Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I was absorbed in my notes and from looking over some of the comments. I congratulate Senators on what I believe was one of the most calm, focused and best debates I have ever heard in any House on this treaty or any other. That is in no sense a patronising comment. If there was ever a reason to retain a good and strong Seanad Éireann, it was reflected in the debate.

I will not have time to mention everybody but I will refer to Senator Burke's contribution. The word passerelle is the French for a bridge and the word is jargon in this treaty. There is, unfortunately, much jargon but we have to reflect that this is a Union with 27 different member states and 22 different working languages, including Gaeilge. We must occasionally genuflect in the direction of other languages.

The word is used in the treaty to mean when one moves from one position to the other. I am delighted the Senator raised the matter because in this case it refers to those arrangements where the Union would move from unanimity to qualified majority voting, QMV. This has been grotesquely misrepresented.

First and foremost, that would only happen in areas which are strictly circumscribed within the treaty. It would not happen in the areas that certain persons have suggested. For example, it will not happen with tax issues, defence or those areas where the treaty specifically subscribes to the protection of unanimity.

The Senator touched on an important point in the final part of his own contribution. There can only be a move from one state to another in this treaty, from unanimity to QMV, if every government in the 27 member states agrees, bar none. The European Council must unanimously agree and the European Parliament must also agree. It can only happen if none of the 27 member state national parliaments, many of which have two Chambers, disagrees. In the case of Ireland, it can only happen if Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann votes in favour of the change. Why anybody would pick this word, passerelle, to use as a scare tactic and shadow I do not know. I am grateful that the Senator raised the issue.

The contributions earlier today and yesterday were wonderful. I compliment Senator Alex White on his contribution. I do not understand, after 35 years of remarkable progress, how it is that people in Ireland conjure shadows about Europe.

The European Union, for its faults, warts and deficiencies, has given the Continent of Europe the longest period of peace, tranquility and progress in human history, not just recent history. How is it that any person with a sense of history could consciously destroy that? I do not understand the thinking. With regard to the Irish peace process, Europe gave us a space in which our politicians and political leaders North and South on this island could meet and discuss matters along with British counterparts.

Senator Alex White is right when he states the debate should focus on facts. It is very important we have a debate and it is very healthy for people to take opposite sides. If we take opposite sides we should do so on the basis of facts. There is a slogan arguing there are no politics, but facts. I would subscribe to the slogan if it were sincere. He also correctly points out that it is inaccurate to state that the arrangements on trade will somehow or other be changed by the Lisbon treaty. Such statements are false. The Lisbon treaty will not change the arrangements to which the Irish people signed up in 1973. The Senator is also correct in that it does not change any of the arrangements to which we have subscribed in the interim.

The Senator was also correct to point out that qualified majority voting, QMV, is a positive development. Ireland is the most striking example of the importance of QMV. The reason is that the Republic exports 80% of everything it produces. This is the case because in the late 1980s Irish citizens had the good sense to vote in favour of the Single European Act. Does anyone present recall the referendum relating to that Act? I do and I remember people arguing that it would be the death knell for Ireland's trade and the final nail in the coffin as regards our neutrality. It seems that each treaty represents the final nail in that coffin.

People have a right to take a different view on these matters. However, I recall — because of the sense of history I felt at the time — travelling to the Border on 31 December 1992 and watching it being dismantled. It was one of those amazing occasions: a crystal clear, frosty night on which a border was being removed. The latter was happening because the people, contrary to advice they received from those who are again advising them to vote "No", had the courage to vote "Yes".

Why does a small country such as Ireland possess one of the most successful economies in the world? Why is it capable of attracting foreign direct investment? The answer lies in the fact that we voted "Yes" and signed up to the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. It is also due to the fact, as Senator Alex White stated, that Ireland, even though it is small, is not afraid to fight its cause. It is not the number of votes one obtains in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that wins the day, it is the strength of one's convictions and the quality of one's arguments.

