Derek McDowell (Labour)

This is an interesting debate. Over the last months my attitude has changed. I was in agreement with the notion that we needed to update, modify and codify the treaties, that we required a grand step forward and, in the words of Giscard d'Estaing, that we needed a treaty for a generation so that there would not be a need for its constant changing. The argument for that is clear and does not need to be repeated. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that we are being given a consolidation and reformulation in simple language of the Nice treaty. I am very reluctant to be hauled over the coals or to walk on hot coals again for the sake of something which is very little more than a tweaking of the Treaty of Nice.

The second Nice referendum demonstrated that these debates can be won if we offer a bold vision of Europe to the Irish people. If we can offer that, then I am convinced that the Irish people will buy into and support it. If we propose a codification of previous treaties which also involves some tweaking, then I fear for the result and for our capacity to convince in that debate. We need to return to our basic belief.

Even listening to this debate I note a loss of confidence among those of us who were previously quite confident in our support for the European Union and its institutions and the whole project. I listened to the debate which was held yesterday in the House of Commons. The sub-stratum of the debate about EMU is actually a greater debate about membership of the European Union. Perhaps we need Senator White to address us and to sort out the Minister of State – I apologise and withdraw that comment before the Acting Chairman asks me to do so. The undercurrent in the debate in the House of Commons was whether Britain should be part of the European Union or whether it liked the idea – as the treaty re-states – of giving the European Union power to override the House of Commons on certain issues or certain competences, to use the phrase.