to become part of that huge trading bloc and, on a personal note, I thought we had commercial and political muscle that would beat the world. That is the way it looked, particularly from the viewpoint of youth organisations. I am sure our elders knew there were serious limitations on what even nine countries could do, but we thought the Community would be a major player on the world market. To a certain degree it was.

We now have a Union comprising 27 countries with a population of 500 million, which is our potential customer market. However, the combined population of China and India is four times that of the EU. As the House is aware, we are already facing fierce competition from some of those countries in markets for our goods and services. What will it be like in ten years when such countries become more sophisticated? Of course, the world will not stand still for them either and they will not always have low-wage economies. Eventually their problems will become like our current ones. However, unless we operate in a trading bloc as big as the EU, plus the might of America, we will still be dwarfed by what is happening in China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as the countries of the Pacific Rim. They will not stand still so it is against that background that we must ensure for future generations, not alone here but elsewhere in Europe, that we have a commercial trading and political bloc that is up to speed. It must use all the available technology to produce commodities that will provide our people with jobs and a decent living. That is the bottom line.

It has been said that one of the awful aspects of the Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon treaties is that no one can understand them. They are so big that they are beyond everybody's comprehension. The "no" campaigners are saying on the radio that nobody has read the Lisbon treaty or could read it. The only treaty I read in detail was the Treaty of Rome, which is much smaller than the Lisbon treaty. One would need staff to read all the overarching and interconnected treaties involved. It would be a massive job, but that is no reason to vote "No". We are well used to difficult bureaucratic problems in this country, as is every democracy. For example, how many people read the conditions on the back of a simple ESB bill that comes into every house several times a year? It would take a while to do so. The same principle applies to anyone who buys a car or becomes involved in hire purchase. Very few people read the conditions that apply because it could take hours.

One may talk about the bureaucratic monster in Brussels but many people find it difficult enough to deal with their local authority, not to mention our own Government Departments. The "No" campaigners are being allowed to go too far on that line. People often say it is a long way from Galway to Brussels, but it would be untrue to say that Brussels is the only difficult bureaucracy. Most people find they do not have the time to study all the reading material that comes their way.

Ordinary citizens should consider what they have seen happening in the EU since we joined in 1973. In the early years tremendous progress was made on the Common Agricultural Policy. As Deputy Collins and others said, we have been able to get inward investment by virtue of our EU membership. We have done well out of it, although we should have done better in other respects. Leaving party politics out of this, the bottom line is that we have a fine generation of young educated people. In the last ten or 15 years they have proved that they can stand up with the best in the world. Can anyone tell me that any decision we take in June will somehow or another lessen the opportunity for those young people to deal in this market of 500 million potential consumers? We will not sell Irish products to them all but there will be opportunities there. The Minister of State, Deputy McGuinness, is au fait with this matter. It is an opportunity we should not miss. When I canvass votes, some people ask what is in it for them. There is an awful lot in it for us, although we may be taking for granted what the EU has done for Ireland.

The main mission statement of the Lisbon treaty states: "The Union was founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities". It goes on to state: "These rights are common to the member states in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women prevail." That is contained in Article 1(3) of the reform treaty. Would it not be an unusual person who found something wrong with that mission statement? If we had that mission statement and it was the norm in all European democracies in periods of our history such as the First World War and the Second World War, would we have had the terrible tragedies of our time? One of the great achievements of the European Union, long forgotten by a generation, was ensuring peace in our time because of its articles of association. That is something no generation should be allowed to forget.

Deputy Treacy and I have direct knowledge of, and involvement with, matters such as the Common Agricultural Policy. It did not get a good name and there were problems with it but it is a European model to ensure farmers in Europe have the opportunity to produce good quality food at reasonable prices, ensuring a constant supply of food. Given that there are so many who go to bed hungry every night, it is difficult to understand why we would dismantle that policy. It is under attack but can anyone imagine the problems if we did not have this model?

Like every other bureaucracy or administration, I find no fault with the change in administration mentioned in the House in the past few days. I can appreciate that an administration charged with looking after six countries in 1957 is out of date in 2008 when it must look after 27 countries and 500 million people. When we came into this House, the Acting Chairman, Deputy Brady, and I saw that there were fewer people employed in Leinster House because the demands were not as great as they are now. It is the same with the European Union. I cannot understand why anyone objects to streamlining that aspect.

I never liked losing the Irish Commissioner but I can see the point of it. The way it is now done, with two thirds of 27 countries having a Commissioner on a rota basis, means that Ireland has the same clout as every other country. That is of major importance and Ireland is at no disadvantage because of this. This reminds me of Luxembourg which was a small country in the presence of large countries. Ireland is a small country in the presence of large and small countries and I have no doubt we will take our place with distinction, as we have always done.

I am not happy with the way Peter Mandelson has handled the WTO talks. I know this is not directly related to the treaty but there is a connection. Every political party produces manifestos before an election and must present itself in the best light. From an EU view, I would have thought it would put the best possible case before the Irish electorate. Ireland is where it is all happening next June for all of Europe. If more brainpower was put into this, the decision on the future of agriculture taken by the Commission would be what was negotiated at the WTO talks, and no further. I have met no one who wants anything other than maintainence of our negotiating stance. I do not have time to address what should happen but there is no point in 27 Heads of State, foreign Ministers and agriculture Ministers making a decision and taking a negotiating stand on the WTO talks and then appointing the Commissioner, Mr. Peter Mandelson, who says that if we must get a decision, he may be prepared to shift his stance above and beyond what was agreed at European level.

