Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will clarify the implications of Article 48 of the Lisbon reform treaty on the constitutional requirement to hold referenda on amendments to EU treaties in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17050/08]

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Article 1.56 of the reform treaty inserts a new Article 48 into the Treaty on European Union. This article has been the subject of some of the most extraordinary distortions during the public debate on the reform treaty. Any suggestion that the treaty prevents any future referendum on EU issues is a complete misrepresentation. In fact, a Danish MEP who visited the Forum on Europe and who was the originator of this particular myth admitted that it probably did not apply to Ireland.

The treaty provides for both ordinary and simplified revision procedures. Under the ordinary revision procedure, the treaty requires that the constitutional requirements of the member state be completed before entry into force of any amendment to the treaties. This ordinary procedure is essentially the procedure currently provided for amending the existing treaties. In Ireland, this means, and will continue to mean, that advice will be sought from the Attorney General on each occasion as to the procedures required. As has always been the case, this could mean ratification by referendum, legislation or a Government decision. There is absolutely no question that a referendum could be ruled out by the Lisbon reform treaty or avoided by the Government. Those who suggest otherwise are guilty of trying to mislead the public. In that context, I was very pleased with the clear and unequivocal statement on this issue made by the chairperson of the Referendum Commission earlier this week.

The treaty also provides for simplified revision procedures. Regarding any European Council decision proposing an amendment to the internal policies of the EU, for example, energy, economic and agriculture policies, the treaty again requires that the constitutional requirements of the member states be completed before any such revision enters into force.

The Referendum Commission, which is an independent body, confirms this position on its website, which states

If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present.

Regarding any European Council decision proposing a move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in any policy area or an extension of the ordinary legislative procedure — the so-called passe passerelle provision — the treaty provides that this is open to a veto from any national parliament, including the Dáil or Seanad Éireann. It would require the unanimous agreement of all member state governments, the European Council and the European Parliament.

No new powers may be conferred via the back door. These arrangements are open, transparent and give us every opportunity to protect our interests.

Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for clarifying the issue. Having read the treaty, my understanding is that under Article 1.56, amending Article 48, the ordinary revision procedure must be "...ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". I also understand that under the simplified revision procedures, a decision "shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". It is extremely important to place that on the record of the House and that there is absolutely no room for confusion on the matter.

I ask the Minister of State to confirm that this is the situation and that it is not changed by the Lisbon treaty in any sense. I refer to the Minister of State's assertion that ratification will be by referendum or by Government decision, according to the advice of the Attorney General, and that will continue to be the case under the Lisbon treaty.

I ask the Minister to confirm, in the interests of the people of Ireland who will be voting on this issue, that the claim on the website of the Libertas organisation that this will be the last say on Europe for a generation for Irish people is incorrect. Libertas also claims that there will be no need for the EU ever again to consult the Irish people, although I would respectfully suggest that it is the Government that consults the Irish people and not the EU. I ask the Minister to clarify the position in that regard.

I also ask the Minister of State to address the allegation that Article 48 is a devious, self-amending clause that allows the European political elite to avoid the necessity for further referenda. It is important that the Minister of State clarifies that this is not the case. It is essential that we, as elected representatives, provide a very clear statement on this for the people of Ireland.

I note that comments made by the Minister of State on this matter have been distorted by the media. Press statements have been issued by a certain organisation on the matter and an article by a Member of the European Parliament was published in The Irish Times two days ago. These are clearly misleading the people and it is important that we clarify matters on the record of the House.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to confirm to the Deputy that my understanding of the issue, as well as the Government's legal advice and the advice from almost all sources, is precisely the same as hers. The suggestion that this is a self-amending treaty and that if the treaty is to be changed in any significant way in the future, the Irish people could simply be ignored is not true. It is not based on any fact.

The clearest view on the matter was expressed this week by the chairman of the Referendum Commission. I hope that during the course of this campaign, the commission, which is now operational, will deal with these issues with the same clarity. It is simply not the truth to make the assertion that referenda can be avoided in the future. As an amendment is made, in the normal course, the Attorney General is consulted. As has happened on this occasion, following that consultation, we will go through the referendum process.

It is a disservice to political debate for any organisation or political party to distort words to the extent to which they have been distorted. I welcome the fact that there are other players in the field and that there is a debate. However, I wish the debate could be kept factual and truthful.