Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I thank Members for their contributions. It was asked whether we need a referendum. The legal advice is that we do need it, and there is an expectation in this regard.

To put it mildly, I was disappointed by Senator Regan's decision to accuse the Taoiseach of perjury within the four walls of this House. As I have said on many occasions, including when I was responsible for the tribunal, it should be allowed in peace and calm to continue its work to a conclusion. For a Member of the House to attempt to influence the work of the tribunal in a politically partisan and prejudicial way is unworthy. I am disappointed to say this to Senator Regan, for whom I have great personal respect and regard. As Senator Leyden said, one could hurl accusations at those who gave different contributions to the tribunal. My long-held view is that it is better to let the tribunals do their work without assistance from anyone in the Houses.

Senator Quinn, in a thought-provoking contribution, outlined his concerns about creeping federalism. It is a fact that a contribution I made at the Convention on the Future of Europe meant any reference to the F-word was withdrawn from the convention, which only happened because people did not want the word "federal" to appear. This was not to disguise the reality that it is a fundamental mistake to try to characterise the European Union in the old political way as a federal unitary state because such a characterisation does not apply. The EU is unique in that it is a space in which member states have decided voluntarily to pool certain amounts of sovereignty in order to achieve something greater.

I acknowledge Senator Quinn's point that this is an issue that will creep into the debate. We must simply point out the truth. Nobody forced us in and nobody forces us to stay in. We choose to be in the EU because we believe this is a better way to deal with the issues.

It is unfortunate Senator Quinn is no longer present. I intended to point out to him that while I picked out five areas of the treaty, I could have added a sixth, namely, the reference to conferral and subsidiarity. Subsidiarity, on which Senator de Búrca touched, has always been a reality in the Union but it gets specific legal recognition in this treaty. What is even more important is the reference to conferral. The conferral clause makes it clear there are no powers other than those powers conferred willingly by member states. This deals specifically with Senator Doherty's final points on the transfer of powers to Brussels. When powers are transferred to Brussels, those powers are not transferred to anything other than to a group of Ministers in Council to make decisions.

Senator Quinn correctly made the point that one of the most important issues in the Laaken Declaration was that of communication between Europe and the citizens of the Union. This issue was very much to the fore during our Presidency, when we launched the Communicating Europe campaign. It is still a reality within the Union but I accept it is an area that needs much greater strength and focus than it has to date received.

Senator Leyden referred to concerns on CCCTB, the consolidated tax base issue. There is no change whatsoever on the issue of tax in this treaty. Tax will still be a matter for unanimity so a veto will exist. There have been discussions on CCCTB but nobody foresees these proposals moving forward. The view increasingly held is that the only enthusiasm that remains is in Commissioner Kovács's quarters. There is increasing awareness among member states that this is not the way forward and Commission President Barroso has made useful points in this regard.

Senator Alex White and other Senators referred to the nature of the debate. I agree the debate should be respectful, although it should not be neutered. While some have been saying since 1972 that if we vote "Yes" in this or that treaty, we will find ourselves in NATO or lose or neutrality, this is patently untrue. It is important, therefore, that we would cut through such untruths and highlight them. During the last referendum campaign on the Nice Treaty, disgraceful posters were put up in this city and in towns throughout the country stating that if people voted "Yes" for the treaty, they would find themselves in NATO. It was untrue then and has always been untrue. Our position, as a nation that takes a particular view, will not be changed.

Senator Alex White made an interesting point on differentiated arguments, which, I agree, will confuse the debate. It needs to be explained that different member states are moving at a different pace. For example, when the British Government states that this treaty is fundamentally different to the constitutional treaty, that is not untrue because, of course, Britain is opting out of justice and home affairs, which is a huge area, and is taking its own view on the charter, which surprises me.

I believe the charter is the most uplifting part of this treaty. It is the aspect on which we should tell the Irish people to concentrate. Is there any democrat on this island who would disagree with its principles? They are uplifting, as is the language of the charter. I would have preferred if the charter was central within the treaty——