In the next few weeks it will be made abundantly clear to him and his Cabinet that the only stand that can be taken is the one that has been agreed. We lost much from it. I, as someone with a background in farming, lost much from it. If we do not go beyond our negotiating stand, it is possible, with greater efficiency, that Irish farmers will take their place among the best in the world. With the change in recent times to higher prices for farm produce, at least we can see that there is an opportunity for farmers to earn a decent living from the land. Would it not be remarkable if, approaching a most important referendum, the European Commissioner was the cause of losing it? Everyone should vote "Yes" and everyone should have the opportunity to do so. They should not be tied with one hand behind their back. For the benefit or Ireland, particularly its young people, a "Yes" vote is the thing for it. I hope the people see it that way.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to share time with Deputy Noel Treacy.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the Bill. In the presence of Deputy Connaughton, I thank Fine Gael and the Labour Party for standing so firmly alongside the Government parties on the reform treaty. There is no standing behind or in front on this issue. The treaty should transcend party politics. Its importance to the State and its citizens is reflected in the unanimous goodwill felt by so many colleagues in the House.

Ar dtús báire, ar an ócáid seo, ba mhaith liom cuimhneamh ar an bhfear uasal, an iar-Uachtarán Pádraig Ó hIrighile, a fuair bás cúpla seachtain ó shin. Ba é siúd a shínigh an chéad chonradh Eorpach sa bhliain 1971. I pay tribute to the late President, Patrick Hillery, who was Ireland's first Commissioner and was instrumental in our entry to the European and a signatory in 1971. Ireland has greatly benefitted from being a member of the Union. This is a small country but one that has been punching above its weight at European level for some time. We deserve to be in the thick of it and play a greater role. These ambitions can be fulfilled with the ratification of the treaty.

We need to support this Bill and this treaty if we are to continue to benefit from the EU in the way we have for so long. We have all heard the list of benefits that will accrue, the enhancement of democracy, the increased role of national parliaments and the reforms to the decision-making processes. This evening I want to dwell on just some of the larger themes of the reform treaty.

The reform treaty represents the changing face of Europe as a consequence of the enlargement of the EU into a body of 27 member states. The rules that previously governed the Union need to be updated. The need for progress comes in the form of the Lisbon treaty, whose ratification is necessary for the advancement of Europe.

Let us not forget that this treaty is largely what was negotiated during Ireland's Presidency of the EU in 2004. I pay tribute to the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, for his role. Today, all parties rightfully acknowledged the contribution he made to the success of Ireland's Presidency in 2004. There are, of course, detractors who would have the public believe the treaty was formulated privately and without consultation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reform treaty originated from a convention of 200 public representatives from across Europe, who painstakingly crafted the infrastructure of the Bill, with the interests of all member states at heart. I am certain that Ireland's interests are well represented and our key priorities are well protected in the reform treaty. We have maintained unanimous decision-making on tax matters. Commission President José Manuel Barroso commented on this recently and confirmed that tax position. The treaty protects Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality, which I shall talk about later.

Overall, the treaty has strengthened and enhances the European Union. Dáil Éireann will have a greater role in the legislative process of the Union. All legislation before the European Parliament will be sent to our Parliament for a longer period of time for consideration and debate and, if necessary, rejection. If sufficient states find themselves in a similar position, there will be scope for amending draft legislation. The European Parliament will have greater powers in the area of law making. It will have greater budgetary powers, increasing the efficiency of the EU Parliament, and therefore the Union itself. The number of MEPs is to be capped to prevent it from becoming too large to operate in an efficient manner. This will benefit Ireland, in particular, because it will mean the smaller countries will proportionately have more MEPs per capita than our larger neighbours.

The reform treaty also provides for the appointment of a full-time President of the European Council. This office will become a full institution in its own right with the ratification of the treaty. This will replace the current system, which sees rotating Heads of State take up the mantle of President. The President will be elected by the Council for a two and a half year period and the position will be primarily geared towards ensuring the continuity of the Council's work. The new President will also be a mediator, working to secure consensus among member states, as Ireland successfully did in 2004. He or she may be removed at any time so there is a great level of accountability involved.

Many members of the public have been fooled into believing that this treaty is too complex and that it is difficult for individuals to see any direct benefit. To such people I would say that the new treaty will, for the first time, legally bind the Charter of Fundamental Rights and bring the protection of citizens to a new level. The charter sets out the rights already enjoyed by Europe's citizens, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture, respect for family life, the right to a fair trial, the right to vote and the right to stand in European elections. The charter is largely based on the Union's principles, democracy, freedom and equality. No doubt, many challenges face the EU, especially from outside the Union. The 27 countries that make up the Union need to be able to present themselves as a united and credible force against external pressures, global warming, poverty, injustice etc. Deputy Connaughton, in his contribution, mentioned China and India, noting that their combined populations were larger than those of the combined 27 member states of the EU. That puts matters in perspective.

