John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

It is not readily appreciated outside places like the Forum on Europe or the Joint Committee on European Affairs, of which I am a member, how much work and vigilance the early drafts of the constitution needed. It had to be watched on behalf of Ireland to ensure the eventual outcome was one with which we and other member states could live. The Minister of State deserves enormous credit for that work, which is not as widely recognised as it might be.

The landmarks of the Presidency have been mentioned of which enlargement on 1 May was probably the highlight. As the Minister of State said, it was an emotional day and Seamus Heaney put it most eloquently and admirably when he said: "On a day when newcomers appear let it be a homecoming for them." That was a perceptive and accurate reflection of what the day meant.

Getting agreement on the constitutional treaty was a singular achievement. When the Taoiseach spoke about it in the early days of the Presidency as being an objective which could be secured there was widespread scepticism, even among those who were advocates of the treaty, that that could be done. That was a milestone. Getting agreement on the incoming President of the Commission was also something to be very proud of.

There is a message here about the ability of smaller countries to broker deals. We do not come to the table with some of the baggage and agendas larger countries bring. Obviously the Irish effort in this instance was singularly successful, and smaller countries can bring valuable qualities to the table when it comes to issues like these. The Minister of State has acknowledged that the role of the Opposition was critical as well, which is correct. The Government did not have to look over its shoulder at what the Opposition was saying, because there was a unity of purpose within the country on the direction which should be taken. That was very helpful to the Government and it was notable at last week's meeting of the Forum on Europe that there was unanimity among all parties on the success of the Presidency.

Last week Senator Hayes and others referred to what was said at the forum. It was obvious at the forum that people had moved on to the debate we would face in adopting the constitutional treaty. It will be incumbent on any of us involved in the "Yes" side of that debate to know this document inside out, upside down and backwards, which has not always been notable in the past. The great virtue of this treaty is that we have one document. When we campaigned for Maastricht and other treaties we were looking through four different books to get back to the original Treaty of Rome and it was an incredibly difficult task even for those dedicated to the job. At least we now have that coherence, as well as a clarity of language, notwithstanding some of the criticisms of Euro-jargon.

However, there was selective quoting from the treaty at the forum. Article 40, paragraph 2, states that the common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy, and that this will lead to a common defence. One should leave it at that but PANA said this indicated there was a first strike capability on the part of NATO and it was going to drop a bomb on someone. One has to read the rest of the paragraph, which states:

This will lead to a common defence when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall [this is the phrase the Minister of State mentioned, to which I also subscribe] in that case recommend to the member states the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The document goes on to state that the policy of the Union, in accordance with this article, shall not prejudice the specific character of security and defence policy of certain member states. The safeguards are there, and to represent it otherwise is mischievous and wrong.

Senator O'Meara spoke about bringing the message to the schools and the forum has done valuable work in that area. There are essay and debating competitions for schools, and literature and videos have also been distributed. I am not talking in particular about the adoption of the treaty but a message has been sent out to try to bring these issues to a broader audience. Surveys reveal that there has been an impact.

On the constitution itself, the question of fundamental rights is incorporated. The charter is there. However, it is represented that there are no attitudes here on social policy, but the treaty spells that out specifically, as well as the responsibilities of states in ensuring equity and fairness and that workers' rights are protected. It was also valuable to sort out the difficulties with qualified majority voting and with taxation. The language has been simplified.

The only outstanding task is to appoint a Commissioner. Deputy Walsh would be a very good Commissioner, but that is a personal view. He has been an excellent Minister and he knows the situation inside out. He would be capable of doing a good job, although David Byrne also deserves credit for the job he has done.

Our attitude to ourselves has been transformed. I began farming before we joined the EU and can remember what it was like — the post-colonial attitude to which Senator Mansergh referred was dominant. We could not see beyond the nearest neighbour. We did not know there were places like Bosnia-Herzegovina or that there were problems in the Middle East. We could not see beyond the pond. Now we have a much broader perspective. We have much greater national self-confidence and we are out from under the colonial yoke that stifled us for so long.