Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)

Tairgim leasú a 3:

I gCuid 1, leathanach 7, líne 31, "ó dhá Theach an Oireachtais." a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina ionad "i reifreann i measc mhuintir an Stáit.",

agus

I gCuid 2, leathanach 9, línte 40 agus 41, "of both Houses of the Oireachtas." a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina ionad "by referendum of the people of the State."

I move amendment No. 3:

In Part 1, page 6, line 31, to delete "ó dhá Theach an Oireachtais." and substitute the following: "i reifreann i measc mhuintir an Stáit.",

and

In Part 2, page 8, lines 40 and 41, to delete "of both Houses of the Oireachtas." and substitute "by referendum of the people of the State.".

I thank Senator Norris for supporting my amendments. As with these amendments, while only 4% of Senators are opposed to the treaty, the percentage will be far greater in the wider public. Amendment No. 3 addresses the requirement on the Houses of the Oireachtas to have a referendum of the people of the State. Instead of the Houses deciding issues, they would be decided by referenda.

As amendment No. 5, which is similar to amendment No. 3, has not yet been moved, I ask that the Minister of State take on board my contribution to accelerate the debate. Both amendments seek to ensure that any significant policy change in these areas requires the approval of the people of the State, not merely that of the Houses. They would ensure that people are informed and that such decisions are taken with the genuine approval of the people. There should be no fear of holding referenda on these issues.

The matter of democracy is to the fore of the debate on the Lisbon treaty. The treaty's failure to address the deep democratic deficit in EU institutions and at the heart EU governance is a major concern for everyone. In the 2004 European elections, only 59% of the Twenty-six Counties' electorate voted, more than 10% above the EU average of 45%. In the two Nice treaty referenda in 2001 and 2002, the turnout was even worse at 34% and 49%, respectively. In the Netherlands, the turnout was 39%, and it was 38% in Britain. Similar figures were recorded in Portugal, Spain, France, Denmark, Germany, Austria and Finland. A significant number of newer member states recorded turnouts of less than 28%. Some 18 of the EU's then 25 member states had turnouts lower than 50%, five having turnouts of less than 30%. Across the EU, voters no longer understand nor have confidence in what it stands for, where it is going and how it takes its most important decisions.

The rejection of the proposed EU constitution by France and the Netherlands in 2005 was a reflection of this uncertainty. Analysing why the French rejected the constitution, the eminent European historian, Donald Sassoon, stated, "There is no denying that the driving ethos of the Constitution was 'market' Europe rather than 'Social Europe'." He also highlighted the fact that many people "were afraid of ceding more powers to what they regarded as an unaccountable bureaucracy." Interestingly and in stark contrast with the 42% turnout in the 2004 European Parliament elections in France, 70% of voters went to the polls to reject the constitution by 55%. In the Netherlands, the turnout was 62%, of which 61% said "No".

After 18 months of reflection, EU leaders returned in June 2007 with the Lisbon treaty. All but ten of the 250 or so articles of the new treaty are the same as in its predecessor, a 96% match. It is important to cite this figure, as the Minister of State maintains it is 95%. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, chairman of the convention that drafted the constitution, speaking to the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament in July 2007, stated:

In terms of content, the proposals remain largely unchanged, they are simply presented in a different way.... The reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty.

The vice-chairman of the convention, Giuliano Amato, went further when, during a speech at LSE in February of this year, he stated, "The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it". That political leaders across the EU, including in Ireland, believe it is acceptable to ignore the outcome of the French and Dutch referenda and to return with the same proposals is an indication of their disregard for basic democratic principles. What clearer demonstration of the democratic deficit could there be?

The electorate of the Twenty-six Counties will vote on the Lisbon treaty in 2008. We will be the only state to do so, placing a significant responsibility on our shoulders to ensure that, before we vote, we understand the content and implications of the treaty fully. Sinn Féin wants society to have an open, honest and frank debate in advance of the 2008 referendum. We want a debate on the issues and what they mean for Ireland, the EU and the wider world. We want to ensure that future decisions with implications for the people of the State are taken with their assent following referenda. This is the purpose of these amendments and I ask the Minister of State to take them on board. Given the sovereignty of the people, which has been mentioned, why should we be afraid to put further decisions on the treaty's implications to them?

Amendment No. 3 addresses the Schengen Agreement area. Under the Bill, Ireland could opt out of the agreement wholly or in part with the approval of both Houses. Speaking as someone from the Border county of Donegal, opting out of the agreement while the United Kingdom remains would have serious consequences for those living in Border areas. A decision of such magnitude should be taken only by the people.