Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State. I am grateful to the Government because it was on the initiative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that I was appointed to the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. I was appointed by my colleagues on the Independent Benches but this was at the request of the Minister. I was glad to take up my membership of the sub-committee, particularly in light of the importance of the issues involved. I was extremely sorry that I could not assent to the findings contained in the sub-committee's report. It was not that I had intended to dissent from the outset nor was I dissatisfied with the way in which the committee was run. I take this opportunity to express my great thanks to Senator Donohoe for his excellent chairmanship of the sub-committee. I do not believe any other member of the sub-committee worked as hard as the Senator. I also wish to place on record my gratitude to the staff of the secretariat and the officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs for their hard work.

I dissented because I do not believe that the final report provides a basis on which Ireland can move forward and negotiate a solution to its Lisbon problem. The report has many good aspects but the time constraints prevent me from discussing these in detail.

I approached the referendum on the Lisbon treaty and the work of the sub-committee from the perspective of one with a particular expertise and knowledge of people's concerns in respect of social and ethical issues. Those concerns can be summed up by reference to a fear regarding competence creep on the part of the European Commission and its institutions and a certain judicial activism on the part of the European Court of Justice. No less a person than Roman Herzog, the former chairman of the German constitutional court, has been extremely critical of the European Court of Justice. It is important to make that point, particularly in the context of Senator Alex White's concerns. It is not a question of people having groundless fears. As a lawyer, Senator Alex White will be aware that when one reads the text of a treaty, one does not merely examine what the words say — one also gives consideration to how those words might be interpreted in the future. This is important because what caused many people to vote "No" was not just what the Lisbon treaty or the Charter of Fundamental Rights might mean for the future but also that other existing treaties might be interpreted in the future, particularly in light of current experiences regarding how European institutions extend their competence into areas in respect of which they were not thought to enjoy such competence. I provided several examples of the latter — which went unrebutted — during the course of my work on the sub-committee.

It was not illogical, therefore, for people to vote against the treaty on the basis of more than just its mere contents. Even while people may be satisfied with the vast majority of decisions coming from Europe, the referendum was an opportunity for them to express their concerns with regard to certain aspects of the European project and the drift of decision making in particular areas at European level. We are all appreciative of the positive influence the EU has had on our lives.

I identified three areas of concern when considering issues regarding how European law is interpreted in instances where it appears to go beyond its area of competence. On decisions taken by Ireland regarding how matters operate at European level, I referred to the example of our failure to take a stand against the use of money from the EU's common fund to finance embryo destructive research where it is legal in other member states. I also referred to stances taken at international fora by our Ministers and officials on matters that would impact on Ireland's constitutional values in respect of sensitive issues. While our officials and politicians often fight the good fight, there have been numerous occasions on which they have failed to export our values at times when other countries were keen to export theirs.

It was extremely difficult to encourage the Government to accept that a difficulty exists with regard to how matters stand in respect of the EU and how some of its institutions operate. That is understandable because to accept that a problem exists is to imply that there had been failures up to now in instances where the Government was involved in negotiations at European level. It is always difficult to admit prior failures. Members of the sub-committee informed me privately that they agreed with the concerns being raised during our public meetings but that they could not allow the report to go there when it came to the final analysis. So be it.

As already stated, while the report provides a useful basis for considering a range of issues, it will fall to the Government, in its discussions at EU level, to delve into those areas the report was reluctant to investigate and to negotiate the necessary wriggle room for Ireland in the context of the social and ethical issues that are of concern to certain people. I am encouraged in this regard because it appears that the Government has got the message. It is not merely discussing abortion because this matter involves more than just that. People's concerns relate to a range of issues that are socially sensitive, namely, marriage, the family and the question of who runs the education system. I provided examples at meetings of the sub-committee of how EU decision making is already impacting on those areas and I explained why it was likely to further impact on them in the future. I refer, in particular, to the scope of equality legislation and how it is interpreted in ways that tend to access all areas of national life.

On the reality of people's concerns, I and others have been proposing that Ireland should determine its position in respect of the issues to which I refer. In extolling his pro-life credentials, Senator Norris proceeded to criticise the Maastricht protocol. I cannot understand why anyone would have a difficulty with Ireland reserving the right for its people to make decisions in respect of certain matters. The provision of a constitutional filter whereby Ireland would have the final say in respect of issues that are socially sensitive would involve enhanced subsidiarity and any democrat should agree with this.

The outcome of the Government's negotiations will become apparent in the coming days. The test as to whether people like me can be "Yes" voters in the inevitable next Lisbon referendum is dependent upon the granting of substantial constitutional independence to Ireland, the establishment of a constitutional filter in our constitutional amendment and also upon whatever agreements are made with our European partners. It will have to be something substantial if it is to pass muster and it will have to be legally justicible. This is to allay not only the concerns of religious voters, but of people who are authentically democrats in that they want issues which are capable of being extremely divisive and undermining our harmonious life together ultimately to be decided by the Irish people, however they might decide them.

Quite apart from the legal solution, it is important that the Government moves to create trust among that section of the electorate which believes the Government has not in the past looked out for Ireland's independence on sensitive social issues. Confidence is sapped by the Government's inaction, for example, in the face of UCC's controversial decision to carry out embryo destructive research or indeed by the banning of a perfectly innocuous organisation like Veritas from carrying out advertising. In addition to whatever legal solution is proposed, there needs to be a confidence building measure on the part of Government that will show the people, who are concerned about subsidiarity on these issues, that it does care and that what it is bringing home from the negotiations is something they can trust. Míle bhuíochas arís.