Alex White (Labour)

I accept the legitimate point he makes in respect of the need to have a debate about trade but it is inaccurate and dishonest to visit the issue at the door of the Lisbon treaty. I do not mean to personally attack the Senator because he has the right to raise these issues and I respect people who have different points of view on this debate.

The Senator suggested that the Government is taking people for granted but, while the Minister of State will answer for himself, I do not take anybody for granted. Anyone with an interest in the issues could find parts of this treaty that he or she does not like. However, anyone who believes in the social market, which I believe Sinn Féin does, would come down on the "Yes" side in an objective judgment of its achievements compared to the negatives. I say that without demur or qualification. Anybody can list the negatives but it behoves us to acknowledge the gains made in this treaty. Senator Doherty failed to mention the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Senator O'Reilly made a useful point in that regard. The notion that it is us against this big monolithic Europe, that we are losing something or being diminished by this process is the sort of thinking, as Senator O'Reilly said, that is more associated with the past about which he spoke than the present. Robust, self-confident political parties, whether it is the Labour Party, Fianna Fáil or Sinn Féin, and Sinn Féin has representatives in the European Parliament, can get in and work with other people for a social Europe.

The notion that Ireland's interests are undifferentiated is wrong. We had an interesting debate yesterday and this morning about agency workers. I take a different view from that of IBEC in regard to agency workers. The "we" of Ireland, if I can call it that, is not an undifferentiated thing. There are different interests internally in this jurisdiction and I would want to fight for much better protection for agency workers and employees throughout Europe. It is clear that an opportunity is available for us as politicians, and those of us who want to promote a social Europe, to fight for that at the heart of Europe rather than saying the only way we can deliver this is by voting down the Lisbon treaty.

Perhaps the most fallacious notion I heard was that we can secure a better deal and that we send back our negotiators to do that. If we are asking people not to take people for granted and to be honest with the Irish electorate, is there any reality to the suggestion that we can vote "No" to the Lisbon treaty and send the negotiators back to get what is called a better deal? That will not occur. There will not be such an opportunity. The opportunity to negotiate a deal has been taken. I am not saying it is the best possible deal that has been obtained but it contains a sufficient amount that we can support.

Regarding some of the proposals on the move from unanimity to majority voting, which relates to the point I made earlier, we should not take it for granted that majority voting is by definition against our interests. There is a presumption in the debate that if something is moved from unanimity to majority voting we must lose out. That is not the case. We can look to secure our interests in common with other countries to press for decisions to be made which other countries are against. We can sometimes be in the majority of that majority voting, and very often are, a point made by both Senator O'Reilly and Senator Boyle. It is about having the self-confidence to negotiate, do battle and win.

I must refer to what is almost a little Ireland approach in that if it is out there in Europe, we must resist it and put the brake on because it can only go against us. Those arguments have been heard repeatedly. Each time there was a vote, a treaty or a proposed amendment, there were stories that it would lead to a calamity and we would lose out.

The very principle of what we are doing in terms of pooling sovereignty, and we should remind ourselves of that, is that we make a decision to give up or share sovereignty. It is not taken from us. It is not a raid on our sovereignty by this big conglomerate monolithic body. We make a judgment ourselves that we are prepared, in the interests of achieving things, to pool our sovereignty. That may not be a particularly exciting point to try to make in the context of the debate, and perhaps there are complexities in it, but people should be honest about what is happening and understand that whereas there are losses and potential downsides, what can be achieved is vastly greater than the risks to us of any loss to our sovereignty.

On the point made by Senator Ross earlier, I understand his frustration that Ireland is the only country allowing for a referendum on this treaty, which is unfortunate, but it is not a reason for voting "No". In fairness to Senator Ross, he was not specifically advocating a "No" vote but he criticised the fact that Ireland was the only country holding a referendum and it seemed to him, if I understood him correctly, to be an argument against the treaty. That argument does not hold water. The fact that we are having a referendum and other countries are not may be a subject for criticism but it is not a reason for voting "No". It is ludicrous that we would vote "No" simply because we are the only country being given the opportunity to vote "Yes" or "No".

Senator Doherty made the point that we will not have a Commissioner sitting at the table for five out of the 15 years after 2014. He made an unsustainable comparison with representative TDs. People elect TDs to a sovereign Parliament and they have representative responsibilities under the Constitution but we must understand that the European Union appoints Commissioners in a different constitutional and legal context. They are not there simply to fly the flag for their country. That is not what they are appointed to do. At the risk of offending the Minister or anyone else here, I would have far more confidence in some of the non-Irish Commissioners, and I say this from a political point of view in terms of what I believe in in Europe, and would find myself in a much higher measure of agreement politically with many of them sitting at the table in Brussels than with some of the Irish Commissioners waving the so-called Irish flag there. It is not a valid comparison in constitutional or legal terms to say that if Donegal or some other county lost a representative TD, it would be the same as losing a Commissioner. It is a nonsensical comparison. It is not sustainable.

My party has done the analysis. We have tested this against our politics and our priorities and have no hesitation in supporting the Bill on Second Stage and the referendum when it is held.