Alex White (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House to kick off this debate on the Reform Treaty or Lisbon treaty. I saw Manuel Barroso interviewed on television last night and he called it the "Lisbon" treaty, perhaps for national reasons. We shall see what it ends up being called.

There is no question that our experience of EU membership has been of major benefit to the country. Perhaps this goes with out saying but it ought not to as it is an important bedrock for this debate. The EU has contributed enormously to the modernisation and industrialisation of our country, which was one of endemic emigration and unemployment and which has become one of high employment attracting large-scale migration from the new member states of eastern Europe.

The new treaty contains a strong social dimension which is the area I wish to emphasise. This social dimension contains a legally binding commitment to an extremely wide range of citizens' and workers' rights. In no small part, the treaty reflects the ethos of the Labour Party and the socialist movement throughout Europe. For this reason, the Labour Party will enthusiastically support the treaty and will campaign for a "Yes" vote.

Other Senators referred to major questions such as climate change and world poverty. These are great preoccupations of all political parties, including mine and they are also reflected in initiatives in the treaty.

I listened with interest and agreement to what Senator Ormonde stated with regard to institutional reform. It is undoubtedly true that institutional reform is necessary if for no other reason than so many new states are joining and to ensure the existing institutions work effectively they must be reformed. In the attempt to persuade people on issues of institutional reform we will run up against the obstacle that people do not get much of an opportunity during their daily lives to wrestle with questions of institutions, representation and democratic deficit. They may feel the effects of democratic deficit but not everybody has the luxury of time or opportunity to debate what this means.

I do not wish to stray into a partisan political debate, much as I am tempted to do so.However, question marks hang over the effectiveness and relative value of many of our institutions. If we have these doubts about domestic institutions, how much more difficult will it be for us to engage in a debate about institutions that are even more remote or to ask citizens to support and be enthusiastic about reforms of the European Parliament or other EU bodies? I do not make this point to diminish the importance of debating or discussing the issue but to emphasise the difficulty we face.

This brings me to an issue the Minister of State and other speakers touched on, namely, the type of debate we will have in the coming months. It is important to pause and consider what should be the content and tone of the debate. The Minister of State correctly noted that people will not be bullied or respond positively to being hectored. The treaty will not be passed by telling people they have no choice but to vote for it or that they should vote based on the benefits we have enjoyed as a result of membership of the European Union. Unfortunately, Commissioner McCreevy last week used words to the effect that people who do not vote in favour of the treaty will need their heads examined. While the Commissioner and others may believe this to be the case, the quality of debate suffers when one tells people they have no choice but to vote in a certain way. Moreover, our sophisticated electorate will respond negatively to this type of argument, as was the case in a previous referendum.

The Minister of State and his colleagues who are promoting the treaty should be aware that hectoring can sometimes be unintentional. One should not dismiss an argument by announcing that one has demolished it in a short few sentences. This is not meant as a personal criticism of the Minister of State. Rather than believing we have given all the correct answers, have made devastating points on the importance of Europe and no one else could possibly hold a candle to us in terms of the strength of our arguments, perhaps a little more humility is needed. Perhaps listening to and addressing genuine concerns in an intelligent manner would contribute much more to enabling others to recognise that a "Yes" vote is appropriate than would telling people which way to vote.

The Taoiseach stated last week that the same people will make the same old arguments in the treaty debate. Even if this proves to be the case, it is important that these arguments are addressed. If someone has made the same arguments during every treaty debate for the past 20 or 30 years, it does not mean it is any less legitimate or important to address them in a fair-minded manner. While the Taoiseach and others may be frustrated, they should respond to rather than dismiss argument.

Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on the impact of differences in the arguments being made in support of the treaty in different countries. French and British proponents of the treaty, for example, use different arguments in its favour, as I noted while attending the British Labour Party conference this autumn as a representative of the Labour Party. On the one hand, treaty supporters in France have argued that the agreement is essentially the same as the proposed European constitution, while on the other, the British Government argues that the treaty and proposed constitution are much different propositions and the latter has been dropped in favour of a pared-down treaty. Differences in the arguments employed in favour of the treaty in different countries will be reflected in the debate in this country because people are not stupid and see beyond their noses. They will not be taken for fools.

It is fine for different political organisations to have different reasons for supporting the treaty. My approach from the left may differ from the approach of other political parties. Let us acknowledge that despite our political differences, we can, for different reasons, advocate the same outcome.

The Minister of State made five key arguments in favour of supporting the treaty. The third of these was protection of human rights and inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. As I indicated, we all have different approaches to the treaty. I believe the protection of human rights is the foremost argument in favour of the treaty because, as the Minister of State correctly noted, the charter and the solemn guarantees it sets out are vital. The precise means by which these guarantees can be enforced in Irish law is the subject of some controversy and has not yet been resolved. Nevertheless, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a great and historic international statement of important principles.

In terms of the achievements of the European Union in social and employment protection legislation, an area in which I have a strong interest, the gains have been immense. The aspirations of the charter elevates this area to a higher plain and sets a major objective for the Community as a whole. The treaty is worth supporting for no other reason that the centrality given to the charter.