Dan Boyle (Green Party)

Much comment has been made about the factors that may lead to a substantial "No" vote in the referendum that this Bill seeks to bring into being. There has been demonisation of those campaigning on the "No" side in a referendum, which has been unhelpful. Aside from a distaste for politics, one of the biggest factors that brings about a strong "No" feeling in the country is an attitude of being talked down to and lectured. There has been a process in several referenda concerning the European Union of the phenomenon I would call the unquestioning "Yes" vote. We need to be open at all times to have an honest debate about our existence in the European Union, the value of the Union and where it is likely to go as a result of the changes proposed in the Lisbon treaty.

For the most part everybody can say membership of the European Union has been positive for this country. The potential for further development in the relationship and what the country can get from our membership of the European Union remains large and should be striven for. Unfortunately a debate with the kind of name-calling and demonisation we have seen in the past creates an unnecessary group of people who are opposed to the very idea of the European Union itself. We need to move away from that if we are interested in advancing some of the stronger principles of the European Union and impressing the value of the European Union on our citizens.

I voted "No" in all previous referenda. While I was only ten years of age in 1972, I voted "No" on referenda from the one on the Single European Act onwards. I did so because while I continue to recognise the value of the European Union and the European Community that preceded it, I was concerned at the direction it has been taking in terms of distance from the citizen and not being an institution with which ordinary people could identify. I believe I would have supported the constitutional treaty, a matter to which I will return shortly. I support the Lisbon treaty because it is the first instance I have witnessed in that series of referenda in which the move towards the centre and towards an elite has turned back towards national sovereignty, national parliaments and the individual citizen. It does not go far enough. It does not bring about a fully democratic open and inclusive European Union. However, at least it goes in a direction that previous treaties have not. The main reason to support the treaty is to try to work from within, bringing about a more open and democratic European Union.

As someone promoting a "Yes" vote, I believe we should get out to the people who should participate in the referendum. The participation in referenda on European Union issues has oscillated all over the place. The turnout for the first referendum on the Nice treaty was 35%. While it increased significantly it was still a low enough poll by the time of the second referendum on the Nice treaty. We should encourage more than half of the electorate to participate. The primary challenge will be to get people to vote in the referendum and then to inform the voters to ensure they vote in an informed way. Those of us on the "Yes" side have a further challenge in trying to ensure there is a "Yes" vote.

I sense from many of the people with whom I have shared "No" platforms in previous campaigns something I would describe as a degree of paranoia. I do not believe in the idea of a monolith, a clique or people who sit in dungeon-like rooms in a mythical castle in Brussels ordaining that there will be a Europe to fit their vision. I recognise that within the European Union there is a diversity of opinion. I accept the French and Germans would like to have a co-ordinated approach to taxation. Under existing legal mechanisms they cannot get their way. I do not like eating snails or sauerkraut. They will not make me change my opinion on that and the treaty does not allow them to do that kind of thing. The idea that there exists an organisation to which we have already given powers that can force us to change elements of our national decision making and sovereignty is a myth that needs to be challenged. It is based on opinion of Ireland as a nation that lacks self-confidence.

We should really say that our participation in international organisations and in particular the EU is based on the fact that not only are we getting something from it, but we are getting something from it because we are contributing significantly to it. We will be a net contributor of funds from now onwards. However, our contribution in terms of the people we send to the European Parliament, the people who have represented us as Commissioners, our representation on the various secretariats of both the European Council and the Commission shows this is a country that has punched above its weight. We have been able to do so because we have acted as an honest arbiter in ongoing discussions on many issues at the heart of the European Union, including the questions of whether we are moving towards federation, whether there should be a military component and whether we could possibly have a co-ordinated foreign policy approach.

On the last area, I believe it is possible. However, ultimately no matter how advanced or entrenched the systems of the European Union become it will still be a decision-making body where national interests predominate and decisions will be informed because of that. Two examples inform my opinion on having a common foreign policy. I recall the reaction of member states' governments at the time of the Iraq war. Some chose to support it, some chose to oppose it and some chose to remain neutral. There was no common European position and I suspect that if the same set of circumstances occurred in the next ten years we would have exactly the same situation. Recently an issue has arisen relating to the recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign country. The Irish Government and other European Union countries have chosen to recognise it but some member states have great difficulty with this. Greece, Romania and Bulgaria have difficulties with the recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign country and because of this the European Union has not recognised it.

These are issues at the heart of national interests that should contribute to informed national foreign policies. I do not share the fears of some people regarding a European army, the role of the European Defence Agency or the role of the still to be appointed foreign policy member of the Commission. Despite this, we need to be involved because of our foreign policy record and our history as a sovereign nation. We should never forget that when we try to achieve common foreign policy positions very often they may be informed from a bad perspective. Many large countries in the European Union were colonists but as we were not so we can inform the debate and apply the brakes when the occasion deems necessary. We can make ourselves available as the type of honest arbiter we have proven to be in leading the force in Chad at present. On all these grounds I think we should take a more positive approach to our participation in the European Union.

I mentioned earlier that I would have been supportive of the constitutional treaty and much has been made of the rejection of it by the French and Dutch electorates. The constitutional treaty was necessary and will be necessary again because the European Union lacks a single, simple, comprehensible document on how its institutions should be run. That we have difficulties relating to what people are voting on in this referendum, how it can be understood and the effect of the changes is due to our having a referendum on yet another amending treaty. We must return to a final document that all member states and citizens of the European Union can understand. When that time comes I would prefer that the document be approved by the people of all European Union member states. The constitutional means for ratifying treaties are different in every country. We may come to a time when we finalise the documents that lie at the heart of the European Union and this will ultimately show that the step we are taking through the Lisbon treaty towards greater democracy, when previous treaties went in the opposite direction, has paid off for the citizens of Europe.

My party leader was a representative on the constitutional body that met to put together that treaty, as was the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, and he suggested that we should have a referendum of all the people of Europe that would be valid only if also approved by a majority of member states. There are other mechanisms that could involve the people of Europe that are not being used today, but I believe the Lisbon reform treaty is an important step towards helping us get there. It is important that we put this referendum to the people, encourage them to adopt an appropriate response and do so in a frame of mind that does not demonise, is not selective with information and allows an informed debate in this country that results in a decision that best serves our interests and those of the European Union.