Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I am very pleased to speak on the EU reform treaty. Members will be aware that last week the Dáil began the debate and I look forward to it moving to the Seanad.

Before I get into the body of my contribution, I wish to refer to some comments by the French Finance Minister reported in today's newspapers. The statement, as reported, is untimely, unhelpful and, frankly, inappropriate. The House will be aware that to date a paper on the common consolidated corporate tax base, CCCTB, has not been even produced. When such a paper emerges 26 member states as well as France will have a view on the issue. Ireland will not be the only member state which will be negative in so far as CCCTB is concerned.

Any CCCTB proposal would require unanimous agreement and there is absolutely no chance of that. However, what this episode demonstrates is the wisdom of a recent statement by the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland who urged a "yes" vote in the referendum to maximise our standing and our negotiating position in Europe. He went on to state that voting "yes" will achieve that and voting "no", the opposite.

The French Finance Minister was speaking yesterday at an annual Brussels tax forum about the themes for the upcoming French Presidency of the EU in the second half of the year which will include environmental taxation, the savings directive as well as company taxation. On the common consolidated corporate tax base, she admitted that it is a controversial issue and that there may be no swift agreement on it. One could sing that. She also said that France supports the CCCTB concept and that she would like to have a debate on the issue. We would welcome the opportunity for an open, honest and informed discussion on the matter because we will make our opposition clear at that time and so, incidentally, will member states which, like Ireland, have been waiting for this elephant to be deposited.

The reform treaty preserves the existing treaty arrangements whereby taxation matters must be decided by unanimous vote. Taxation matters are, and will remain, within the competence of member states. They are not a Union competence now nor will they be when the treaty is enacted. Any member state can veto a proposal on taxation, and that is as it should be. Any CCCTB proposal would require unanimous agreement to become Community law. A substantial number of member states have already indicated their opposition to the proposal and to the direction this debate has been taking. A CCCTB could not be lawfully established by way of enhanced co-operation if it were liable to impose a degree of enforced harmonisation on non-participating member states.

More importantly, any member state which is not part of an enhanced co-operation agreement cannot be forced to participate in, or be subject to, the decisions made by the group of member states establishing the agreement. The assertions that somehow or other Ireland is to lose its veto on taxation is false. No member state can be forced against its will to change the rules on taxation under the reform treaty or under any other treaty. The reform treaty matters to Ireland and Europe. That is why I take this opportunity to put these views on the record.

The treaty has resulted from a negotiation process that began with the Convention on the Future of Europe. As Senator Quinn identified earlier today, that convention flowed from the Laeken agreement and was informed by the Laeken statement. The convention was an important democratic innovation. It brought the process of EU treaty reform closer to the citizens. It involved representatives of not only EU governments, or their administrations, as had been the case in all previous treaties but also of the national parliaments of the 27 member states. It brought governments and oppositions into the same chamber and the institutions and a civil society pillar together. The input of these various players can be seen in the shape of the treaty. It is a document which provides for greater transparency, enhanced democracy and for a Europe that, more than ever before, can look outwards beyond its borders to the challenges presented by the wider world.

Most importantly, the treaty is a very balanced document. Great balance was achieved in the discussions on the future of Europe and during the Irish IGC. The negotiation process informed the treaty before us. It is particularly beneficial from the viewpoint of smaller member states.

One point should be kept in mind given the suggestion that the negotiators should be sent back to the drawing board to come up with another treaty. Any search for a different outcome could well upset the very hard-earned balance we have achieved in this treaty. To suggest to the other 26 member states that they should start again is, to put it very kindly, a naive course to take. As I said, the existing proposal is a good one and rejecting it would serve no useful purpose, above all for Ireland. Ireland, more than any other member state, copperfastened all its key issues, taxation, neutrality and, as the President of the European Parliament said this morning, our position on abortion in this treaty.

In light of the French Finance Minister's statements, does anybody with a clue as to how negotiations work really think that voting "no", thereby reopening a Pandora's box, including the taxation question, is a good idea? Having sat through the Convention on the Future of Europe, the ICG and the Irish Presidency and been involved in the last set of decisions, I, for one, do not believe it is an idea which has anything to recommend it.

President Pöttering in his address to the Seanad this morning made the point that the EU has seen a Continent turn its back on 19th century nationalism. He is right in that regard. Through economic and political co-operation the Union has consigned disastrous European wars to history. At its heart has been the determination of member states to act, not, as some suggest, in a way that beggars their neighbour or achieves some new hegemony in Europe but, in solidarity in the overall European interest. The essential secret of the European Union is that it is a unique union of equal member states. While it might seem paradoxical to some, particularly those who oppose this treaty, such solidarity, which often involves real compromise and concession, is also in the interests of individual member states, particularly the smaller ones like Ireland.

