Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I thank all Senators who have made a contribution, both for and against. I want to give Senator Bacik one further coherent argument in favour of the treaty, and I agree with her 100%. One of the tragedies of the debate so far is that we have been debating what is not in the treaty as opposed to what is. In a sense that is inevitable, however.

I got to know Danny Cohn-Bendit well during the course of the European Convention. He made one very interesting comment why Europe needs this treaty. Europe has reached the stage at which it can influence the equilibrium of world politics, and that is the absolute essence of this. Europe and the European project stand for certain democratic values, freedom, rights of the individual and self expression — all of the things that are in our DNA as Europeans. He was right in saying we have a different viewpoint. We might approach those principles from different directions, but they are dear to us and part of our DNA. For a period it looked as it if would be a unipolar world, and it may well be a multi-polar one, but in the event it is important that there is a place therein for the expression of the values, democracy, rule of law, human rights and the principles that as Europeans we hold dear.

I shall refer briefly to today's contributions. Senator Paschal Donohoe made a very good contribution on how the treaty sets out the roles and powers of the Union. I refer again to Senator Bacik's important point that this does not enter into the debate. More than any other treaty this one clearly expresses the competences of the Union and the principles that deal with those competences, including the principle of conferral and the fact that the Union has only those rights which we as member states give it. We can take them back. This gives lie to the suggestion that somehow or other a super-state is being constructed. No such super-state or federal state exists. This is a unique function. The Senator also mentioned the principle of subsidiarity but we can add conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality.

Senator Terry Leyden spoke about the extension of democracy and stated that the treaty has been overlooked. Again, this point was taken up by Senator Bacik in her contribution. It is a real tragedy that we have not had the space to debate this. Senator Leyden also made the interesting suggestion that the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be printed and widely distributed. That is something well worth considering. As it happens, I have 5,000 miniature copies of it for distribution among young people. I will consider distributing them to adults also.

Senator Norris stated that he wondered how we could commend the treaty when we had not read it. I can commend the treaty because I have read it in detail. I was one of those privileged to be involved in its preparation. The question was asked, how much of this treaty was contained in the constitutional treaty. Approximately 95% or 96% of what was worth preserving was contained in it.

Senator Norris spoke also about the EDA and asked why we want to be associated with it. The first point I should make is that in this area, which is broadly bracketed as the defence area, nobody is forcing us to do anything. The treaty specifically recognises the defence character of each member state. In so far as the EDA is concerned, one has a right to get involved or not to get involved. There are practical and good reasons we should be involved. We currently have young men and women serving humanity's cause in Chad. It is important we properly equip those who go to dangerous places to provide help and assistance on our behalf. This agency will ensure they are properly equipped with capacity to inter-operability as the military call it. The agency is not a threat to our neutrality.

Senator Norris and a number of other Senators, including in particular Senator Doherty, mentioned the Commission. It is worth reminding the House that the Nice treaty provided for a smaller Commission. The Lisbon treaty provides for an equal Commission. One of the great victories in the negotiations on the Convention on the Future of Europe was acceptance by small and medium sized states of a smaller commission if, and only if, the distribution of portfolios and positions on the Commission were on the basis of strict equality. One of the great victories or concessions, whichever one chooses to call it, was acceptance by the larger states that this should be a principle. This speaks to the nature of Europe. It is built on equality.

Senator Quinn spoke about concerns in respect of family law and in particular abortion. While many disagree with me, I am pro-life and have been always of that view. I do not disrespect people who take a different view. I would not be advocating strongly and passionately a treaty that would undermine this. The treaty contains a provision which reiterates the protocol that this is a matter for the Irish people. The Irish people may some day make a different decision from the one they made in the past and I will respect that decision too. Senator Quinn also spoke about his concerns in respect of tax and neutrality. I believe both these issues have been well and truly answered.

I agree with Senator Boyle that one of the problems is that arguments do not always include coherence or respect. I listened during the week to commentary about people on the "No" side being Trots, SPUCers and neo-cons. Whether one is a Trot, a SPUCer, a neo-con, right-wing, left-wing or otherwise, in a democracy one is entitled to one's views. People are not entitled to invent facts but they are entitled to their views and we should learn to respect those views.

Senator White spoke about the enhancement of the role of parliaments which is what we are discussing here today. This is a major move forward. It gives a real role to national parliaments. Senator Doherty, as I mentioned earlier, spoke about the role of the Commission. I simply reiterate the point that the Commission is based on equality. He also contradicted the view that the charter is valuable particularly from the point of view of workers' rights. I was very active in the trade union movement when I was a civil servant. Although I was not a formal member of the social Europe group within the convention, I joined it and attended all its meetings specifically because of those interests.

