Shane Ross (Independent)

With the permission of the House I wish to share my time with Senator Rónán Mullen in proportions to be very strongly weighted in my favour.

I listened to what Senator Keaveney said and I agree with some of it. The historical points she addressed are absolutely correct. On the whole, Europe has been good for Ireland and if gratitude exists in politics, let us be grateful to it for what it has done for us. Much of the Structural Funding went in our favour. We were net receivers of money and donations for a very long time and many people will say that contributed to the Irish boom.

I am not decided concerning the Lisbon treaty. One of the things Senator Keaveney said was indicative of some of the attitudes to Europe and the treaty in this country, namely, that all political parties in this House, bar one, were in favour. She stated that this was a good thing but I am not sure that is necessarily the case. When we think of Europe we tend to lose our critical faculties. It appears to be an irresistible train which we must board because jumping off it or even aside from it, criticising it or being different, is something we fear.

The safe choice is to vote for Lisbon, to go the way of all the political parties, bar Sinn Féin, and support it. The correct choice is to know what is in the treaty, to criticise it and then to make a decision on balance. The reality is there is not a sinner in the country who knows what is in the Lisbon treaty. I must confess that I have not read it all. I was rather struck by something that Ulick McEvaddy, a businessman who has come out against the treaty, said. He read the text on the way between Singapore and Australia and when he got to Australia he was irate because he believed he had only got the draft. He telephoned Dublin, asked that the full document be sent and was told that he had it. He said that what he had could not be the full document because it was almost impossible to understand.

That lack of understanding of the full document is undoubtedly translated into a lack of understanding of what is in the treaty. Politicians have played little part in conveying the message of what is in the Lisbon treaty because they do not really know what is in the text. They do not need to know because every politician, bar a few, is uncritical of Europe.

I am in the ranks of the undecided because I have reservations about this treaty. I deeply resent the fact that Ireland is the only country holding a referendum. I also deeply resent the fact that some European countries and Ministers have taken the view that this is too important an issue to be left to the people. The former President of France, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, is quoted as saying that the French people cannot be trusted with making a decision on this treaty. That obviously extends to other countries as well. Whereas, we may applaud the Government for taking the legal advice to the effect that there should be a referendum here, giving us the choice, the fact we are taking the initiative on our own puts Ireland under a pressure that is not shared by other European governments. Why will they not put this to a referendum in all the member states of the EU? The reason is quite simple, or so it appears to me. It would be defeated, as the polls in many countries show. What we are actually seeing here is a concerted effort to bypass the individual nations of Europe. If it was put to the individual nations of Europe, it would not go through.

That is a pretty devious type of activity for governments to indulge in. It is not necessarily unusual because governments are, by definition, devious and do not like the people between elections. They want to leave as little as possible to the people, unless it is inconvenient for them to make decisions. The fact that Ireland is the only member state holding a referendum and that other countries have been deliberately denied that privilege makes me suspicious. I resent the fact that this treaty is being pushed through by stealth because the people who control the European morass have decided it would never get through if there was a popular or democratic vote on it. That is the problem I have, generally, with Europe and the European model, in that democracy is subsidiary to the administrative machinery which governs it.

The other issue that is so often taken up is that of tax harmonisation. We are reassured time and again that the Lisbon treaty will not make any difference to tax harmonisation. That is true if one reads the small print. However, there was a good deal of sabre rattling a few months ago by the French and the Germans about tax harmonisation. They have been very quiet about it in the last few months as this referendum comes up, because they do not want us to take the opportunity to send a message to them that we do not want them tinkering with tax harmonisation. One can be certain, however, that the moment this is passed the French and the Germans will start rattling those sabres again — and do not believe those who say it cannot be changed because we have got a veto. They can hit us in other places, in all sorts of other areas, including agriculture. If they threaten us in one place or other, while calling for a review of tax harmonisation, we can be put under almost unbearable pressure on that front.

We should not believe, therefore, that this has gone away or is copperfastened because what the French and the Germans want, the French and the Germans get in Europe. That is the lesson we should learn. That is why we do not have the type of economic independence which we might have. That is why we do not have control over our interest rates. It might or might not be a good thing — I have not the time to go into that. That is why we do not have control over our currencies, because it is the French and the German will that this is the way Europe should be run.

Let us not be naive and say it will not happen or will not be threatened again. It will be threatened almost immediately the treaty is passed. One must be careful, even in the Seanad, to see the type of window dressing that has been going on over this. We had the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Hans-Gert Pöttering, here the other day. He was a very good speaker and had a good deal to say, but that was an example of the European machine moving in on the parliaments and doing their public relations. Nobody on the other side was invited to address the Seanad and say the treaty was wrong. At the same time EC President José Manuel Barroso was in Dublin Castle and coincidentally paid a visit to the National Forum on Europe, to do his job of pushing the European message. The balance does not exist.

I am worried about this treaty for the reasons given. I am not saying I shall vote for or against it, since I have not made up my mind yet. However, I am concerned at the fact that there is a kind of European train going through, supported by all the political parties, criticised by no one, with very few opponents in the media or the Irish establishment, when this is too important an issue not to warrant more scrutiny.