I started out in my working life as a civil servant some 35 years ago. At that time, I attended my first European meetings and I recall the mystique of it all. I have lectured in public administration and European affairs for 22 years and I have never come across a single instance — I challenge people to cite one — where the big countries conspired to do damage to their smaller counterparts. Quite the opposite is the case. If anything, they have been frustrated by the smaller countries fighting their corner.

The slogan "Vote No for a better Yes" is just that, a slogan. More than that, it is a hollow slogan without any truth, focus or reality. The treaty represents the work of almost ten years. Some 205 men and women drawn from all of the parliaments, institutions and governments of the European Union spent the better part of two years producing this treaty. It is the most democratically produced treaty we have ever seen. I accept that it is complex. I do not subscribe to the view expressed by one businessman that treaties should be similar to Ladybird books in order that seven year olds might read them. People would not expect that to be the case in respect of a serious contract and neither should they expect it in a treaty which binds together 27 member states.

There is no possibility of the small and medium-sized countries negotiating a better deal. I do not agree with Senator Doherty, who made a fine contribution, but I compliment him on the way in which he put his arguments. I had the great honour to be part of the Convention on the Future of Europe. Ireland was well served at the presidium by Mr. John Bruton, by Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, who played a sterling game at the section of the convention that dealt with social Europe, and by Deputies Carey and Gormley, who put in many long hours of work. I led the group, which was an honour, which was supported by Mr. Bobby McDonagh and various officials.

Ireland was at the core of a group of small countries called the Friends of the Community Method. A book was written on this issue and I recommend it to Senator Doherty, who is an open-minded man. We fought hard to have particular issues dealt with in the treaty and we won great victories. We won the right to ensure that the treaty refers to equality and that a two-tier Commission would not be created. The latter was a major victory because the larger states were of the view that they would have permanent commissioners and that their smaller counterparts would be obliged to make do with having junior ministers of some form. As someone who has served in Cabinet and been a Minister of State, I can say that the more senior position is the one everyone wants to occupy.

It is disingenuous to suggest that it would be easy to renegotiate the treaty. As already stated, the treaty was largely the product of the Convention on the Future of Europe. The biro marks on it are Irish. More than ever, we had, by good fortune, the opportunity to make a real mark. We led the Friends of the Community Method, protected the idea of equality in the Commission, we ensured that there was a more coherent voting system put in place and we fought the cause of smaller countries and won. In the final days, virtually all the amendments put to the Convention on the Future of Europe and carried were penned in Ireland. Those are the facts; that is the history. The veracity of said history is capable of being checked. France and the Netherlands rejected that draft of the treaty and a further intergovernmental conference, IGC, was held. However, 95% of the material put forward by the Convention on the Future of Europe — all of it good — was eventually retained.

We should not delude ourselves. It is easy to make a slogan. Those who put forward the slogan "Vote No for a better Yes" should indicate what they mean by a "better Yes". This treaty is plan B and there is certainly no plan C.

I am sorry I missed Senator Mullen's contribution. The Senator referred to two main issues, namely, abortion and the charter. I understand the sincerity with which he raised the issue of abortion. I fully respect his views, which are not that far from my own. Everybody knows that I am strongly pro life. I accept, however, that the beliefs of others are different to mine. Under the treaty, we will retain our protocol on abortion and the protection we placed in the Constitution at Article 40.3.3°. I wish to give credit to someone who is not a Member of the House, namely, Mary Lou McDonald, MEP, who on a number of occasions courageously stated that this matter is not an issue in the debate.

The charter is not a reason to be fearful. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, to which the treaty will give effect, was drafted by the convention. It represents bringing together those values of which everyone in Europe is proud. I refer for example to the protection of human life, democracy, the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities and the right to work. I cannot understand how anyone could perceive the charter as diminishing our position. The opposite is the case because under its provisions member states will be protected against the institutions exceeding their mandate. The charter is an additional statement of rights. An important point made at congress last year was that the trade union would be obliged to support the treaty if the charter was included. The latter has happened and the charter will have the force of law.

