Don Lydon (Fianna Fail)

On the European Council, the first item that arises is the terrorist attacks in Madrid. As Members of this House we all express our deepest sympathies to the Spanish people and it was important, therefore, that the first Council meeting was devoted to the issue of combating terrorism. Justice Ministers were convened especially to consider a declaration on combating terrorism and the Foreign Ministers presented this work to the European Council. The declaration was discussed and adopted by the Council. Within a few weeks of the Madrid bombing, our Presidency had forged agreement on a significant response to the threat of terrorism. That is vitally important not just because of the bombings that occurred, but because of the bombings that were prevented. The bomb found on the mainline railway in Spain recently and the seizure of large quantities of explosives in London are an indication that active terrorism is continuing and it is important that we tackle those issues. The declaration was adopted but the Council members were not starting from scratch because this process has been going on since 11 September and the European Union has been concentrating on terrorism since that time.

The spring European Council was originally conceived as an economic summit in order to advance the Union's jobs and competitiveness agenda, namely, the Lisbon Agenda, and it was a key priority of the Irish Presidency. The European Council agreed last week on the need to re-inject momentum into the Lisbon Agenda. The idea is to make Europe the most dynamic and competitive-based economy in the world by 2010.

The Taoiseach wrote to all his colleagues outlining the Irish Presidency's priorities and his approach to progressing them. He outlined two key areas on which efforts will be concentrated. The first is sustainable growth and the second is more and better jobs. On the first of these priorities, sustainable growth, we need the right combination of sound macro-economic policies and greater competitiveness. One call made was for a draft directive on services, to be agreed as a matter of priority, to benefit both consumers and business. An issue the Taoiseach stressed in his speech to the national forum on 1 April was the emphasis on research and development. He asked that all member states actively support research and development and also give incentives to encourage greater investment by businesses throughout Europe.

The Joint Committee on European Affairs, of which I am a member, was credited with doing significant work, especially in terms of scrutiny of legislation from Europe which is phenomenal.

As Senator Ormonde mentioned, the language in some of the directives is impenetrable. At times it would not be possible to write a more complicated document. I welcome that the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Roche, has taken a major initiative on the European stage by hosting the first ever formal meeting of European Union Ministers to address the challenge of Communicating Europe, which will be held in Kilcoole, County Wicklow, tomorrow and the next day. This initiative is important as developments are taking place at an ever higher level and are not addressed at grassroots.

It is significant that the European Council decided that agreement on the constitutional treaty should be reached no later than June. While this is an aspiration, I do not believe it will be realised. While I support the European Union and the constitution, I have grave fears about it. It is one matter to get the constitution written; it is another matter to get it agreed and ratified.

It is not possible to discuss the history of any current or acceding European Union countrywithout reference to its Christian heritage. We seem afraid to stand up and insist that this be mentioned in the preamble to the constitution. Milward Brown conducted an opinion poll for the Sunday Tribune last November, which showed that 49% of people want the constitution to contain a reference to God, 34% do not and 17% did not know. When the "don't knows" are excluded the majority is about 60% to 40%. The question put to those polled was as follows:

As you may know, a new constitution is currently being drafted for all the member states of the European Union. It is currently being proposed that there be no reference to God within this EU constitution. Do you agree or disagree that there should be no reference to God in the new EU constitution?

Remarkably the poll in Dublin showed the strongest support for a reference to God with 50% of those polled saying they wanted God mentioned while 32% did not. This translates to more than 60% of those expressing an opinion. Among voters aged 35 and upwards the support for a reference to God was even higher. We cannot simply ignore this opinion, as it will arise. There is great concern about this matter not just in Ireland, but also in other countries.

This preamble to the proposed constitution was pushed by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who has a humanist outlook and a brother who heads an extreme form of masonry. While the humanist outlook is mentioned in the preamble, there is no reference to God or Christianity. I cannot understand why we are afraid of it. Who are we afraid of hurting or insulting? If we did not want to mention Christianity, God can certainly be mentioned.

For the first time the constitution will establish the European Union as a juridical body in its own right. Article 1-10 provides that the EU constitution shall have primacy over national constitutions and law. This was never stated in any European Community treaty before. This covers not just economic policy, but every area of government. Some 30 new policy areas will be transferred from having national responsibility to Brussels. This is in addition to all the decisions previously transferred under the treaties of Amsterdam, Maastricht and Nice.

The constitution will extend the scope and competence of the EU by giving the Court of Justice in Luxembourg the power to determine the fundamental rights of EU citizens overriding national constitutions and Supreme Courts as well as the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. While the constitution in itself presents no difficulties, the power it will give to the Court of Justice presents problems, as it will end up with almighty power. It will bring this court into virtually every area of life and society as human rights issues arise everywhere including the right to life per se, the right to life of the unborn, family law, health and education, religion, property law, labour law, etc.

In some sensitive areas there are differences in what are perceived as rights in EU countries, for example, preventative detention, legalisation of drugs, same sex marriages, abortion, euthanasia and trial by jury. Should the EU be empowered to lay down a uniform standard for such matters across Europe? This proposal has more to do with power than rights. Unless these issues are tackled and explained clearly to the people, I fear we will have great difficulty ratifying it.

Article 1-24 of the constitution allows Presidents and Prime Ministers to move European policy areas from unanimity to majority voting without the need for new treaties involving ratification by national parliaments or referendum. Article 1-17 provides that if the constitution has not given the EU sufficient powers to attain its very wide objectives, the Council of Ministers can "take appropriate measures" to give themselves such powers. These articles open the way for ever further expansion of EU powers at the expense of national parliaments and the citizens who elect them, without the need for prior consent.

We are trying to introduce a constitution so that the previous treaties, which were difficult to understand, can now be understood. While the constitution in itself is quite easy to read, I am not sure that people have read it or had it explained to them. I hope there will be a wide discussion on this matter in this House, the Lower House and everywhere else before theconstitution is ratified, which may pose difficulties.

I support the European Union and the new constitution. I have views regarding defence and our responsibilities, with which many Members of this House disagree. As one who has always been pro-European, I feel we are moving in the right direction. However, I caution the way we move sometimes. While I am sorry the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, had to leave, he has heard me express these views in other fora. I will continue to voice my concerns until something is done about it. I do not know if anything will ever be done or if anyone pays any attention to what we say. However, if one does not speak about this, it would not be possible to stand up to oneself again.

The European Council hopes to agree the constitution by June and I agree that it would be good if this could be done. I urge caution in some areas and I cannot understand why some areas are not tackled. I do not want to go into detail about the Presidency. However, when dealing with areas like Cyprus, Kosovo, the Middle East, etc, it is important that we do so with a unified voice in the European Union. The week before last I attended a meeting of Asian-European parliamentarians held in Hue in Vietnam. When attending such a forum, it is possible to understand how importantly people view the Irish Presidency. While we sometimes see ourselves as a very small country with little influence, that is not true. With the European Union acting as a large union of people we will have a stronger voice. It is only 60 years since Europe was torn apart by horrific wars, which have not occurred since. We are clearly doing something right and I hope we can continue.