Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

On the eve of the signing of the European Union reform treaty, it is entirely appropriate that Seanad Éireann should consider this issue. We are at a very important moment in the life of the EU. The reform treaty will, first of all, allow the EU to move away from the stasis of the past six or seven years when we have been looking internally and really achieving very little. It will allow the European Union to move forward to a more outward-looking, concrete and tangible agenda. It will also allow the European Union to better address global problems. These are problems which cannot be solved by any individual member state, such as climate change, energy security, the challenges of globalisation and other problems like international terrorism, which are way beyond the control of any individual state, large or small.

To do this in an effective way the European Union needs the new reform treaty. One of the most frequently asked questions is why Europe needs a reform treaty. The answer is straightforward. The institutions, arrangements and structures designed 50 years ago for a European Economic Community of just six member states were stretched by the time the Union reached 12 member states, were already under pressure when that number rose to 15 and were stretched beyond breaking point in a Union of 27. One of the world's most important economic and trading blocks requires an effective treaty arrangement if it is to be effective. Recognising the reality, the member states have reflected for well over six years on how the EU works and in this treaty, have put forward improvements which will help us and which will be in all of our interests.

At the outset, it is important to note that this treaty had a completely different genesis from that of any of the previous treaties. It differs from the Maastricht, Nice or the Amsterdam treaties. It was not produced by unelected officials or the mythical faceless bureaucrats closeted behind closed doors away from public scrutiny — a criticism we heard in respect of all the earlier treaties. This treaty's substance has its roots and essence in the Convention on the Future of Europe — a body of more than 200 public representatives from the member states, civil society and the EU institutions, which met throughout 2003.

That convention, of which I had the significant honour of being a member, was a forum for full-blooded, regular and open debate. Sometimes the debate was calm, sometimes it was heated and occasionally it was infuriating but the convention shaped this treaty and the future for the Union. When the convention completed its deliberations member states negotiated further on the outcome document. Those negotiations produced the draft EU constitutional treaty.

Final agreement between the member states came on a memorable night in June 2004, the crowning achievement of Ireland's Presidency. As a small nation we can take some pride that the draft constitution and its daughter, the reform treaty that will be signed in Lisbon tomorrow, owe much to Irish ingenuity in drafting, tenacity in negotiation and political patience. I recall that night well, it is a moment for memoirs. After a long hard day, tired and emotional Heads of State were beaten into an agreement we could all celebrate. People refer to small nations and this was a wonderful example of how small nations in Europe can make a difference and show leadership. I hope the people of this small nation show leadership and show Europe the way ahead when they record their views on the reform treaty at the ballot box.

Regrettably, the draft constitution was not accepted by the French and Dutch electorates and a revised document built very firmly on the constitutional treaty and protecting all of its strong points was forged in yet more discussions. In October member states reached an agreement on that new document, the reform treaty. It is worth recalling the genesis of this treaty primarily to underline the fact that in it we have a document that has its origins in open and democratic debate. The treaty is decidedly not the product of a secretive and elitist process. Rather, it is the fruit of the labour of hundreds of men and women democratically elected to parliaments and governments by the people of our Union.

The treaty includes many improvements. I will outline five reasons we can ask the Irish people to vote yes in the forthcoming referendum. It will make the Union significantly more democratic. The treaty provides an enhanced role for the European Parliament and a greater role for national parliaments. For the first time, the treaty also provides for a European citizens initiative that will put more power into the hands of the citizen. People will be able to have a more direct say on European matters. A petition with at least one million signatures obtained from a number of member states can be sent to the European Commission inviting it to take a legislative initiative. These are major democratic breakthroughs and will strengthen the democratic character of EU legislation.

The treaty increases the number of areas in which the European Parliament, the physical expression of the democratic choice of the people of Europe, becomes the co-legislator with the Council. Perversely, some who have spoken critically of a democratic deficit in the past are now complaining about this democratic step forward. The Parliament's budgetary role is also strengthened. The progression of parliamentary democracy within the Union structure has been remarkable. Any historian or student of the spread of parliamentary democracy must examine Europe and see what has happened since 1979 as a model for movement.

Even a quick glance at the Parliament's history demonstrates just how positive that evolution has been. When it was first elected in 1979, the Parliament's involvement in co-decision making was minuscule, in single figures when expressed as a percentage. The reform treaty will ensure that the Parliament will be involved in virtually all areas in which the Union legislates, an important democratic step.

