Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State and wish to concur with the words Senator Leyden has just used, about Deputy Roche's enthusiasm, which is great to hear. I experienced such enthusiasm first in 1958 when the Minister of State was perhaps only a baby. Going to Brussels and later France and spending winter in that part of the world was like going to Australia or New Zealand nowadays. It was an adventure. For the first time I experienced being a European. I had grown up in a family that was strongly nationalistic and republican and which had been involved in the War of Independence. Therefore, to sacrifice the independence of Ireland to become a European was not easy. What convinced me at the time was the European Economic Community.

I have heard sounds of concern in recent days as regards the reform treaty, however, to the effect that we are moving away from being a European Economic Community and more towards a European federal united states model. These are the concerns we must face. There is a certain concern among Irish people who are very strongly European but who are apprehensive as regards the empire building that is occurring. I shall take one instance. One of the issues that cropped up was the difference between economic and all the other factors with which we are involved within Europe, one of which is the European Social Fund. I have a lovely booklet here, which perhaps we all got yesterday. It is about the Potsdam Conference on the European Social Fund, the 50th anniversary of which took place this year. There are 16 photographs of the Commissioner in it. It is a very expensive book but it did not cost me anything. We are in danger of being complacent and of assuming that because people are pro-Europe, they will also agree to this treaty simply because the Minister of State has explained it.

In starting to consider the reform treaty we should return to first principles, and that is what I have done. To see those first principles we need to look at the 2001 Laeken Declaration that started off the whole process as regards drafting the constitutional treaty. I recall thinking at the time that the Laeken Declaration was like a breath of fresh air. I have always been a fan of Europe, but over the years I have become depressed by the extent to which the European institutions failed to engage successfully with the various peoples of the member states. As the years went on, the process seemed to get worse rather than better, and that is my concern at the moment. I was therefore delighted when the Laeken Declaration grasped this nettle by the roots. It states:

Within the Union, the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens. Citizens undoubtedly support the Union's broad aims, but they do not always see a connection between those goals and the Union's everyday action. They want the European institutions to be less unwieldy and rigid and, above all, more efficient and open. Many also feel that the Union should involve itself more with their particular concerns, instead of intervening, in every detail, in matters by their nature better left to Member States' and regions' elected representatives. This is even perceived by some as a threat to their identify. More importantly, however, they feel that deals are all too often cut out of their sight and they want better democratic scrutiny.

One of the things that excited those of us who wanted to see an Ireland that was still strong and independent was this subsidiarity. I have a concern, and it is being expressed publicly more and more, namely, that decisions are being made more frequently at the top, by Brussels, rather than closer to where the citizens are.

The Laeken Declaration also spelt out an exciting role for the European Union in the new globalised world that was beginning to emerge. It states:

The role it has to play is that of a power resolutely doing battle against all violence, all terror and all fanaticism, but which also does not turn a blind eye to the world's heart-rending injustices. In short, a power wanting to change the course of world affairs in such a way as to benefit not just the rich countries but also the poorest. A power seeking to set globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development.

That is heady stuff and it is, perhaps, somewhat strange to look back today and recognise it as the start of a long and tortuous process that has led us to where we are as regards the reform treaty. Can the Minister of State say whether it is to be known as the Lisbon Treaty or the Reform Treaty? I understood it was the Reform Treaty until last week, and perhaps he can confirm what it is.