I say to Senator Doherty that the Sinn Féin view is in direct contradiction with the views expressed recently by John Monks, General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, by David Beggs, Blair Horan and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Senator Doherty also made the point continuously made by Sinn Féin that there are huge movements in terms of competences. They have always argued that, between two different elements, there will be 173 different areas. The referendum commission yesterday outlined 33 areas. This matter was also addressed by way of parliamentary question. The view of the Robert Schuman Foundation in this regard as published in its statement differs from the view taken by Sinn Féin. With respect, I believe Sinn Féin is wrong.

I agree with Senator Ormonde that it is great we are holding a referendum on the matter. It is a pity the debate often gets deflected into all sorts of avenues that have nothing to do with the main subject matter. However, the holding of a referendum is, in essence, an expression of democracy. I compliment Senator Ormonde on all she has done in this regard. I agree with Senator Bacik and would welcome participation by more women in public life and in this debate. I do not understand it but there is a reluctance in this regard, particularly among women, as indicated in all the polls. This can be best addressed by women engaging in the debate.

I agree with Senator Bradford's point that we have ended the democratic deficit. I also agree with him that equality is an issue in the Commission. As a small, medium or large state we should never look for anything other than equality. Equality is the very essence of the democratic process. If we want to be treated as equals we must be prepared to treat others as equals. The question was asked, what happens if we vote "No". It is a fundamental question.

Senator Hanafin made the point about the Sword of Damocles hanging over everybody's head. It is important for us to realise that a "No" vote will not be cost-free. A "No" vote will have very real costs not alone for Ireland but for Europe. I say this not to scare people but because it is an objective enough position. If we vote "No" we will reject a treaty that will make Europe more democratic. I genuinely cannot see the point of that. If we vote "No" we reject the possibility of giving legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is an uplifting document. I sincerely do not see any benefit in that. If we vote "No" we say no to a treaty that has at its heart equality between member states, equality in terms of Commission appointments, in terms of a voting system that recognises the equality of citizens in member states, that recognises that Seanad Éireann is as important to the people of Ireland as is the French Assembly to the people of France, and that recognises that we can protect those issues which are important to us. I do not see the point of rejecting a treaty that enshrines equality.

Senator Hanafin is correct that the real loss will be to our standing as a country. This point was also made by Senator Bradford. Ireland enjoys an astonishing amount of goodwill in Europe. I have been involved in the European project for 35 years. I was involved in the early days as a young civil servant. The respect and goodwill which Ireland enjoys is something we should not easily squander. For example, the current head of the Commission on Administration is an Irish woman. Her predecessor was an Irish man. There have been only five heads of the modern administration within the European Commission and of those five people two are Irish. This is an extraordinary indication of the respect we as a nation and our public servants enjoy in Europe. An Irish man was recently president of the European Parliament. Pat Cox went to Europe as an Independent. John Bruton is currently the EU ambassador to Washington, an appointment that would not have been made without the support of the Irish Government and without the respect for Ireland and John Bruton in Europe. Great respect has been shown to us in terms of our postings in the Commission. Ray MacSharry, Peter Sutherland and Paddy Hillery all had outstanding portfolios.

I agree with the point made by Senator Bacik that the argument should be about what is in the treaty. It grieves me that every time I go on a radio or television programme or, as I will do after this, go to a press conference, I will asked about the next negative, such as that somebody stated something about Judge Iarlaith O'Neill as opposed to what is in the treaty. I will be asked about somebody's comment on Article 48.3 as opposed to what the article states. I suppose this is the nature of public debate but I agree the focus has been wrong.

I have made the following point within my party so when I make it now I do not in any way chastise or correct Senator Bacik. Comparisons between the campaigns of individual parties are not helpful. All of us bring different issues to the campaign. I celebrate the roles played by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. In particular, I celebrate the role played by Proinsias De Rossa within the Labour Party. We need to pay generous tributes to people such as Deputies Timmins and Creighton and I am prepared to do so because we all made an effort in this. I respectfully disagree with Senator Bacik with regard to comparisons. I do not disagree with her right to make those comparisons.

As Senator Bacik correctly stated, for the next seven days we need to debate what is in the treaty. This treaty is important for Ireland. It is good for Ireland and for Europe. We will best serve the Irish and European causes and the democratic cause by voting "Yes" on Thursday, 12 June. I thank Senators for their contributions which, as always, have been of the highest standard.