Feargal Quinn (Independent)

Maybe so. The reason for this reform treaty — there is little doubt it came from the Laeken Declaration originally — and for the constitutional change is efficiency. Therefore, I have examined it to see if there are efficiencies, and some of them make a great deal of sense.

I want the Minister of State to respond to this later. Ms Patricia McKenna made two points that I have not heard previously. One of them was that the member states, in the previous document, proposed the Commissioner that they wished to appoint, and that word "proposed" has been changed to "make a suggestion". There may be no change in the meaning of these wordings, but it would concern me if there are changes taking place and we do not understand the nuances behind them.

The other point Ms McKenna raised related to taxation and to the amendment to Article 113. The Minister of State made it clear that taxation is excluded from all of this.

I quoted the Laeken Declaration earlier today when the President of the European Parliament was here. The declaration also spelled out an exciting role for the EU in the new globalised world that was emerging in 2001. It stated:

The role it has to play is that of a power resolutely doing battle against all violence, all terror and all fanaticism, but which also does not turn a blind eye to the world's heart-rending injustices. In short, a power wanting to change the course of world affairs in such a way as to benefit not just the rich countries but also the poorest. A power seeking to set globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development.

That is heady stuff. Perhaps it is a little strange for us to look back today and recognise it as the start of a long and tortuous process that took place, but we owe the people of Ireland a duty to carry out diligently the necessary scrutiny on this treaty. That is what we are doing here today and, I hope, in the next few weeks.

Surely we have another responsibility as well. It is a responsibility taken by us, not just as Irish men and women but as Europeans. We are in the process of building a supranational structure under which our children and grandchildren must live. In this reform treaty we are taking a decisive step to shape the Europe of the future and it is incumbent on us to ask ourselves carefully if this is really the way we want to go. Does this treaty live up to the Laeken Declaration or does it undermine the fine principles and aspirations on which the reform project was launched? If we have any doubts about that issue, now is the time to voice them, when we still have an opportunity to affect the course the future Europe will take. If we stay silent now, we are agreeing to one particular way forward for Europe and turning our back on any other. Therefore, the forthcoming referendum will pose the Irish people with some of the most important and fundamental questions they have ever had put to them. In preparing for that referendum, we must treat this issue with all the seriousness it deserves. The Irish people will not be bullied or blackmailed, as the Minister of State said, into giving one particular answer or the other. They will demand a reasoned debate and my hope is that they will get it.

At Mass on Sunday, I picked up a newspaper I had not seen before called Alive! and was surprised by what I read. If this newspaper is in every church in the country and is, therefore, widely read, I am surprised by the amount of debate that needs to be addressed. I should go through the matters debated in it because we must answer them. One letter to the newspaper stated that:

At present the EU sets the policy that its 27 member states are likely to follow at the UN. However, countries can still take the above type of principled stand. Under the Lisbon Treaty this will no longer be possible. Under Article 24.3 of the treaty it will be illegal for any country to have its own foreign policy.

I do not know if this is correct but I doubt if it is. Another article stated that:

The EU funded embryo research in 2006; (b) gave EU taxes to fund abortion in developing countries in 2002, and (c) in 2000 insisted that "quickie" divorce apply to Irish citizens.

They are the sort of issues that have been raised. I welcome the debate because if these issues are being raised and not answered, we must ensure we answer them, that the debate is rational and effective and that every side gets a chance to voice its opinion. I believe that when I come to cast my vote, I will have done so in a rational way that listened to all sides and took them into account in making that decision.