The reform treaty enhances the Union and provides it with means to equip itself against these challenges. It gives us all one voice in which we can speak together. No country can tackle these changes alone, nor stand by and allow these challenges to continue. Together we are stronger so I welcome the force this Union can become with the help of the reform treaty. I am more than aware of the fears surrounding the treaty and the scaremongers prying on such fears. Defence, of course, is a concern, as is the taxation issue. However, I stress that the reform treaty does not change Europe's role in taxation issues — unanimity is required for any proposed changes in this regard. Rest assured, the Minister, with his officials, will vigorously defend Ireland's position, should the issue arise in any future proposed amendments.

Those who are concerned about security and defence issues should rest assured that this treaty merely amends the existing provisions. It enhances the capacity of the European Union for activity in support of international peacekeeping and conflict prevention. Decisions taken in respect of these missions will continue to be made with unanimity. Moreover, Ireland's neutrality is in no way threatened. It was the formulation mooted by the Irish in previous treaties that now ensures individual member states will have their concerns about neutrality and defence respected. For those who fear that this small country will be swallowed up by such a large Union, I believe that this treaty, more than any, will protect our interests. It ensures that the interests of the smaller countries are protected in respect of the European Commission beyond 2014. The number of Commissioners will be cut to 18, on a strict rota basis. If Ireland were a club or a limited company, we might believe that 27 committee members was too much. This measure serves to cap the number of Commissioners. It is important to recall that when Ireland joined the EEC, larger countries retained the right to nominate two Commissioners to our one, so that position is certainly in our favour.

I will conclude by urging a "yes" vote. We owe it to our European neighbours. The Tánaiste and Taoiseach designate, Deputy Brian Cowen, this morning said loyalty is a virtue, and I certainly believe that. Our European partners need our loyalty on this occasion. Europe gave Ireland a leg up in the 1970s and 1980s and the early part of the 1990s when it was needed most. Consider the €50 billion that we have got in funding over those years to build our roads and infrastructure. It has kick-started our €34 billion Transport 21 programme. Compare our social legislation today, workers' rights, the programme on women's issues and our stable currency and economy with the past. We have matured as a nation, as seen by how self-assured we are as ordinary citizens. We should realise the respect in which the Irish are held by our European partners and friends. Ireland is now envied by many in Europe. Prior to joining the EEC in 1973, Ireland was seen as backward, its people inward looking, lacking in self-respect and self-confidence. We had little presence on the world stage. Joining the EEC and participating in European affairs has changed all that. It is incumbent on every citizen to check out all the information and not listen to the scaremongers. There is a very good website and as people delve into it, they will find that a "yes" vote is essential and is for the betterment of Ireland.

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

Is cúis mhór áthais dom teacht isteach anseo agus páirt a ghlacadh ins an díospóireacht an-tabhachtach faoin mBille um an Ochtú Leasú is Fiche ar an mBunreacht 2008. Cuidighim leis an leasú seo, beidh mé ag cuidiú le mo chomghleacaithe uilig, polaitaíochta agus muintir na tíre, ar an reifreann a bhéas againn mí an Mheithimh seo chugainn. Le cúnamh Dé, beidh a lán daoine, an chuid is mó de phobail na tíre ag cuidiú linn, freisin.

It is an honour to have the opportunity to speak, at this historic time for our country, on the Twenty-eight Amendment of the Constitution Bill. I support the Bill and the referendum it will enable for the people of Ireland. Never before in the history of the State has an opportunity so great been given to the people, not only to show we have a democratic country and the power of the written Constitution under which we are all privileged to serve, but also to reflect the views of the vast majority of our fellow Europeans who want the European project to proceed and have an impact, in an inclusive way, on all the peoples of the Union. If we reflect on our history, including the revolution in 1916 and the civil war, culminating in the establishment of the State in 1922, we will realise its founding fathers would be proud of the successes we have achieved, even though there is some work yet to be done on the island. They would understand that their successors have continued to respect democracy and fulfil the constitutional requirement of equality of opportunity for all.

The history and evolution of Ireland are very similar to the history and evolution of the European Union. It, too, was born of conflict, after two world wars, on foot of the leadership and vision of individuals such as Monnet, Schuman and de Gaulle. They got together to ensure there would be a new opportunity to eliminate conflict and create a new structure emphasising people, democracy and economic growth such that there would never again be a disastrous conflict such as the two world wars. Ireland has moved forward in a similar vein.

I endorse the statements of Deputies Connaughton and Kennedy and all my colleagues who have spoken on this very important subject in the past month. Deputy Connaughton and I worked together as young Irishmen and Europeans in the early 1970s. I had just come out of school and was an enthusiastic young European guided by our fathers and colleagues who ensured we could make a democratic contribution such that the Irish people could avail of a global opportunity, albeit within the then European Economic Community. We were afforded a great opportunity at the time by the six founders of the European Economic Community to join that great group, becoming its seventh member, with the United Kingdom and The Netherlands.