Senator Ross referred to tax harmonisation. I apologise if I misrepresent his views but I was not present for his contribution. When he came before the House, the President of the European Parliament, Professor Pöttering, made the point that the treaty contains no changes in respect of taxation. He was telling the truth. A week later, at the National Forum on Europe, the President of the European Commission made the same point. On Monday last, I read newspaper reports to the effect that Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill, who chairs the Referendum Commission — which we have appointed, which is completely independent and which, among other things, is attempting to get at the truth — had also made statements to this effect. More to the point, the treaty makes it clear that there is no change in respect of taxation. I was not present to hear Senator Ross's point but it seems the President of the European Parliament, the President of the European Commission and the chairperson of our independent Referendum Commission are making the same point on the treaty. We should start believing them. If we have any doubts, we should believe our own eyes.

An attempt is being made by one group to suggest that this change could happen under Article 113. I was listening to a debate recently and it was claimed that three new sinister words were being added to an obscure article in the treaty. I looked up the article and tried to point out on the radio that people should read the first five words of the same article which state that "The Council shall, acting unanimously...". That was dismissed because it was said that words do not matter, but of course they do. The treaty says what it says.

The World Trade Organisation featured a lot in the discussions and I would like to make a few points about it. First, the WTO has absolutely nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. Second, the discussions on the WTO are taking place under treaties that we signed up to in 1973. Therefore there is no change whatsoever in the legal position in Europe made by this treaty. There is certainly no honest connection between this treaty and Commissioner Mandelson or the WTO talks. On the basis of everything we are reading, the basis of a WTO agreement is not in place. In a sense therefore, we are flogging ourselves over something that may not happen. The various countries are just too far apart. If anything, in recent weeks they have grown further apart. We know there was supposed to be a WTO ministerial meeting in May but they are now talking about it being in June. I wish that meeting was held sooner rather than later because we could get it out of the way. I have no doubts whatsoever that the basis of an agreement is not in place.

Candidates in the US presidential election campaign have made it abundantly clear that they do not accept what is being said. The WTO is a group of 151 countries, of which we are one. Ireland's voice is amplified because as members of the European Union, we are not in the debate on our own. The agricultural sector's leadership should recognise that. Earlier this year the IFA president made a courageous statement pointing out that we must be in Europe to be in a position to build alliances. That is why he was advocating a "Yes" vote.

We have strong allies in this debate. For example, President Sarkozy of France wrote to the President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso indicating his concerns about the balance. We also had the recent intervention by Chancellor Merkel who superficially mentioned her concerns. Mr. Barroso was in this country and heard Irish concerns at first hand, which were amplified ten thousand times in the streets.

Does anyone engaged in this debate seriously believe that if we were to vote "No" on 12 June we would be in a better position to build alliances, win allies to our cause and defend agriculture? It defies logic that we would go to a group of countries that have been good and supportive to us — it has been two-way traffic because we have been good to Europe too — and give them all a collective slap in the face, saying that out of some sense of hubris we will not allow them to have what they want, and then expect them to be our friends the next day? That is illogical. I hope and pray that people will be able to make the difference between the two positions. Why should anyone stand with us when we stand against them? We must face that fundamental question. Twenty-seven sovereign governments want this treaty because they want Europe to be more efficient, effective and democratic. They also want Europe to be in a position to cope with all the challenges on the international stage. If we destroy that and frustrate those requests, how will we build the necessary alliances? My answer is that we simply cannot do so.

Senator Norris, who is always colourful, began by talking about the theatricality of the French presidency. I had to say to him yesterday that he probably knows more about theatricality than any other Member of the House, but I take his point. He referred at length to an article in The Irish Times written by Susan George, although he did not refer to the response. Susan George made the point that the treaty contained 25 references to competition and 63 references to the market. I do not want to be accused of being exceptionally pedantic, but the treaty contains only seven references to competition, so there was a slight exaggeration in her research. There are fewer than 30 references to the market, including agricultural markets. It may be a petty point but it highlights the fact that if a person wants their research to be taken seriously, it must be undertaken seriously.