The greater role for national parliaments is also a significant added dimension of democratic oversight. For the first time our national parliaments will have a direct input into the evolution of European legislation. The reform treaty will provide for national parliaments to bring to bear their influence by offering reasoned opinions on the appropriateness of EU Commission proposals. This is a vital recognition of the role of national parliamentarians and, by extension, their constituents. It is noteworthy that Jaime Gama, the former Portuguese foreign minister, who is now speaker of the Portuguese Parliament, saw national parliaments as the greatest winners of this new treaty.

Enhanced co-decision and greater involvement by national parliaments creates greater transparency by its nature. If the elected representatives of the 27 member states and those who reflect democracy in the European Parliament are involved in the process of legislation, democracy is well served. This demolishes one of the criticisms that has been made time and again about the democratic deficit. When this treaty is enacted the democratic landscape of the Union will be improved in a way and to a degree that could hardly be imagined a few years ago. That is something all democrats will welcome.

This treaty gives the Union a better decision-making system. The new system of double-majority voting will give proportionate weight to population while protecting the interests of small and medium sized member states. The double majority system will require specific majorities of people and nations. A qualified majority will require 55% of the member states and 65% of the Union's population. This should be welcomed. Only those measures that truly attract majority support can be adopted at EU level. The new voting system is, in addition, more straightforward, more logical and more effective than the current one.

On the matter of voting the majority of Council decisions, close to 90%, are still taken without a vote and agreed by consensus. Those who try to conjure up images of the big member states outvoting the smaller ones are not describing reality. Under this treaty, even if all of the member states were to conspire together, which is highly unlikely, they would still need the support of a significant number of smaller member states to push forward a policy. Such circumstances never have and never will operate.

On most occasions, Ministers do not bring issues to a vote. As a Union where member states respect and treat each other as equals, compromise is sought in order that a balanced outcome can be reached when decisions have to be made. The view that the Union operates as some form of zero sum game where Ministers are sent empty-handed from Council meetings is a false one. It was never a true picture and, if it were, the Union's very raison d'être would cease to exist.

The third reason why we can confidently speak to the Irish people on the strength of the treaty and why they should vote for it is that the treaty makes the EU more accountable by strengthening protection for human rights in the work of the Union. A new treaty article will explicitly state that the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

The reform treaty will confer legally binding treaty status on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I urge Members to read the charter, an uplifting statement of all that is good in the democracies of Europe. It condenses the protection of human rights on which all of our democratic states are based. The treaty marks a significant development in this area because the charter was only a political declaration when it was initially agreed in 2000. By conferring legal status on the charter, we are giving practical effect to some of our most cherished values, the values at the heart of democracy, espoused and upheld by the Irish people. The aim of the charter is to consolidate existing fundamental rights and make them more visible. The rights listed in the charter are derived from existing international conventions, Union law, or the common constitutional traditions of the member states.

Another reason is the institutional change this treaty makes to strengthen the coherence of the EU and give it a clearer voice on the world stage. Up to now, Europe has been an economic giant but, in world affairs, a minnow.

There will be a new full-time President of the European Council who will co-ordinate its work. As the Union's highest-level forum, the European Council will benefit from a dedicated chair who will be in a position to facilitate and steer its discussions and provide valuable continuity. The latter is not present in the existing system.

The new post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will increase the visibility and influence of the European Union in international affairs. This will provide a better platform to project the priorities of Ireland and Europe in areas such as development assistance, human rights, peacekeeping, disarmament and all other issues of global interest.

Some critics have complained that the creation of these two posts is a centralising move which will deprive member states of influence. I would counter that by saying the people who fill these roles will be appointed with the agreement of the member states and they will take into account the balance of member states' interests. It is also important to note that the wider world will hear a common voice from the Union on vital global issues. The latter can be only positive for small countries.

From my previous experience as a student of the European Union, as an academic who lectured on its structures and, in more recent years, as someone who participated in the decision-making process, I am in a position to state that the manner in which it works is the very essence of democracy. However, it is not often described as such. It is critical that the Union should have a coherent say in respect of matters such as global warming, energy security, international terrorism, the trafficking of human beings, drugs and international crime. All of the issues in respect of which coherence is needed can be dealt with more appropriately under the new structures.

I am very pleased the reform treaty provides for member states to retain the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. We will operate in teams of three member states working together over an 18-month Presidency. This is a much more logical system than that which obtains at present and reflects the Troika arrangements in many ways. The Presidency provides a great opportunity — albeit an onerous one — for each member state to guide the Union. At the same time, it gives a member state an opportunity to bring home to its people the sometimes hidden importance of the Union to their daily lives.