Before we joined the European Economic Community in 1973, our main export was our brilliant people who built economies in other parts of the world. We obtained political freedom in the Republic in 1922 but were not able to achieve economic freedom or make use of the intellectual talent bank and many skills of our population on the island until we became a member of the Community. One should bear in mind our emphasis on education and the resources we received from the European Union for agriculture and infrastructure and through the Social and Regional Funds, framework programmes and various measures and directives. These resources continue to enhance our growing economy and gave us new options and confidence to build new markets in the United Kingdom, the rest of Europe and further afield. Thus, we have more than doubled the level of employment and increased our population.

I pay tribute to the Taoiseach on this historic day, the day of his last speech in the House. I thank him for his leadership in Ireland and the rest of Europe. He is now regarded as one of the great leaders of the European Union. He led the change in 2004 that expanded the Union to include ten new member states. The number of member states rose from 15 to 25 and there are now 27. Accession made democracy sustainable and afforded a transparent opportunity to all the new member states, as was afforded to Ireland in 1973. There is now the opportunity for us to consider what we have achieved and how we should move forward together.

I salute the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and all his colleagues on their work in the European Union on behalf of Ireland. We work night and day to protect what is vital for Ireland. As politicians, legislators and members of the Government, we all work to protect and sustain our national interests.

The treaty on which we are to vote in June is more important than any other to the farming community. The one pillar that has sustained itself throughout the history of the European Union since 1957 has been the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. No other pillar has sustained itself independently within the Union. It is vital that we protect the CAP, not just for Irish agriculture and rural life but for agriculture and rural life across the Union. By voting in favour of the treaty, we will have an opportunity to protect the CAP and the resources transferred thereunder. This will give greater impetus to the protection of rural Europe, including rural Ireland, and the agriculture and agri-food industries that are so important to the economy and GDP.

Voting in favour of the treaty will also reduce the capacity of those who try to undermine, on a consistent basis, the CAP and its importance and will protect the transfer of vital resources nationally and internationally. Over €2 billion per annum is received under the CAP. It is a question of our being able to offset our outward transfers as a net contributor, whereby we will be transferring resources as our GDP and economy grow. That will protect all our citizens, the Exchequer, our transfer of funds, our fiscal position and economic growth. Never before was it so important to have those who have benefited most from the European Union working together to achieve more, not only for themselves but for all European citizens.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is vital and very similar to the Constitution. The European Union was born out of conflict. In this regard, we must remember the important contribution EU membership has made to peace on the island and the important work still to be done in Northern Ireland. The PEACE III position we have negotiated will result in the granting of €333 million to cross-Border projects in Northern Ireland. This is vital to our future and we must be eternally grateful for it. It mirrors the great contribution exemplified by the European project, the greatest project in the world for democracy, peace, prosperity and consensual conclusions to achieve progress for all citizens, individually and collectively.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I appeal to the people to endorse the reform treaty overwhelmingly when the opportunity is presented to them in June.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, referred last week to the intriguing collection of opponents to the current proposals. He was similarly intrigued, not to say flabbergasted, when such an intriguing alliance succeeded in defeating the first attempt to pass the Nice treaty. Instead of accepting the democratic will of the people of the State and renegotiating that treaty to meet the concerns expressed, his party decided to hold another referendum. Already, we have heard some supporters of the Lisbon treaty state it does not matter what the people decide as what is proposed will go ahead anyway. A member of one of the Opposition parties voted in the European Parliament to the effect that if the Irish electorate votes "no", it should be ignored.

The Minister of State also stated Ireland's "key interests" would be protected. Surely that will not be the case if, as will happen, the State has less power to prevent implementation of measures that may be inimical to its interests. However, there have been instances in which Ireland's key interests have been damaged because policy in key areas has been set by Brussels. One such area is fishing. In this regard, Deputy Feighan referred last week to €60 billion in EU funding for Ireland. Perhaps that was a fair exchange for the equivalent value in fish that has been taken from our waters both legally and illegally by foreign vessels since 1973. It is probably much higher given that no one knows the true scale of illegal fishing here and no one in Government seems inclined to answer any questions about it. In 1972 my party opposed our entry into the EEC because we said it did not represent a good deal for Ireland. People living in or familiar with our coastal communities know the mistakes of those negotiations in 1972 and what they have done to our coastal communities, and the scale to which they have been decimated.

I refer to fishing because it is a prime example of a natural resource with massive potential that was basically surrendered by this State following decades of earlier neglect when countries like Norway were making fishing one of the main stays of their economies. It is an example of how sovereignty was surrendered to Brussels and how Brussels through the Common fisheries policy exploited our fisheries and many believe is currently planning their virtual closure. Bearing in mind how Norway has exploited its resources to develop its economy, it is clear that what was done in this country at that time left much to be desired.

My party makes no apology for pointing this out or for challenging successive attempts over the past 35 years to further surrender sovereign control over this country to Europe. No doubt we have made predictions that were not fulfilled but so too have the europhiles and we certainly make no apology for being the only party in this House to represent the large number of people, including many members and supporters of all parties here, who are opposed to the ongoing leaching of powers over sovereign states to Brussels.

