Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)

During recent weeks there has been much debate in this Chamber on the World Trade Organisation and the implications the Lisbon treaty will have on the conclusion of any agreements the WTO talks will reach. One of the reasons this debate was tabled was to issue some clarity. However, I note from the printed version of the Minister's speech that neither the word "Lisbon" nor "veto" appears in the text and that is disappointing. On 12 June the people will go to the polls and whatever happens on that day, Ireland's place in Europe is secure. That is without a shadow of a doubt. Over recent weeks there has been much comment but little debate on the facts of the Lisbon treaty and I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on the WTO talks and the implications for Irish farming in future talks if the Lisbon treaty is passed.

It is clear that there is a great deal of confusion about the contents of the Lisbon treaty, including among senior Ministers. Yesterday the Tánaiste incorrectly stated that larger states had two members on the European Commission. A few days before that the Taoiseach was forced to admit that he had not read the treaty in full, while the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, incorrectly said that this State has a veto on other EU states coming together in mini military alliances. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, incorrectly said Ireland will retain a veto on international trade agreements. To make matters worse, on "Questions and Answers" last week the Chief Whip, Deputy Pat Carey, and Deputy Simon Coveney of Fine Gael, when asked if there was a link between the Lisbon treaty and the WTO talks, contradicted themselves repeatedly.

Irish farmers and families across rural Ireland are rightly concerned at the agenda being pursued by European Trade Commissioner, Mr. Mandelson, in the WTO talks. His approach is part of a pattern that emerged under his predecessors, Mr. Pascal Lammy and Mr. Leon Brittan, and will continue after he is gone. It is an agenda that aggressively promotes free trade irrespective of the costs to European family farms and rural communities or to the world's poorest countries. The IFA has estimated that the European Commission's trade agenda will cost €4 billion in lost revenue to the State as well as 50,000 farm livelihoods and 50,000 jobs. It would undermine the Common Agricultural Policy and the European model of farming based on preserving family farming and food security. Sinn Féin shares the IFA's analysis. We are also concerned that this bad situation will be made worse by a number of specific provisions in the Lisbon treaty.

Because of the confusion in this Chamber last week and in previous weeks I would like to set out in some detail the facts on the loss of a veto on international trade agreements if the Lisbon treaty is passed. Others in this Chamber said the veto will be maintained. None of them referred to the Lisbon treaty. Let us hear about the articles. Article 188 of the Lisbon treaty deals with the EU common commercial policy. It outlines the remit and rules for the negotiation and conclusion of international trade agreements with non-EU countries and international organisations such as the World Trade Organisation. This article makes a number of important changes from the current situation.

Article 188 details the specific rules for the opening and conclusion of such agreements. At present, qualified majority is the general rule for such agreements except if they include services such as health, education, social services, cultural and audio-visual services and intellectual property. The current round of the WTO trade talks include agriculture and such services. This means that the kind of international trade deal currently being negotiated by Commissioner Peter Mandelson at the WTO could be blocked by the Government if it was bad for Irish agriculture, which it is. However, if the Lisbon treaty were ratified this veto would be lost. It would be replaced by a much more limited veto on health, education, etc., which could only be used if the agreement could be proved to "risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services".

What does all of this mean for Irish agriculture? The WTO negotiations are unlikely to conclude before the Lisbon treaty referendum, and earlier the Minister stated as much. Article 188 removes the grounds on which such a veto could be used. If the treaty is ratified no veto will be available to the Government and it will be powerless to block any deal.

As if all of this was not bad enough, the loss of an Irish Commissioner for five out of every 15 years from 2014, and the reduction in Ireland's voting strength by 50% at the European Council, will further reduce our influence. Further review of the Common Agricultural Policy is likely after 2013. This means that future discussions at Commission level could take place without an Irish voice at the table. It also means that our voting strength at Council will be reduced while those of states such as Britain and Germany will increase. I ask how could any of this be good for Irish agriculture.

In recent years the European Union has overseen the destruction of the Irish fishing and sugar beet industries. Many people rightly ask if it intends to do the same to Irish farming. The Lisbon treaty is no doubt a bad deal for rural Ireland. I would call on rural communities to come out and vote "No" on 12 June so that the Government can be sent back to negotiate a better deal for Ireland, for Europe, for rural communities and for Irish agriculture.