We live in a world where the challenges are immense. I refer here to climate change, energy security, international terrorism and providing development assistance to the poorest countries. Committed members of the international community must act together to address these challenges. This treaty gives the member states of the European Union the opportunity to work in concert, speak with a common voice and be truly effective.

The fifth reason to which I wish to refer — I said I would deal with only five reasons but there are many others — is that the treaty will better protect the interests of smaller states. We live in a world where commentators often speak of the disproportionate power of a small number of large countries. The Union already recognises the rights and interests of small member states which, after all, make up its majority. The treaty will give greater effect to the equality between all of the Union's member states. Many of the issues that specifically relate to the expression of equality arise out of arguments put forward by the Irish during the debate at the convention and the subsequent drafting process.

All member states will, as is the case at present, have equal access to membership of the European Commission. There will be one Commissioner from each member state until 2014. The treaty will protect the equality of member states because, from 2014 onward, membership of the Commission will rotate on an exactly equal basis. A national from each member state — regardless of whether it is Germany, Malta, Luxembourg or Ireland — will sit on two Commissions out of three on the basis of strictly equal rotation. This principle of equality between member states, regardless of their size or population, is vital and it is an important achievement for countries such as ours that this is being firmly enshrined in the reform treaty.

When the issue of a smaller Commission first came up for discussion, it was suggested that each of the larger member states would have only one commissioner and that the balance of posts would be shared among the smaller member states. The latter informed the convention that this was not acceptable. Ireland was very much to the fore in that regard and all of the states eventually recognised that it was not acceptable. This proved to be a singular victory for the smaller member states.

A strong and cohesive Commission is essential to Ireland's interests. The Commission is obliged to take into account the balance of interests of all member states. This is why it is important for small member states such as Ireland to have a strong Commission in place. A smaller group of Commissioners — but based on strict equality — is more likely to be effective than a very large one, which would be more difficult to manage and would have a weaker sense of collegiality. Questions are already arising in respect of this matter, particularly in light of some of the portfolios that have come into being at the 27-member Commission. In circumstances such as those I have outlined, it is likely that a two-tier Commission could have become a reality. The smaller member states rejected this scenario, which will, once and for all, be ruled out by the treaty.

In the referendum campaign that lies ahead, for which I know there is strong support among Members of the House, the Government will focus on the positive. In line with what I have been saying, we will make the case for the treaty based on a realistic assessment of where the balance of benefits lies for Ireland. We have no doubt whatsoever that it is good for Ireland and its people. However, we will be also obliged to the points that will be made against the treaty and the Union. We must do so in a way which respects the fact that other people take a different view. I do not think the Irish people will be easily persuaded to vote yes if they are bullied and hectored. However, they will vote yes if we have an open, informed, courteous and respectful debate.

As the Taoiseach pointed out on Monday last, one of the most striking things about the series of EU referenda held in this country during the past 35 years is how the negative arguments remain the same. It is a case of ignoring the facts and putting forward the same old arguments. The portrayal of the European Union as an evolving military superstate which will deprive Ireland of its non-aligned status is a recurring scare tactic. I already heard this point being made on several occasions in the past two weeks. This argument has been made in some guise or other from the outset of our European Union membership. Members will recall that this was one of the big arguments put forward in 1972 and the basis of it was that Ireland would be forced to join NATO and would lose its neutral status as a result. This argument was not true then and it remains untrue today. There is nothing in the treaty that undermines Ireland's neutral status.

Let us consider how perverse is the argument regarding the militarisation of Europe. The EU's humanitarian and peacekeeping work in Aceh after the tsunami and its painstaking efforts in the western Balkans represent a much more accurate representation of the Union's ambition in this area. The proposed EU-led mission in Chad is another example of the good work the Union can do in a troubled world. These missions also reflect the principles and interests underlying Ireland's national instincts. Nothing in the treaty can change our neutrality. The latter remains a matter for the Irish people alone to decide upon.

In addition to preserving unanimity in the area of defence, we are happy that there was no attempt to press for changes in taxation during the agreement on the reform treaty. This was one of the red-line matters I brought to the negotiations at the convention. I was supported in that regard by Members from all sides from both Houses. The treaty will not change anything in the area of taxation.

In engaging in a positive campaign, the Government will challenge the treaty's opponents to spell out why the balance of it is against Ireland's interests and why voting against it could be possibly in Ireland's interests. We will also challenge those who have consistently opposed the Union to explain how Ireland would be better off without it.

We will make the case that we should judge our relationship with the Union in its totality. We should measure its benefits in the aggregate and, despite the sometimes understandable temptation to allow individual policy setbacks to colour our view, we should bear in mind the widest sense of Ireland's interests.

