Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

That was negative. The reason I suggest that is because about 12 months ago I had the experience of being in Norway where I spoke with various Norwegian politicians and inquired why Norway is of, but not part of, the European Union. Norway cannot be in the European Union because its people rejected joining twice in referenda. The margin, in the early 1970s and again in the 1990s, was much the same, a rejection by 52% and 48%, but it was suggested by practically all of the politicians across the political divide to whom I spoke that it was rejected because it was referred to as the European Union. The folk memory in Norway of the union between Norway and Sweden was not positive and, therefore, the people were not too keen on entering something they perceived would somehow erode their nationality and sovereignty. There are, of course, echoes of the debate and argument in this country in the 1970s. I make that point for what it is worth. Politicians must grasp the nettle on this matter at European level.

I can understand why the Taoiseach is taking the position he is. He has come out unequivocally, unambiguously and, as I stated earlier, somewhat courageously. It seems to me this is because, as was referred to in Senator Ormonde's excellent contribution earlier, the Taoiseach invested such a significant amount of time, effort and credibility in a statesmanlike tour de force as President of the European Union at the time this constitution was being debated; he effectively pulled the disparate parts together. I can understand he probably feels it is his baby in that sense. I do not wish to minimise that perceived feeling he may have of ownership with his wider responsibilities as Taoiseach and the fact that he has taken this position, one which we all would support, in the national interest.

There is widespread concern about enlargement and I am glad the Taoiseach referred to this in his speech. The rejection of the referenda in France and the Netherlands was rather complex, as are most referenda. Senator McDowell correctly touched on the inherent flaw in holding a referendum and the concept of a referendum. To those who feel I am somehow assaulting one of the bastions of our democracy, I would suggest that all politicians realise that the question asked is not always the question answered, and that is what happens in these instances.

The widespread concern arises from the social directive. While the Taoiseach commented on not having sterile debate on different social systems at the forthcoming EU Heads of State meeting in London, questions must be asked about the EU and about its competitiveness. The Lisbon Agenda, which was referred to, still has not advanced to the point where Europe can provide prosperity for all its citizens.

Two issues which deserve more emphasis, certainly from an Irish perspective, are the significant roles of the EU in overseas development aid and in human rights. As one of my colleagues in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs stated, Ireland does not do wars; we do peace and human rights. Ireland has a central role to play, not only in shaping the Europe of the future in the constitutional debate but also in pushing out the boat and advancing those issues and values which have been the European Union's beacon of attraction for all the member states that joined in the recent past and for those countries, not only the candidate countries but even those in south-east Europe and beyond, who wish to join. It is about human rights values. It is about our role in ensuring rights for those who are less well off, whether under the CAP or overseas development aid. That is the value of Europe and that is why I would be, as Senator Quinn stated aptly, a committed European.