David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, back to the Chamber where he was once so comfortable and happy as a member of our little group here. There is no point in re-running the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign and I do not think the Minister of State did that. Once or twice he wobbled a bit because his tenses got a little confused or because of the way in which he expressed himself. He seemed to state on one occasion "if" the Lisbon treaty is ratified, then once or twice he stated "when" the Lisbon treaty is ratified. He hovered between optimism and anxiety, as we all have done.

Anybody who is concerned with the future of this country must be concerned about our place at the centre of Europe. We have played a distinguished role over the years. It is remarkable that we have a woman at the head of the European bureaucracy in Brussels. We have had very significant Commissioners. We really punched above our weight in Europe and I have always welcomed that.

I have been increasingly anxious. Although I have supported ultimately all the treaties we signed, I have been concerned about the incremental militarisation of the Union and that is the point at which I stuck. That is why I came out and opposed the Lisbon treaty. I was one of the first, if not the first, in this House to do so. My voice did not carry very far, although I am glad to say that some of my colleagues, who hovered nervously on the brink to see if I would be demolished by friendly or other fire and who, when they found that I had survived, took a jump themselves, may have had more persuasive voices from different angles.

I will review a couple of the issues and then get down to neutrality. First, there is the question of abortion. I am sure this will raise its head again. There was in the past a rather sly manoeuvre whereby the Irish people were out-manoeuvred by those who, when it suited them, talked about democracy, and a secret protocol was inserted into a previous treaty. At this point I am not arguing the merits of abortion, one way or the other. I am just as pro-life as anyone. I resent the colonisation of language that is represented by the take-over of these kinds of phrases. I am very much pro-life and my record will show that. As a tutor in Trinity College approximately one girl per year came to me, probably because she thought I would not be judgmental — that meant about ten during the ten years I was tutor — and I gave them information about non-directive counselling agencies. Nine of them did not have an abortion; one of them did. I think if that information had not been available, they all would have had an abortion. Mine was very much a pro-life stance but it has been misinterpreted.

This is a very complex area and I do not intend to get into it, except to say this. I very much hope if some such protocol is written in that it does not narrow or seek to narrow the already quite narrow judgments of the Supreme Court. It is important that we do not seek further to constrict. I will leave it at that.

Then there is the question of the Commissioner. There have been statements recently that we would get our own Commissioner. Why, out of all the 27 countries, should Ireland be the one to get a Commissioner?