John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

I appreciate the few minutes I have been allowed to speak on this topic and I welcome the Taoiseach to the House.

Like many of the other speakers, I will refer to Turkey's proposed membership of the European Union, the constitution, the role of parliaments and the issue of subsidiarity. After a campaign of some 40 years, Turkey has officially entered membership talks with the European Union. This has been a fraught process, even up to the last few hours before the agreement, but we must all welcome the fact that an agreement was reached. Provided Turkey meets the specified criteria, its membership of the European Union is to be supported.

The issues of human rights, reform of the military and judiciary, and the circumstances in Kurdish areas receive the most attention when Turkey's membership is discussed, but Turkey's goal is to meet the entire set of criteria for membership and accept the acquis communautaire. It has a long way to go, but for those of us concerned with the specific issues, including human rights, reform and the Kurds, its goal must also be ours.

The whole process, including the need to satisfy present EU member states, has unhelpfully been characterised by some as tantamount to running a Christian club. We need to counter this argument firmly and be absolutely clear that the European Union, rather than being a Christian club, is a family of democratic countries committed to working together for peace and prosperity. Europe is a continent with many different traditions and languages, but also with shared values such as democracy, freedom and social justice. The European Union defends these values and is right to do so.

These values are not exclusively Christian values — they may sit with them — but values that all peoples, genders, faiths, creeds and races must accept. The values of democracy, freedom and social justice threaten no one except those who oppress and harm, and suiting or appeasing such people should not be what we are about, regardless of accusations of the European Union being a Christian club.

On the issue of the EU constitution, I echo the words of the President of the Commission in his congratulations to the Taoiseach, his officials and the Irish Presidency generally for achieving an agreement that proved difficult, and for achieving something that is transparent and runs deep. Compare the constitutional position in Ireland and that in other parts of Europe. Since 1937, Bunreacht na hÉireann has provided Irish citizens with a single, clear and living document that sets out their rights, their system of governance and the limits on the State. It is accessible and has been relied upon by the courts, and nobody can say it has not delivered in the past 68 years. Unfortunately, the same cannot yet be said of the European Union. We must remain committed to rectifying this.

The decision of the French and Dutch peoples to reject the treaty was a setback, but one that has provided us with an opportunity. Some benefits may actually accrue from the refocusing of minds on the basics of what we, as a people, actually want from the European Union. Those benefits must accrue. The issues of what we want as a people, the size of the Union and how democratic it should be are closely related to my points on Turkish membership, as are the results of the referenda in France and the Netherlands.

We have time to do some useful thinking. The November 2006 target for the entry into force of the constitution is unlikely to be met and there is no pressing need for Ireland to hold a referendum immediately. We can wait to see how progress is made across the European Union and we can address the concerns of its citizens and work to strengthen its democratic operation. The media have a constructive role to play in this regard.

National Parliaments can and should play a central role. Citizens expect their national parliaments to scrutinise the Union on their behalf. I will conclude with one concise point. Much is made of the so-called democratic deficit in Europe, of nations losing control, etc. These claims emanate primarily from parties of the left, namely, Sinn Féin and the rest. The point is that the proposed constitution confirms the status quo. If the EU is allowed to legislate in an area of policy, its law will overtake any national laws. Equally, in areas where it does not legislate. national law prevails.

The proposed constitution will stop the Union from encroaching on the rights of member states other than in areas where they have given them away. We should not allow simplistic and ill-founded arguments to confuse and frustrate progress on the values of democracy, freedom and social justice, which are at the heart of the European project.