I referred to false predictions on the part of europhiles and we only have to go back to the Nice treaty to find lots of examples of these. We were told, for example, that enlargement would have no consequences for employment or employment conditions and anyone who begged to differ was attacked as a racist or hysterical. Opponents of the Nice treaty pointed out that the treaty was designed to facilitate the mobility of capital and labour with the inevitable consequence that employers would use this to undermine wages and conditions of employment. Then we had the case of Irish Ferries and other cases of job displacement. Even some supporters of the Nice treaty are now realising that enlargement has indeed facilitated the undermining of wages and conditions by the employment of agency workers. This is why at least one major union, Unite, is calling for a "no" vote, and why many other trade union activists and members will also vote against the proposal.

Farmers, who have traditionally been among the strongest proponents of further empowering the EU, have become increasingly concerned over the consequences of surrendering more power to Brussels, as was witnessed last week with the large protest concerning the WTO. In recent months we have had the situation regarding Brazilian beef which, despite the fact that the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, did an about-face and reversed her previous opposition to a ban, is ongoing. This is an illustration that when Ireland's vital interests are at stake the Government is unable to protect them if sufficient other interests in the Commission think otherwise.

The same also applies to the current concerns over what will take place in the World Trade Organisation negotiations. It appears that Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, with the support of the Commission, is prepared to accede to the demands of other trading blocs for concessions that will mean entire sectors of farming in Europe will be unsustainable in the face of imports from Brazil, New Zealand and elsewhere. When the Treaty of Rome was signed, food security in Europe was a major consideration. Commissioner Mandelson's negotiations will take away whatever subsidies and supports exist for the production of food in order to open up imports into the EU. If allowed to continue it will effectively make it impossible for Irish and other EU farmers to be able to compete and survive. This is a major concern for the rural community here.

This could also mean that the reformed CAP will be totally undermined and would mean that farmers were misled in 2003 when they agreed to decoupling. I went to meet EU personnel in Brussels at the time to advocate for decoupling as the way forward. Sinn Féin was the first party in this House to do so. We went out and acquainted ourselves with the motivation behind it. We were told that decoupling allowed the EU to meet its promise to move away from production subsidies and that the CAP would be safe from any future attack at the WTO. That is why I travelled throughout the country, in the Twenty-six Counties and the Six Counties, to convince farmers that it was in their best long-term interests to accept the decoupling package. However, if Commissioner Mandelson gets away with it and takes away whatever support exists, that will be the end of food production in this country as we will not be able to compete with imports from outside the EU.

The Government and the other parties here are desperate to reassure farmers that the WTO has nothing to do with the proposals embodied in the treaty. Of course it has, and nowhere more explicitly than in Article 2 which proposes to give the Commission exclusive competence over international trade agreements. Therefore, if the Lisbon treaty was currently in effect and if Commissioner Mandelson had the qualified majority support, there would be nothing that this country or France, if in a minority, could do about it.

This illustrates that when Irish vital interests are at stake the Government will not have the power to prevent measures inimical to those interests from proceeding. With no Commissioner for five years out of 15 and no veto and with exclusive competence for international trade agreements given to the Commission, the Commission will be better able to implement decisions that damage vital areas of our economy and we will be able to do nothing to prevent it.

Supporters of this proposal claim that it will introduce greater efficiency into the decision-making process. That will be cold comfort if those decisions are ones that are against Ireland's interests. Much has been made about the fact that 27 states leading to 27 Commissioners would be unworkable. I would argue that it is working better at this time than at any time previously. Even as it stands the Government must prove that it is capable of preventing the Mandelson proposals from being presented as the EU position. If it is not, farmers and others must ask themselves how much worse the situation will be if this treaty is passed. This is a major challenge to the leadership of the farming organisations. If Commissioner Mandelson is allowed to get his way, are the farming organisations prepared to instruct their members and lobby for a "no" vote on the Lisbon treaty as a means of staking their claim?

While those on the "yes" side maintain the fiction that the Commission's position at the WTO is somehow bizarrely distinct from the way in which the Commission adopts that position, they are well aware that those directly involved in farming and fishing will take into account such issues when deciding how to vote.

There is a significant difference within the "yes" campaign on the issue of neutrality. Fianna Fáil claims, despite the existence of the battle group, that there is no move towards having an EU armed force, but Fine Gael has recognised that is the reality and has welcomed it, as outlined in its Beyond Neutrality policy document. The Labour Party differed radically and publicly at the time from Fine Gael on this issue. The Green Party has also, until recently, consistently opposed any weakening of Irish neutrality and linked that to the ongoing use of Shannon Airport by the US military. However, despite their differences all four parties are singing from the same hymn sheet. They cannot all be right. How can they all have different positions and sing from the same hymn sheet?

Sinn Féin is not arguing that this State ought never to co-operate with others if mutual interests are threatened. However, we are certainly opposed to Ireland being part of a military structure where control of that structure would be outside of Irish Government control. If the European Commission can decide by a majority to pursue policies damaging to member states' interests in areas such as agriculture, the logic of EU centralisation is that it will also encompass powers over other key areas, including foreign policy, and similarly end up potentially going against the wishes and interests of individual member states.