The treaty enhances the European Union's democratic character. Who in Ireland would vote against more democracy? Not I. It increases the role of the national and EU Parliaments. Who sees this as a dangerous topic? Not I. I believe that the decision to involve national parliaments more intimately in the process of making European law is one of the most revolutionary steps forward since the original Treaty of Rome. The treaty also seeks to reform the decision-making institutions of the EU and makes the Union better equipped to deal with the real issues that are important to the lives of Europe's citizens, globalisation, energy security, climate change and, a more challenging international economic environment. These challenges cannot be addressed by any individual member state but by the Union acting in concert.

The treaty strengthens the voice of the European Union on the world stage. This is a good thing because the European Union is built, as Mr. Pöttering said this morning, on values which come from our constitutions and from the heart of the people. It gives legal effect the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, a fine document. It sets out more clearly the EU's powers and limits and it gives specific powers to the Union to help combat international and cross-border crime.

The increase in the role of national parliaments is of particular relevance to this House. This capacity for national parliaments to invoke the principle of subsidiarity will enhance ownership, parliamentary engagement and accountability. Between us, the 27 member states have almost 10,000 Senators and Members of Parliament. Connecting these many thousands of public representatives directly to the EU legislative process can, and will, inject an entirely new dynamic into the democratic functioning of the Union. For example, I was taken by a document recently produced by IBEC in which it explored exactly what this would mean to Irish businesses, small, medium and large. IBEC made the point that Irish businesses will be better able to communicate their concerns and wishes to the directly elected members of the Dáil and Seanad Éireann and to represent their views at a much earlier stage in the process of law making than is the case currently.

Some opponents of the treaty have dismissed this step as insignificant. I respectfully disagree and I believe that the vast majority of parliamentarians across Europe would share my view. The impact of this change will be largely what we, parliamentarians, make it. The enhancement of the European Parliament's co-decision-making powers, the introduction of the so-called "yellow card" for national parliaments and the citizens' initiative makes the Union more effective, open and democratically accountable. As stated by Mr. Pöttering this morning, when he entered, as a directly elected member, the Parliament of Europe in 1979 it had no co-decision rights. Following ratification of this treaty, it will be involved in virtually every single area. This cannot be dismissed as anything other than positive in a nation that espouses democracy.

In doing so, the treaty aims to show that political leaders have learned from their dialogue with citizens and are bringing representatives of the people of Europe closer into the process. Some opponents of the treaty worry about what they see as a loss of sovereignty, an argument that has been around for 35 years. One respects people's views. The greatest measure of our sovereignty is our capacity to chart our own course; to meet our obligations and to realise our ambitions. In this respect, we are better able today to provide a decent pension for the elderly and a better living for the young. We are better able to build a future for current and future generations and are less likely than ever before to wave off new generations to a future of emigration. These are practical, day-to-day, food-on-the-table measures of sovereignty. I put it to this House, we are much better in the expression of our sovereignty of a nation now than in 1972. We are more the masters of our destiny today than we were then.

Many people are attached to the nation state and the sense of identity and security that goes with it. I am one of those people. I believe the concept of the nation state is alive and well. I am a Wexford man by birth, I live in Wicklow, I am Irish and European. It is not a question of being one or the other but of being all at the same time. Most of us would acknowledge that we must pool our resources if we, small countries, are to have any chance of coping with the global challenges facing us. If we are honest, we know this is a major reason so many countries want to be part of the Union. The test we face is legitimising the institutions we have created and the structures we have built to implement the policies we have devised to face our global challenges. For reasons of language and culture this is not straightforward. That is why I agree with those who say it is important to find better ways of connecting our national political institutions with the European institutions. What is certain, beyond doubt, is that the treaty does that; it creates a greater sense of connection than ever before.

The EU institutions should not be viewed as remote, irrelevant bodies. They, and the careful balance that exists between them, play a real role in the lives of European citizens. This balance, particularly that between the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament, has served the interests of Europe well for more than 50 years. It has also served this nation well for more than 35 years. In doing so, it has served the interests of the small and the large states.

I recall during the debate on the second Nice treaty referendum asking an opponent during an interview on a radio station to name one occasion when large member states had ganged up on small member states. That does not happen. It is not the way the Union works. That is why the Government places great value on preserving this balance. It is why we worked hard to this end on the convention and during the negotiations on the constitutional and reform treaties. It is because this vital balance has been preserved that we wholeheartedly endorse the treaty. We were part of what was known as "the friends of the Community method", a group of small and medium sized countries in the convention. We created a lot of difficulties for Mr. Giscard d'Estaing but we did so because we wanted balance. We wanted equality to be recognised and enshrined and we won that battle. One of the great victories in the Convention on the Future of Europe was when the small and medium states managed to persuade the large states it was in everybody's interest to recognise equality. To suggest, as opponents do, that small member states are losing their footing in this treaty does not ring true. The scenario painted by opponents would suggest that the majority of governments, which, after all, represent small and medium-sized states, took leave of their senses and accepted an agreement that was against their national interests. That is not likely and it did not happen.