The Government will engage in a vigorous information campaign. An explanatory pamphlet — a very small document — will be published tomorrow to coincide with the signing of the treaty. The reform treaty website, which has been established and is accessible to the public, will go live today. A consolidated version of all EU treaties to date, including the reform treaty, will be available from tomorrow, as will a link to the consolidated version on the reform treaty website. A more detailed information booklet in plain, simple, unadorned language will be available in late January and a White Paper, which will follow the more traditional format which usually is not read, will be published shortly afterwards and shortly before the introduction of a referendum Bill.

I recognise and record the support for the reform treaty, especially from Fine Gael and the Labour Party and from across the political spectrum in the other House with only one party officially being against it. Separate from the political parties' campaigns the Forum on Europe will undertake a series of meetings throughout the country which will provide the public with information and a forum for debate on the treaty. This was done very successfully on the previous occasion. The former Senator Maurice Hayes and the Forum on Europe are building on the model used on the previous occasion. I saw the list of their intended town hall meetings yesterday and, to put it mildly, it is impressive. There will be no part of this country where there will not be a debate on the facts and realities of this treaty. When the referendum Bill is published, a properly resourced referendum commission will be established to provide information on the treaty to the public and to encourage the electorate to vote.

Our experience in the Union shows that small countries can prosper and that we can have our voice heard. By pooling our sovereignty we have joined others to strengthen our case on many issues of national importance, namely, agriculture, foreign policy and economic policy. Standing alone would not allow us to project or protect Ireland's interests or the interests of the Irish people to the same effect. Acting collectively has allowed this small nation to achieve far more than we could ever have hoped to achieve alone.

The Union has proved a welcoming place for small nations such as Ireland to prove their worth. It certainly has given us the opportunity to prove our capacities. Some of our presidencies have witnessed historic European moments such as the reunification of Germany in 1990 and the enlargement of the Union in 2004. One of the memories I will always carry with me in politics and beyond is that extraordinary moment in Áras an Uachtaráin when the leaders of ten member states came out of the clouds and walked into the sunshine.

We have reason to be proud of Ireland's role in Europe. We have not just taken from Europe, which is often a mistake that is made in the debate on Europe. The debate is often about what we get out of Europe, namely, how many euro, but our contribution has been much greater than that. As a small nation, we have always punched way above our weight. We have been generous with our time and efforts. Through different Governments in different presidencies, we have made a real difference. Irish Commissioners have brought something very special in the past. I am thinking of the former Commissioner and President, Paddy Hillery, the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund. I ask Members to reflect on the good that was done from Irish thoughts that were brought to the table. Ireland has given to Europe as well as taken. Irish citizens have thrived at the heart of the European Union's institutions, proving again that small countries can play a central role.

It is often asked what influence a small country can have? I remember at one moment during the Irish Presidency answering questions in the European Parliament and the man sitting behind me as President of the Parliament was Pat Cox, a man who brought extraordinary distinction to that office. Sitting across from me was an Irish Commissioner and, more importantly, the persons who were sitting beside the senior officials from the Commission were Irish, as is the case today. Therefore, Ireland not only has punched above its weight but has used its membership efficiently, effectively and with purpose.

It is not too much of a cliché to say that Europe's success is Ireland's success and that Ireland's success is Europe's success. It is in all our interests, including Ireland's, for Europe's political, economic and social progress to take even deeper root across the Continent. This reform treaty will assist this ongoing process.

Similarly, it has been in Europe's interest to see Ireland develop from our relatively isolated and underdeveloped circumstances of 35 years ago. The contribution of the Union to our progress has been immense and it would be less than generous if we as a nation did not recognise that. We have moved from a position where in 1973 Irish citizens had an income that was not that much more than half the European Union average to one that is now above the average. Employment has doubled from 1 million to more than 2 million in that period. The European Union has stood firmly behind Ireland and Britain in the search for peace in Northern Ireland. It has been supportive and generous in political and financial terms.

The historic economic and political developments in Ireland during our membership of the EU represent a European success story as well as an obvious Irish success story. The Union's member states are rightly proud to point to the part they have played and we are right to acknowledge their contribution. The reform treaty will continue to underpin this mutually reinforcing and positive relationship that exists between European countries. It will continue to allow Europe to strengthen its internal bonds and to reach out more effectively to the wider world. The evidence in favour of the Union and of this treaty is incontrovertible. The treaty deserves our support and I hope support for it will be forthcoming when the Irish people pass their judgment in the referendum on the reform treaty.