There has been a persistent attempt by the "yes" side to paint the "no" campaign as somehow unrepresentative. It cites Sinn Féin's position and the involvement of other smaller groups. We certainly do not claim to speak on behalf of all those opposed to previous referenda. Prominent members and supporters of other parties are involved in the "no" campaign, including members of Fianna Fáil, almost half the Green Party, a big section of the Labour Party, members of Fine Gael, members of the trade union movement and farming bodies.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Martin McGuinness is on the "yes" side.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is not, although the Deputy may like to think he is. Members of the groups I mentioned are opposed to the Lisbon treaty.

In 2001 and 2002 more than 500,000 people voted against the Nice treaty. The combined vote of the anti-Nice treaty parties, including Sinn Féin, the Green Party before its conversion, the Socialist Party and some smaller parties and independents, was over 200,000 in the 2002 general election. The fact that 500,000 people voted against the Nice treaty leads one to accurately assume that many supporters of other political parties voted "no"; in other words, members of the Minister of State's party and other parties in the House which advocated a "yes" vote were not railroaded into accepting a treaty that they believed was not in the best interests of the people.

People from all political viewpoints, all parts of the country and all backgrounds realise the implications the Lisbon treaty will have and will make their voices heard. I hope this will be sufficient to defeat the proposal and, if that is the case, the Government will actually pay heed, unlike last time when the Nice treaty was first rejected and then put to the people again.

Deputy Connaughton referred to how difficult the contents of the treaty were to read and Deputy Brady, who was in the Chair, agreed. He mentioned an ESB bill, suggesting we tended not to read the conditions on the back. That is probably the case for most people but most cannot understand the text of the Lisbon treaty, even Pat Kenny admitted as much on the radio and said it would be almost impossible for ordinary people to understand it. Deputy Connaughton says we do not read the conditions on the back of an ESB bill but many in Ireland who do not read or understand small print find themselves at a significant loss in insurance cases. The contents of the Lisbon treaty should be debated. They should also be readable and comprehensible.

I have some quotations that have enlightened those at meetings I have attended. In 2005 the Netherlands and France rejected the EU constitution, a forerunner of the Lisbon treaty. In 2007 the German Chancellor, Ms Angela Merkel, said "within the Lisbon treaty the substance of the constitution is preserved," and that is a fact. In 2007 the Taoiseach said "90% of the constitution is still there. These changes have not made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed in 2004." Ms Astrid Thors, the Finnish foreign Minister, said: "nothing from the original institutional package has been changed." In 2007 Giscard d'Estaing said "public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly. All earlier proposals will be in the next texts but will be hidden and disguised in some way." The Belgian foreign Minister, Mr. Karl de Gucht, said the aim of the constitutional treaty was to make it more readable, while the aim of the Lisbon treaty is to be unreadable. The constitution aimed to be clear but the treaty had to be unclear and, in that respect, it is a success. Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxemburg said: "Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty, but would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to that fact?" This is what European leaders have said about the treaty but I have heard supporters of it from both sides of the House make very different arguments.

We are very fortunate to have the opportunity to hold a referendum. Were it not for Mr. Raymond Crotty, a very brave man, this would not be the case.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Eamon de Valera wrote the Constitution. I do not mean to give history lessons but the Deputy is factually incorrect.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Crotty was ridiculed by the Government and the political establishment in the State. Incidentally, he was supported by some Opposition parties which now support the "yes" campaign. He took a case and won rights for the people.

The referendum gives us the opportunity to stand up for the peoples of the rest of Europe who have been denied the opportunity to vote to give their views on the Lisbon treaty. Over 60% of people surveyed on the treaty in other EU jurisdictions oppose it but they do not have the opportunity we have. The political establishment in the State is trying to push it through, disguised in such a way that people will not understand it. As one person said, it does not matter whether we vote "No" because it will go ahead anyway.

Sinn Féin stands for people who are opposed to the contents of the Lisbon treaty. We are not anti-European and believe Ireland's place is in the European Union. Co-operation with our European partners is valuable and must continue. Sinn Féin has supported EU measures on agriculture, the environment and equality that are in Ireland's interests.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What treaty has Sinn Féin supported?