Ms George also mentioned that the treaty is too complex, which is a point that has been made in this House and elsewhere, including on the RTE 9 o'clock television news last Sunday week. Of course, the treaty is a detailed and complex document. It represents the aspirations and concerns of 27 different member states which have a series of different legal systems. It is, however, no more complex than any of the previous treaties. It is certainly no more complex than, for example, a major contract, our welfare code or the taxation code. To suggest that because a treaty is complex it should be destroyed, and to suggest further that it should be re-written like a Ladybird book, is not a real basis for voting "No". When people say, "If you don't know, vote no", my argument is that if people do not know, they should ask.

The point was also made about the amount of information that is being made available. The information booklet is now going through every door, although earlier on there was an argument over an attempt to stop it legally. It will not challenge anyone to read it. In its new form the booklet has 24 pages in English and 24 pages in Irish, setting out clearly and objectively what the treaty is about. We also have a reform treaty website on www.reformtreaty.ie. We also have a website on which one can ask any specific question on www.dfa.ie. In addition, we have a lo-call number. I have looked at the number of website hits and the number of requests which are very high. I am grateful that is the case.

As Senator Alex White indicated, we also have a wonderful document, the consolidated treaty, produced by the Institute for European Affairs. A copy of that has gone into every library. It would cost tens of millions to send a copy to every household, but I am not sure that would be a prudent or efficient use of public funds. It can, however, be downloaded free on the website www.reformtreaty.ie. If anyone calls the lo-call number or sends a text, we will send them a copy of the consolidated treaty free. Copies of the treaty itself are freely available, so it is not true to suggest there is a conspiracy to keep information away from people. The worst thing a Government could do is to put a copy of the treaty in a brown envelope and send it out to everyone. That would be a disingenuous way of dealing with it. The Government's responsibility is to explain the matter. The political parties and IBEC are doing a superb job in providing information. There is no shortage of information.

In addition to a lengthy representation of Susan George's views, Senator Norris also dealt with the issue of the European Defence Agency. There is absolutely nothing sinister about that agency. I would like to be in a world where there were no guns, armies or wars. It would be a wonderful world to live in, but the reality is that there is a potential for great evil. We saw it several times in the last century with war, destruction and the Holocaust unfolding. We have also seen it in this century. Our great troops are out in Chad at the moment trying to deal with an arrangement that goes back generations. A wonderful book has just been published on it, which I am in the process of reading. It is extraordinary how the people have suffered rapine, slaughter and starvation at the hands of governments, as well as the predatory activity of warlords. It is good that we are in a position to send young men and women there to help those people. It is a humanitarian and Christian thing to do. However, if we are sending our men and women out there, we must ensure they have the best equipment and that if they are in one part of that troubled country they can talk to their counterparts from other armies who are also there for humanitarian purposes. The point of the EDA, which was established during the Irish Presidency, is to support the member states and the Council in efforts to improve defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the ESDP as it develops into the future. It is not a sinister agency. It is intended to ensure that where money must be spent on armaments, it is spent prudently. It is an entirely voluntary agency. No state must join it and states can leave it if they wish.

I mentioned the issue of corporate taxation. I wish to make a final point without being too pedantic and detailed. The arguments that have been put forward by one of the recently formed ad hoc groups outside the Houses suggested that there was a back door system of dealing with corporation tax. That argument is false.

I thank the Senators who participated in the debate. It was one of the most enlightened debates I have heard in any forum on this issue. I particularly thank the new Senators who clearly put a huge amount of time and effort into preparing for the debate. I also thank the Opposition parties and those who take a different view from mine. I believe in democratic debate; it would be a monologue, not a debate, if we heard just one side of the argument. The debates in the Houses demonstrated huge support for the Bill. The extent of our engagement in the European Union is also a feature of the debate. Incidentally, I should point out to Senator Doherty that I insisted the maximum amount of time was made available in the other House. It was the longest debate we will have——