Déirdre de Búrca (Green Party)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, to the House. I am grateful for an opportunity to comment on the reform or Lisbon treaty — I have not yet decided which title I will use. The signing of the treaty tomorrow will put an end to approximately two years of what was described as a period of reflection but which was, in truth, a period of great uncertainty or, as some described it, crisis in the European Union arising from the rejection by the French and Dutch electorates of the proposed constitutional treaty.

Ireland will be in a unique position of holding a popular referendum on the treaty which will be preceded by a national debate. Considerable European and international interest will be generated in the content and conduct of this debate. Senators referred to the importance of the tone with which it is conducted. It is incumbent on us to show to those who observe the debate that we can discuss the treaty and Europe in an honest, balanced and respectful manner. Having been involved in many European treaty and referendum campaigns, unfortunately they are characterised often by a negative, polarised, adversarial tone which is off-putting to the public at large. At a time when people seek information about the European project, from which many feel remote and the workings of whose institutions many do not understand, the last thing they want to hear is politicians attacking each other and conducting a debate in an emotional and adversarial manner rather than presenting facts and arguments persuasively and coherently. I hope for this reason the debate will be characterised by balance and honesty.

Unfortunately, two camps have emerged in many of the debates on previous European treaties. The first consists of those who are so enthusiastic about the treaty in question and so committed to having it ratified that they are unwilling to be critical even slightly of any aspect of it or to admit that any part of it may be less than wholly satisfactory. The second camp consists of treaty opponents who refuse to see anything good in it, produce negative propaganda and are often accused of scaremongering. I hope we will be able to conduct the debate in a balanced and honest way, recognising the strengths and weaknesses of the treaty and whether overall it is in Ireland's interest to support it. The Green Party is holding its internal debate at a special convention on 19 January where members will be allowed to debate the pros and cons of the treaty and vote on what position they wish the party to take in the referendum campaign.

There are two main elements to the treaty. Many of its provisions concern reform of the internal workings and the decision-making processes of the EU while others are concerned with strengthening the external identity and the capacity for external action of the EU. It is often difficult to get people exercised or interested in the internal reform process and reform of the institutions, but people would be aware that with the process of enlargement and many new countries joining, decision making becomes more complex and challenging.

In this reform treaty we have seen the shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting in quite a number of policy areas. That points to the fact that member states are more confident they can work with others and do not need to hold on to the veto or the unanimity requirement. The latter stance is often a reflection of the fact that member states have to protect their national interests and can only see themselves doing so by means of a veto. The shift to qualified majority voting suggests much greater confidence in the decision-making processes.

There is also a new system of qualified majority voting or, as it is referred to, a double majority system which means there will have to be a majority of states, 55%, representing 65% of the population to achieve this qualified majority status. It means that the new voting system under this treaty will be based more on population. It is a system that will favour larger countries over smaller countries. That smaller countries are prepared to sign up to it is an indication of the increasing confidence of smaller countries that they can operate and achieve the outcomes they seek within a system that is more population-based.

We see also in the treaty an extension of co-decision which is very important. Many have spoken about the weak role of the European Parliament with regard to the other two European institutions. It is good to see the powers of the European Parliament being strengthened and having a more equal role with the Council of Ministers in the overall law-making process. There will be a streamlining of the Commission in the future. It will mean that all member states will not have a commissioner for a period of five years out of every 15. That will be done on the basis of equality of rotation and Ireland will be no different from any larger or smaller member state. There is a cap on the number of parliamentarians in the European Parliament where a maximum and a minimum number has been set. That will be interesting, depending on the extent to which the EU enlarges in the future.

There is a welcome new role for national parliaments. One of the positive elements of the treaty is that it recognises the right of national parliaments to intervene and object to legislation or at least to make their concerns known about it if they consider it will breach the principle of subsidiarity.

The hope of many is that the EU will evolve into a multi-level system of governance where there is not a centralised power in Brussels and directives coming from there that render national, regional, and local government relatively redundant or ineffective and rather that there is an active role for each level of government in the overall governance and decision making in the EU.

The strengthening of the external identity of the EU obviously is very important. We all recognise the real need for global leadership and the EU is providing that leadership in the area of climate change, energy security, human rights, development aid and so on. There is the role of President of the European Council which will be renewable for a term of five years. We have a high representative for foreign policy and security. Also contained within the treaty is a provision for the Vice President of the Commission. There is a European external action service and also a legal personality conferred on the EU which will allow it to sign up to international treaties.

While there are many positive elements in the treaty, there are also issues that would be of extreme concern to the Green Party, which I will mention briefly. The strengthening of the military dimension of the EU is a matter of concern. The EU to date has used its soft power around the globe in a very effective way, using forms of economic and political co-operation as opposed to the traditional resort to hard military power. The Green Party certainly would not wish to see that change. The shift in terms of strengthening the military capacity of the EU raises specific concerns.

Another issue is the EURATOM Treaty which gives preferential treatment to and promotes nuclear energy within the EU. We are concerned that is attached by means a protocol to the treaty and has not been revised in any way. I hope the Minister of State will have something to say about that and the plans for the future of the EURATOM Treaty.

I hope the debate in this House, in which the Minister of State, Deputy Roche will play a central role, will be characterised by honesty, balance and respect for other points of view. If that happens we will end up educating the Irish public and gaining a positive outcome by the time the vote on the treaty takes place.