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Costello once stood here and said what I am now saying but he has, unfortunately, been compromised by the system and the Establishment. He was once revolutionary, radical and adopted a position of principle but that is no longer the case.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If Sinn Féin supported the European Union, it would have supported at least one treaty.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The referendum campaign will be very different from previous referenda. Contrary to what the Government claims, no matter how the people vote, Ireland's place in the European Union is secure. The Minister of State knows this. We fought the Nice treaty campaign in a dignified and informative way, especially the second campaign. We won in the first referendum, minor negotiations ensued and the people voted in favour of the treaty on the second occasion. I accept that they made that decision but believe the demonisation of those who stand against the Lisbon treaty is a disgrace to those charged with the responsibility to run the country. The Government is trying to demonise those who stand for the wishes and rights of people. I am sorry that the Labour Party which is supposed to represent the working class is prepared to promote a treaty that will do damage to the ordinary working people of this island.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy will have to read the treaty.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listened with interest to the previous speaker and wish to point out that the political establishment to which he refers is the democratically elected assembly of this country. The parties in this House are not the political establishment but sent here by the people who vote in general elections. The political establishment is not an elitist organisation, as Deputy Ferris implied, it consists of Members of this House who have been sent from various constituencies after a general election to form a Government. There is no elitism or political establishment in this context. This is the democratic assembly of the Republic of Ireland. I take great offence that some infer that Members are elected by means other than the voice of the people in general elections. Members are the elected representatives of the people who cast their votes in a general election. Deputy Ferris has the same mandate as I have. Unfortunately, there are only a few in the Deputy's party, while there are many of us. However, we respect his right to say what he wants.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am democratically elected by the people of north Kerry.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am here on the same premise as the Deputy.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a right to say what I have to say.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Voices were heard in the Chamber claiming there was a political establishment. I reject that categorically. Members in this Chamber have been elected by the de facto votes of the people. I take grave exception to the view that there is a political establishment. The people are mature and cast their votes. People are sent to the Dáil on an equal basis.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The people cast their votes like they did on the first Nice treaty.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a myth that there is elitism in Irish politics. It is a myth I reject categorically as a Member who espouses the values of republicanism and equality, particularly of all Members in this Chamber. I respect Deputy Ferris's views.

I listened to the Deputy's history lesson on Ireland and Europe. It was not the same history lesson I learned in national or secondary school. I take great pride as a member of the Fianna Fáil Party in the fact that when Ireland joined the EEC in 1973, there were people of vision in the party who realised Ireland could not remain isolated and not embrace the European project. The people were asked to ratify that decision and did so overwhelmingly.

The European project is not about centralising power to a bureaucracy in Brussels. It is the greatest peace process established in modern times, an oft forgotten fact. In 1939 the Second World War started and by its end over 40 million people had died on mainland Europe fighting for various ideologies. Out of this emerged the European project. It is an important issue which is often lost in the debate as to whether member states are surrendering their sovereignty or young Irish men and women could die on foreign shores. The European project is contrary to everything Deputy Ferris claimed. It is about ensuring people are equal and brings citizens, ideologies and opinions together to serve all.

This morning I launched the Leonardo da Vinci programme in the Kimmage-Crumlin-Walkinstown-Driminagh area of Dublin 12. It is the opposite to all of Deputy Ferris's claims about the European Union which has funded projects not only from the top but from the bottom up. If the Deputy claims the European system is centralised, I suggest he visit that project where he will see the opposite. Through the project the European Union has funded a programme to assist employers and the long-term unemployed in areas of social disadvantage. For those who claim the Union is anathema to our sovereignty and the bottom-up approach, they are wrong. It has encouraged us to think outside the box, have a broader vision and implement policies through this Parliament and the Government it elects. It has provided resources, too.

The history lesson given to us in the past 20 minutes by Deputy Ferris suggests Ireland would be a better place if we had never joined the European Union. What about being able to tackle massive emigration and high unemployment problems? What about the infrastructural development, investment in education, the ability to export to broader markets without tariffs that the European Union has provided us? Perhaps my view of history is very different from that of those opposing the twenty-eight amendment to the Constitution.

Membership of the European Union has been positive, not only in the context of social inclusion and the economy but also in the Northern Ireland context. It encouraged people to broaden their minds. Perhaps Deputy Ferris should consider it differently instead of saying no, no, no like a former British Prime Minister or never, never, never, as the First Minister of Northern Ireland once did. Even they have changed their views. I suggest the Deputy and his party change their views on European integration which respects the sovereignty of member states and the diversity of Europe.

Ireland is a small country. When I left secondary school, options were limited. I was lucky because I came from a farm. Many of my peers in school and college had to emigrate or take up substandard jobs. The European Union has been good to this country. Any policy introduced by the Union through the Commission, the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament has impacted positively on people's lives.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How many farmers have left the land since 1973? What about coastal communities?

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State to continue without interruption.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State should be honest and tell us how many small farmers have left the land. Large numbers have done so.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will take no lectures from anyone on milking cows at 4 a.m. I would even suggest I have done a little more of it than the Deputy.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about coastal communities?

Deputies:

Deputy Ferris, there will be one voice only.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There have been dramatic changes in Irish agriculture.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept that.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept many have left the land but it is because they have alternatives in accessing education, decent employment and other opportunities. Other opportunities emerged besides remaining in a homestead that could not support them or their families. When considering the changes in Irish agriculture, it is for positive reasons that most have embraced the European project.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about the fishing communities in Union Hall and Skibbereen?

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Historically, the farming community has always been supportive of EU referenda. It knows we cannot live on an isolationist island on the periphery of Europe, ignoring market realties and globalisation which I accept pose challenges.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about fishermen in west Cork?

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding employment rights, Ireland has benefitted from judgments of the European Court of Justice and equality legislation initiated in the European Union. Other employment rights legislation was passed in this Parliament having been nudged by the European Union.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is an indictment of this Parliament.

Deputies:

The Minister of State to continue without interruption.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

People have benefitted from it across Europe.

