Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister of State for coming again to the House to discuss the Lisbon treaty. I compliment him on his energy and determination in pursuing a vigorous campaign to have the treaty passed in a referendum. The important lesson we have learned from the Nice treaty referendums is that we do not want domestic political issues clouding the decision. We want the treaties to be judged on their merits and we want people to be informed and to have a high turnout. The events of the past week, where Deputy Bertie Ahern has resigned as Taoiseach, have effectively removed a major issue which was clouding the debate. I have no doubt this would have had a determining effect on the outcome.

I questioned whether this referendum could be won if Deputy Bertie Ahern was still Taoiseach, last November, when the Minister of State was in this House. He took umbrage with my comments that day, but time has shown it was a correct statement. I am glad these domestic political issues will not cloud the decision on 12 June, if that is the date of the referendum. Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and all the parties are playing their part in informing people, trying to give a correct account of what is actually in the treaty, and the significance of the changes proposed. We will be playing our part in ensuring that Fine Gael supporters and those who we can influence will vote on the day. As the Minister of State has said, the facts speak for themselves. When the document is examined and judged on its merits, I believe the treaty will be passed.

It is also important to state that the treaty did not emerge from thin air. Like all previous treaties it arose from a response to the political and economic demands and challenges of each era. The Treaty of Rome, 1957, was established in Europe to ensure that economic integration would lead to the establishment of post-war economic recovery. The Single European Act 1986 was designed to improve the competitiveness of Europe, providing for the completion of the Internal Market. The Maastricht treaty was designed to establish economic and monetary union, among many other things, and ultimately the establishment of the euro. The purpose of the Amsterdam treaty was to prepare the Union for enlargement and the Nice treaty was designed to make essentially institutional changes. Ireland played a part in each case and had a very big influence in shaping the treaties. President Pöttering this morning pointed out the important events which took place when Ireland had the Presidency. Liam Cosgrave was President of the European Council during the Irish Presidency, from January to June 1975, Garret FitzGerald in 1984, Charlie Haughey in 1990, John Bruton in 1996 and the outgoing Taoiseach in 2004.

The Cohesion Fund is a good example of the many areas in which Ireland has influenced the shape of Europe. Most of the significant changes took place after Ireland's entry to the EEC. The Single European Act, the first change, came about as a result of work carried out by Jim Dooge, a former Senator and Minister for Foreign Affairs. He was appointed to chair the Dooge Committee, which essentially laid the basis for the structure and wording of the Single European Act. Having participated in this process for 35 years and played our part in shaping the nature of the Union to which we belong, it is surely not credible that we now question elements of the basic structure of the European Union which have been decided on and from which we have benefited. That is what is happening, to some extent, in the debate which is taking place.

With regard to many of the changes, we can recall the Crotty judgment of the Supreme Court in the early 1980s. From that judgment resulted the decision to have a referendum in that period on the Single European Act. What is forgotten, however, is that this judgment approved of many of the changes included in the Act — as being covered by Ireland's original decision to enter Europe, in the first referendum. The Supreme Court stated:

[T]he Community is a developing organism, with diverse and changing methods for making decisions, and an inbuilt and clearly expressed objective of expansion and progress, both in terms of the number of its Member States and in terms of the mechanics to be used in the achievement of its agreed objectives.

It is very important to bear this in mind.

The need for a referendum was decided by the Supreme Court on one issue concerning the foreign policy element of that treaty. In terms of moving from unanimity voting to qualified majority voting, QMV, the court ruled that this was something that could be anticipated by Ireland's decision, when it entered the European Economic Community, given that it was an evolving mechanism. We hear the same argument in the current debate as regards the fact that we are losing our sovereignty as more decisions move from unanimity voting to QMV.

My view is that this treaty does not raise any constitutional issues. I have never heard a convincing argument as to why we actually need, on legal grounds, to have a referendum. I agree with what Peter Sutherland said recently, that of all the treaties we have adopted as regards amendments to the original Treaty of Rome, this is, perhaps, the least significant.

One feature of the Europe Union is very important when we examine the question of the adoption and ratification of this treaty. Taking one simple example, we are concerned about Ireland's position within the Commission. We have had excellent Commissioners who have managed while in office to keep an to keep an eye on Europe, and Irish interests therein. When it was suggested that the number of Commissioners should be limited it was argued that the larger member states would never give up their two Commissioners, but they did. It was then said they would never agree to rotation on a pure equality basis, and they did. That is what is in this treaty, namely, that we are among equals when it comes to membership of the European Commission. It will rotate and Ireland will have its turn, the same as the larger member states. No objections, therefore, can be raised in that regard.

As regards the move to QMV, one has to examine those areas where we are moving from unanimity voting. When one examines the individual policy areas, there is no threat to Irish sovereignty. It is a system from which we benefit. As the Minister of State has said, we have never been overruled and outvoted on matters that are of vital national interest. The key policy areas which the treaty introduces, and which require emphasis as being of particular importance to Ireland, are in the areas of organised and cross-Border crime, people trafficking, etc. These matters involve policing and judicial co-operation. As the President of the European Parliament, Herr Pöttering said this morning, with regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Europe is a Union of values. To consolidate the principles and values by which the Community operates is very important. Also important is the increased role of national parliaments in ensuring that Europe does not overstep the mark in terms of legislation that can best be handled at national level.

This treaty is not about the creation of a European superstate. It is not about interfering in any way with our decision as regards abortion in Ireland. The protocol in the Maastricht treaty secured that and it is being carried forward. It is not about the democratic deficit because, if anything, it is designed to enhance democracy and transparency in the Union. It is not about interfering with our corporation or income tax rates. It is not about Irish neutrality because the Nice treaty, ratified in our last constitutional referendum, prevents Ireland from joining an EU common defence alliance without a further referendum. It is not about privatisation or an end to the principle of competition. Contrary to the belief of different groups, including Sinn Féin and Libertas, the European Union does not decide on the privatisation of industry. It recognises the principle, firmly established in this treaty, of providing services of general economic interest. Interpretations in this regard favouring Ireland have been made by the European Court of Justice in recent cases, such as those concerning the ambulance service, An Post, and risk equalisation in respect of the VHI. These have all been approved on the basis of such principles. The European Union has an increasing influence on our lives but it has, in general, been benign and beneficial. If there is frustration with the Union in any area, it should be, and is, over the manner in which we implement EU law.

There is no good reason for Ireland to vote against this treaty. We would generate a lot of good-will by voting "yes". To jeopardise for no good reason the goodwill we have in Europe, which we have enjoyed for 35 years, would be very foolhardy.