Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators and Members of the European Parliament for their contributions here today. As Chairman of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution in the last Dáil, I am aware its Members were very anxious to see Seanad Éireann play a close role in monitoring developments in the European Union. One of our recommendations was that the Seanad should engage in more intensive scrutiny of European business and that Members of the European Parliament should in some sense be associated with the work of this House. I welcome this debate, which is the first time there has been a plenary attendance by Members of the European Parliament at a Seanad debate. It is a good and welcome development.

Mary Lou McDonald, MEP, referred to the fact that there could be representation in Seanad Éireann from all the Members of the European Parliament on this island. This matter was addressed in the all-party committee. However, until the provisional movement faces up to its responsibilities under the Good Friday Agreement, that will not be possible. No one more than I would like to see that happen. It would be marvellous if Members of the European Parliament throughout the island associated themselves with the work of the House. I would support this in the context of European affairs but, regrettably, it is something which will have to wait for the full realisation of the guidelines and norms set down in the Belfast Agreement. It is very important that both the Belfast Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement are implemented so that this can take place.

The common destiny of Ireland in Europe is also an important subject. There will be a referendum in Northern Ireland as well as in this part of Ireland on this issue. Many member states are holding referendums, therefore, there will be a common Irish debate on the subject. If those who have responsibilities under the Good Friday Agreement faced up to their responsibilities, it would be possible to have that type of debate in this House.

The constitutional position was outlined by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, when he opened this debate. He made the point that constitutionally the situation will remain the same but major treaty change will have to be negotiated through an Intergovernmental Conference. If any treaty goes outside the scope and objectives of the current treaties, Ireland must hold a referendum. If a change does not go outside the scope and objectives of the treaties, no referendum will be required. The Government has been prepared to amend the Bill to avoid unnecessary controversy over this point. We will have to wait and see the Government's final proposal, but whether any treaty relating to the European Union goes beyond the scope of what our Constitution permits is a moot point.

I had doubts as to whether the Nice Treaty arrangement should have been put to the people. However, a document as fundamental in its description as a treaty to establish a constitution for Europe is something that should be submitted to the people. Senator Ulick Burke said that we cannot take the people for granted, of which we are all well aware since the first Nice referendum. In considering this, we must consider the fact that it is a treaty. While people like to call it a constitution, it is a treaty establishing a constitution. Like all treaties, there was a meeting of persons from different sovereign states. We all know the history of the convention and the subsequent discussions between the parties. It was at the final stages of the Irish Presidency last June that the various member states were brought into the room by the Taoiseach to do some horse trading, which the treaty reflects. We should not try to deceive the people on this issue. The treaty is a compromise between the different member states.

A moment in time arises when a group of representatives of different sovereign states, who have their own priorities and requirements, are gathered in a room. To try to achieve a consensus and get an agreement between a group of states in that position is a very difficult exercise in practical politics. The exercise was performed and it is important that people understand this is the fruit of that particular labour.

If one is considering any particular question, whether the competences of the Union, the values the document enshrines or the position of the Union in external relations and security, the document is a practical compromise embodied in a treaty. It is not Europe from first principles so to speak. Many Senators and Deputies would have views about how Europe could be constructed from first principles. However, it is impossible for a gathering of what previously comprised 15 sovereign states, now 25 sovereign states, to arrive at a description of Europe from first principles in the way the founding fathers of the United States were able to do when they formulated their constitution at the end of 18th century. They were inspired by enlightenment ideals. Not having expelled a colonial occupying power, they were able to apply these great enlightenment ideals to construct a constitution from first principles. While we may like to do so, the European project is so well entrenched, and has been in progress so solidly since 1945, with greater intensity from 1958, 1973 and 1992, that it is impossible for this train to be derailed suddenly and put onto an entirely new track.

This treaty is not the result of that type of exercise. The exercise in question here involved the leaders of Europe gathering and doing their best to produce a document that will chart the Europe for the immediate future. If we examine that document, our diplomats and political leaders had certain key diplomatic objectives going into the negotiations, as had the representatives of the other states, and, by and large, we secured our objectives.

There is no great threat in this particular treaty. It is a practical document which serves to consolidate the European legal norms. It makes these clear for citizens in a far more accessible form. It makes clear the rights and responsibilities of citizens and the competences of the Union and the member states, which is very valuable. We must move away from the first principles type of discussions we have had in most referendums since 1973 where we argue whether it would be a super power, a military threat or a threat to our religious values. It is none of these things. It is a practical document, designed to produce a better Europe for the future. The practical task is to get that message across to the people in the referendum.

On behalf of the Government, I welcome the fact that Seanad Éireann had this valuable debate. Clearly we will have many more such debates in the months ahead.