The reason Ireland receives many migrants is the European project. Massive investment through the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Fund allowed us to invest in education, infrastructure and create a dynamic economy. The reason we have difficulties and challenges in ensuring no one is exploited in the labour market is the European Union has been successful in lifting Ireland out of economic depression. Any migrant coming to Ireland is coming because of all the reasons the European Union is good — the free movement of people, open markets and the fact that Ireland has a dynamic economy, a fact acknowledged worldwide.

We have also contributed to the European Union. We have reputable and highly respected Members representing the country at the Council of Ministers. We should never be shy in stating that we are capable of representing our opinions internationally and, predominantly, on the European stage. Irish Commissioners, including the late Dr. Patrick Hillery who sadly passed away recently, took us into the European project because it was an opportunity for Ireland. However, we should never be afraid to say that we have contributed equally. We gave of our expertise, commitment, neutrality and opinions——

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

And resources.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——to bring a different flavour to that on which the European project was founded.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about fishing? As the Minister of State knows full well, we have——

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy knows well that one can get nothing for nothing.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a significant resource.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On employment rights, previous speakers made negative references concerning people coming to Ireland to be exploited. I accept that there are challenges in the context of social partnership, such as the need to ensure the proper protection of workers arriving in Ireland. However, those workers would not be arriving on our shores were it not for Ireland's success at the heart of Europe.

When people consider the Lisbon reform treaty and the imminent referendum, they will acknowledge that Europe has been good to Ireland in two respects, namely, infrastructural funding and allowing us to develop as a nation. It has allowed us to think outside our history and to embrace new ideas. We should be proud that our small country, which is on the periphery of Europe, is at the heart of the EU and is respected internationally.

While it has been stated that a political elite is trying to browbeat the people, the public has endorsed the European project wholeheartedly in every referendum bar one. Our people take pride in being at the political, commercial and cultural heart of Europe. Consider achievements in recent years. In education, for example, the ERASMUS project is of fundamental benefit to high-end graduates across Europe. Qualifications and accreditation from Irish universities and institutes of technology are recognised across Europe.

After a recent visit to India, I believe that our third level and fourth level facilities should be promoted to Indian students. India is a country of 1 billion people who see us at the heart of Europe and admire what we have achieved. They adopted many parts of our Constitution after their independence. Our countries may be different in terms of geography, demography and the challenges facing us, but one of the main reasons the students with whom I spoke wanted to come to Ireland was that they saw it as an international, outward-looking and visionary country that leads in all fields, not just software and economics, but also in politics. We should acknowledge this leadership. How much time have I remaining?

Deputies:

The Minister of State has fewer than five minutes remaining.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand the political implications of a myth that has been propagated and that people want to stand on a platform and say "no" for the sake of it, but listening to them for a long time in respect of other issues did not achieve much. We must tackle environmental issues globally, including carbon emissions, climate change and the targets set for each country by the Kyoto Protocol. Were we not at the heart of the European project, we would be at a disadvantage. It is important that we not only explain the political implications of the EU treaty in the context of streamlining decision making, but also the practical everyday impact it will have on people's lives.

I have explained why Europe has been good for us, but the current challenges are global warming and climate change. Given that Europe has been a driving force in this respect, we can be at the heart of the decision-making process on how humanity addresses its affairs on this planet. We should be to the fore. The treaty will allow us to make strategic decisions at an early stage and on a basis of trust and mutual respect among EU member states. Let us not forget that larger member states will give up some of their voting entitlements. Sacrifices for the greater good are being made all around. Deputy Ferris knows that my statements are factual.

I have campaigned in favour of every EU treaty and, having lost only one, we will not lose this one. An issue that was raised each time was that of neutrality. While we must acknowledge this concern, it is being encouraged disingenuously. Everyone in the House has been elected with an equal mandate and knows that there will be no implications for our neutrality. Closer co-operation is being discussed to ensure that, as in respect of climate change and the challenges of globalisation, the EU becomes a dominant player in the world market in terms of economics and social responsibility. We should be at the heart of this decision making. Be it funding food aid programmes in Darfur or elsewhere in the Third World, Europe has an obligation to its citizens. We can decide not to be a part of this endeavour or to be a driving force. The people have taken pride in our troops serving in the United Nations.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As peacekeepers.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is not one scintilla of change proposed in the Lisbon treaty in this respect as overseas missions must be UN-mandated and approved by the Dáil and the Government.

While I respect any individual's right to speak freely in the Chamber, it is important that he or she respects the fact that the majority of Deputies elected in the last general election supports the treaty and the 28th amendment of the Constitution. I would hate to believe that the previous speaker suggested my mandate was lesser than his. I urge people to become involved in the consultation process, to note statements in this House and elsewhere and to realise that, while Europe has been good for us, Ireland has played an important role in the development of the EU.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While the debate on the Lisbon treaty has been complicated by the "no" campaign, it is a straightforward matter. As a nation, we must decide whether Europe has been and will continue to be good for us. The Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, referred to how the EU process emerged from a desire for peace and to bring nations together, after which it evolved into an economic force. Since joining the then EEC in 1973, we have received €60 billion and returned €20 billion, a sign that we have prospered. Many of the infrastructural projects that contributed handsomely to the Celtic tiger would not have proceeded without funding from Europe.