In the Commission, there is equality of treatment between member states and that is a good idea. In the Council, the double majority system strikes a reasonable balance and recognises the equality between member states and citizens. People who argue that we have had our voting strength halved are not telling the truth. The reality of the new voting system is that a 55% majority of member states representing not less than 65% of member states is required. To suggest, as Sinn Féin has done, that this is not the case, is simply to decide one will decide who wins a hurling match by not counting those balls that go over the bar.

In the European Parliament, small member states continue to be allocated more seats than strict population criteria would allow. For some, our membership of the Union after 35 years is a given or something to be taken for granted. However, I take a different view. I take the view that it is part of our role to build the Union, to create a more equal and democratic one and one that works and builds on the previous blocks. We, like all member states, have a right to see it develop in the direction we want it to go.

The Union gives us in Ireland a platform to develop our economy and improve the living standards of our citizens. It gives us a place at the table to put forward our views on the important global issues of the day. It gives us confidence as a nation that goes with membership of a group of countries possessing shared aspirations and, most importantly, shared values.

The treaty will give the Union the flexibility and capability to face the major challenges that lie ahead. The sheer scale of the challenges — climate change, migration, the eradication of poverty and globalisation — means that no single country of any scale can deal with those problems, let alone a small country. The European Union is the most effective way of dealing with these problems we face. It is the most effective organisation, universally, for that purpose. It has an important role in creating a better future and has a real responsibility to play that role effectively.

The reform treaty recognises this. In creating a President of the European Council, it is creating more efficiency within the Council. The president title seems to scare some people, but it means little more than the title "cathaoirleach". In creating a high representative for common foreign and security policy, the treaty aims to give the Union a clearer and more coherent voice in international affairs. Having regard to the manner in which international affairs have turned in recent years, surely a coherent voice that represents more clearly the combined values of the European member states is something to which we should look forward. This voice will reflect the shared interests and values of European people — a voice that will have democracy, human rights and the rule of law at its core. It will be a consensus voice that will speak on behalf of and follow the mandate of all the member states. The new high representative will not be an authority in his or her right. That role will follow the role prescribed by the member states.

We, as a small nation, have a strong interest in preventing and resolving regional and global conflicts and in creating a fairer international order. We have an interest in bringing our influence and principles to bear. The best way for us to do this is through active engagement in the Union, in particular as the Union has as its core the principles of the United Nations Charter. This is not to say that our national voice or interests will be submerged. That will not be the case. Unanimity will continue to rule with regard to the common foreign and security policy, in particular in the defence area. This also applies to military and defence applications. There is absolutely no threat to our traditional policy of military neutrality. Again the myth makers are attempting to mislead the Irish people.

I would like to address some issues concerning the referendum. One issue has been the question of creating more information. The best thing we can do as democrats, whether we are in favour of or against this treaty, is to engage the people in a truthful dialogue about it and to have a narration on the treaty which deals with its provisions and not with myths. To facilitate this, we have taken certain steps because we believe a high voter turnout is important. It is important because it is our constitution and every citizen in this State has a right and a responsibility to protect it.

The Government published a White Paper last week which explains the content of the treaty in a clear, factual and detailed manner. The White Paper is available free of charge from my Department. It is being distributed to public libraries, citizens advice centres and other public offices. It is also available on the reform treaty website. All key documents are available in Irish and in English and there are special versions for the visually impaired. Additionally, we will distribute an explanatory guide to the treaty later this month to every household in the country. That has been available from the freefone number since early in the year. Every library and citizens information centre also has received multiple copies of all the key documents.

Separately, the referendum commission will begin shortly its work of providing independent and impartial information to voters on the subject matter of the referendum. The Forum on Europe, which was mentioned this morning, deserves further positive mention as it has done incredible work. Other organisations are involved also in engaging in the hosting of public information meetings throughout the country.

In total, therefore, there is and will be a wealth of information available to citizens. The Government is fully content to let the facts speak for themselves. This is a good treaty. When the people realise it is about creating a more open, transparent, democratic, efficient and effective Europe built on rights and which enshrines in its law the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the people will be persuaded, as I am, that this is a good treaty.

I believe the Irish people will vote "yes" for positive reasons. I do not like an element that crept into the debate of bullying, badgering and misleading the people. No one in this referendum should try to scare or bully people in voting in any particular direction. It would be futile and counter-productive because the Irish people are and will be the best informed in Europe.

On the "yes" side, we believe the treaty speaks loudly and positively for itself. We will highlight and explain these attributes. Where necessary, we will counter the misrepresentations about the treaty, some of which are bizarre, even by the standards of previous referenda. We will vote "yes" because we recognise the value of Ireland's involvement in the European project. Who would challenge the fact that Ireland today is an infinitely more wealthy, self-confident, progressive, forward-looking place than it was in 1972?