Dan Boyle (Green Party)

On the Order of Business today I tried to articulate one of the reasons I am advocating a "Yes" vote in this referendum. My argument was that I had made arguments for rejecting previous treaties which were not accepted in previous referendum campaigns and one of the responsibilities of democracy is to accept the verdict of the people, move on and see how debates subsequently change. That is one of the more disappointing aspects of some of the campaigning on the "No" side.

I am a person who believes that in terms of the constitutional integrity of our referendum process, we need a coherent and consistent argument on both sides whenever there is a referendum. I certainly would not go along with any of the personal antagonism or denigration that often accompanies these debates. We should be glad that there are people who are putting themselves forward and putting forward arguments that deserve consideration, but some of those arguments are ones that have been made before — they are arguments that I have made — and the people have decided accordingly. We must argue on the basis of the treaty itself and what is likely to come about as a result of its changes.

One of the persuading factors for me, and one of the reasons I voted "No" legitimately in the past, was that there continues to be a democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union and all of the treaties that have been approved subsequent to our own accession have helped worsen that democratic deficit. I can honestly state that this is the first treaty, which in itself has flaws, that goes in a different direction. It seeks to address the democratic deficit. It brings in measures such as the citizens' initiative, enhanced powers for the European Parliament and a role for national parliaments, which is the matter of this debate. Those grounds are one of the strongest arguments for voting "Yes" on this occasion and I hope we, as parliamentarians, accept that as a valid argument.

The report has been submitted by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny which does valuable work on behalf of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is far from easy work. Approximately 2,000 legal instruments emanate from the European Union every year. In accepting this new-found responsibility and in recognition of the democratic principles that would follow from an acceptance of the Lisbon treaty, we should ask how we, as a parliament, can address this work in the most satisfactory way. The EU scrutiny committee has made arguments about how that can be done. There are other avenues open to us. I do not need to remind Senators that the last report on Seanad reform envisaged such a role for this House. In light of the ratification of this treaty, if the people so decide, this is a debate to which we can return as we progress the idea of Seanad reform and give ourselves a workload that justifies our presence in the parliamentary system. We can play a valuable role as a bridge between the Irish Parliament and the European Parliament and EU institutions, a role that, as of now, only the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny fills. We should look for more than that.

We are coming into a week where there is much uncertainty about what will happen. On the Order of Business Senators referred to the shortening of odds. I can relate my experience of the previous general election where I had the dubious privilege of being the shortest price favourite not to be elected. This has no implication for what is likely to happen on Thursday or Friday when the votes are counted. There is uncertainty in a large group of voters who have yet to make up their minds. People are wavering between a "Yes" and "No" vote because of the uncertainty of much of the campaigning.

I will repeat what I stated on the Order of Business, that all Members, irrespective of the position they take on the treaty, should emphasise the importance of the maximum possible turnout and voter participation. That is the essence of what we are as a democracy.