Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

Once. That speaks volumes about this issue. This has been run up and down but it is a non-issue. Ireland's place in Europe is not as the negative, suspicious blocker imagined by Sinn Féin. It is as an active consensus builder positively engaged in shaping negotiating outcomes to reflect our interests from the outside. Irish Ministers of various Governments and civil servants did not sit passively as proposals came through. We nuanced them, reformed and amended them by working with others. That is how the system works and we are good at it. We have been effective and we have played this role to our great advantage during our membership to date.

The points made about workers' rights are addressed by the solemn declaration on workers' rights and social policy where the European Council confirms the high importance the Union attaches to the responsibility of member states for the delivery of education and health services. Similarly, we have obtained assurances in respect of trade where the Council must act unanimously when negotiating and concluding international agreements in the field of trade in social, educational and health services where those agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of member states to deliver them.

There is no threat to the capacity or competency of a member state to deliver health or education services. It is a myth to suggest otherwise. I know because I am a former Minister for Education and Science and for Health and Children. I know how limited the competences Europe enjoys in those areas are and I know how jealously member states guard the right to provide their own health services. Invariably on the health front, the debate has primarily developed in terms of public health issues when it comes to health care. That is a fact and it scaremongering to suggest our public services will be privatised as a result of the Lisbon treaty. It is an appalling myth.

It is important to acknowledge that a vote for Lisbon is a vote for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The provisions of the charter cover workers' rights to information and consultation within the undertaking, the right of collective bargaining and action, the right of access to placement services, protection in the event of unjustified dismissal, fair and just working conditions, the prohibition of child labour, protection of young people at work and family and professional life. It is incontrovertible that a "Yes" vote is better for workers' rights than a "No" vote because the status quo is less advantageous for workers than the Lisbon treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It defeats me how anyone can rationally argue otherwise. Even taking the Laval, Viking and Rüffert judgments, the bottom line is that those judgments were case and country specific. In the Laval case there was no statutory provision for the minimum wage but Laval could not happen in Ireland because we have a statutory minimum wage.

I wish people would stop deliberately sowing confusion on these issues. The charter fundamentally protects the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. The judgments said there were circumstances where they had to be proportionate but all rights carry that qualification. The Lisbon treaty goes further than that. All those cases were heard prior to the charter achieving full treaty status. When the charter achieves full treaty status, it will significantly enhance workers' rights. There is no other construct one could put on this debate.

It was interesting that Senator O'Toole, who has been a prominent trade unionist for his entire life, is equally clear about the importance of the charter and the promotion of the social market, full employment, social progress, and social justice and protection. There is a significant degree of case law where the European Court of Justice has already noted the primacy attached to social progress and the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of people as emphasised by the preamble to the treaty.

The Viking and Laval judgments were decided before Lisbon and are an interpretation of the treaties as they stand today. A rejection of Lisbon will mean that the existing treaties remain in place. The judgments are not adverse to workers' rights because they turn on the peculiar facts. A rejection of Lisbon will thus not overrule the judgments or create any real or even perceived advancement of workers' rights. Voting against Lisbon because it will not overrule these judgments does not make any sense at all. Lisbon will not improve the performance of the Irish soccer team but that is not a reason to vote against it. Senator Doherty is saying that in his argument but people should vote for or against the treaty on the basis of what it does, not what it does not do. We will return to this because the Union with the charter is a significant advance for workers but if people vote "No", they are throwing away an opportunity to enhance workers rights without question.

In terms of security and defence, our legal guarantee in this area has been raised as an issue. The guarantee states the treaty of Lisbon does not effect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. It will be for member states, including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality, to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a member state that is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory.

Senator Doherty spoke about that mutual assistance clause as if it were contrary to our policy of traditional military neutrality or somehow undermined our independence. It does nothing of the sort and the guarantee we have stitched in clearly deals with that to a degree that some people might have qualms about it for the totally opposite reason. There are those in this House who would think if a terrorist attack happened somewhere that we would provide assistance in terms of aid and support. I would like to think if a European country was attacked by al-Qaeda that we would provide whatever assistance we could. That is what the mutual assistance clause is about. Many people in Europe are scratching their heads about some people's opposition to this clause.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation. It does not affect the right of Ireland or any member state to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and capabilities, which was a point of strong argument on the last occasion. Again, it will be a matter for Ireland or any other member state to decide in accordance with any domestic legal requirements whether to participate in any military operation. I repeat that we can decide about any military operation. I do not know how one could look for a more absolute guarantee than what we have achieved. There is nothing more we could look for on security and defence.

Senator Doherty said we could not trust the Government on taxation. The only party, with respect, that one could not have trusted on corporate taxation over the last ten years was Sinn Féin, which had clear views that the tax should be increased. This is a legitimate political position to have, but it is the reality. As the Senator himself said, unanimity is required on taxation. Ireland retains a veto. Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Lisbon treaty, provides that any future move to confer additional powers on the European Union or alter the provisions of the treaties would continue to require an intergovernmental conference. This is known as the ordinary revision procedure. A proposal to amend EU internal policies in a way that does not increase the Union's competences would not require an intergovernmental conference. This procedure is referred to as a simplified revision procedure. Any such decision would still have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each member state, which means in Ireland's case that advice would be sought from the Attorney General on each occasion as to whether a referendum was required.