Atairgeadh an cheist: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

During my time on the committee since 1999, I have come across various projects including regional aviation projects in Sweden, alternative farming projects in Poland and tourism projects in Romania and Hungary. I believe that the European project is about sharing experiences but holding on to our unique national identity. Placing regionalism at the core, we can hold on to our cultural identity, languages and traditions through the decentralisation process.

There is a fear put about by scaremongerers that the European project has become a federal project similar to that of the United States or the Länder system in Germany. I disagree. There will not be a federal Europe but one based on contributions from individual states which will hold on to their uniqueness. It will not be a system based on uniformity. If the "No" vote carries this time, we will send out negative signals. The message to our eastern European counterparts will be harmful and irreversible.

The Minister spoke about myths. The myth I wish to highlight is that of Ireland as a country that has been a net benefactor from its membership of the European Union, something I disagree with. It is true that we have benefited substantially in financial terms but we have also contributed to the European project. It is an insult to graduates, industrialists and politicians to say that Ireland has benefited only. We have contributed. In light of that contribution I feel that central and eastern European countries are in a position to contribute by offering their services and expertise. We can learn from them and have a rich European project based on that.

One of the politicians I met in Poland asked if I could help two students from his country by assisting them for one month in Ireland. They came to Letterkenny, travelled to and enjoyed the ambience of Galway, visited the Giant's Causeway in County Antrim, toured the city walls in Derry. They even went to Cavan and enjoyed it. They had a great time and left having experienced warmth, hospitality and a great reception in Donegal. They asked me one question as they left. They asked why the Irish people, who had given them such a warm reception, would not allow Poland to join the Union. It is a question we should think about.

When we are selling this to the public we must say that we have contributed to the Union, helped design the European project which continues to change and evolve and we should continue to change with it. It is a matter of national importance.

We must look beyond money, benefits and jobs. We must explain to people during the course of this debate that many people, women in particular, have their rights, not from this country but from the European institutions – particularly the European courts. This is something that is frequently forgotten. Many minorities in this country who had been deprived of their civil liberties obtained and had those liberties vindicated in Irish law because the European courts ruled in their favour. For many citizens the EU is an extension through which they can obtain their rights. We should not forget this as we campaign for a "Yes" vote.

I have spoken in another place about the importance of Europe in terms of the resolution of the Northern Ireland problem. I do not believe that Ireland, because of the very chaotic and at times belligerent relationship it has had with Britain since the foundation of the State, could have possibly negotiated the Good Friday Agreement were we not members of the European Union. That agreement has been a success and many benefits have flowed from it. Our relationship with Britain changed fundamentally in 1973 when we became partners in the Union, a fact that is frequently forgotten. The success and genius of the Good Friday Agreement has its roots in Ireland joining the European community in 1973 and the beginning of a new relationship with Britain. It allowed us to move beyond the sometimes sterile relationship that existed from 1921 until the 1960s.

It is only right and proper that we should register our thanks to Senator Maurice Hayes for the excellent work he is doing in the Forum on Europe. Senator Hayes is the right person for that job.

I warn all political parties that we should stop taking the Union for granted. We are regarded as the establishment, the people on the inside loop. Many people will use the upcoming referendum to attack what they perceive to be the establishment. We should defend what the Union has managed to achieve in Ireland and be proud of those achievements. One of the problems is that every time a bad decision comes from Europe, no-one is left to explain the decision to this country. The EU commissioner will come on the radio or television but the Irish Ministers run for cover – Ministers of all Governments. Political parties must begin to defend the Union and its benefits. When a good decision is arrived at by the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament, they should not pretend that it is as a result of Irish authority alone. It is not. It is as a result of many small countries coming together and making an agreement. We should be proud of that achievement and make known, as cogently as we can, the tangible benefits that we have enjoyed since the joined the Union and urge for a strong "Yes" vote.

The expansion of the European Union with the ratification of the Nice treaty will give us an enormous opportunity. Ireland will become a more important player in the European Union rather than having a diluted role, as some would contend. At the moment we are the second smallest economy in the EU. This will no longer be the case with the expansion of the Union to the east. Smaller states, some smaller than us, will be included. To a great extent they have the same concerns as us. They will provide an opportunity for like minded countries to change the nature of the Union. We need ideals and we must examine where we want this country to go, not just over the next year or the coming five years. We should look as far as 2020.

Some of those against the Nice treaty express reservation about the lack of participation by the people in the decision making process. There are concerns about the type of Europe we want and there are areas where there can be changes. If we have any role in this House it must be to give leadership in the debate on our future in Europe rather than complaining about the current situation. We must identify where we want Ireland to go in a strong European Union and we must be clear that we have an important role to play in the development of the continent, one that is positive and based on the premise that the European Union is good for us, our country and our continent.

We must welcome the debate on Nice and encourage ideas about the kind of Europe we want for ourselves and our children. What kind of society do we want for the coming generation? We should think outside the box. Ideas are the oxygen of politics. If this House is to be taken seriously we must create an environment where we can discuss and debate issues in an open and frank atmosphere. As part of the campaign on Nice, there should be more discussion of the kind of Europe we want for ourselves and our children.

We should not focus on sections of the treaty, we should push the debate forward. One way to contribute would be to establish a new vision for the country and for Europe. We should create a vision for 2020 and the kind of society we would like to see then. We must move away from the planning framework based on annual budgets and objectives set in programmes for Government. We need to paint a picture of the society we want for our children and their children. It does not need to be too detailed but it should be based on our value system, those things we see as important.

The process leading to the vision could examine how we can achieve real equality – equality between rural and urban areas; equal access to health and education services; equality for the new Irish, those emigrants who have come to our shores and who can enrich our culture and equality between men and women. That does not mean sending more women into the work force, it means allowing men and women to be comfortable with the lives they have chosen for themselves. Women should not be pressurised into working and should have full recognition if they choose to stay at home to rear their children. Equally, they should not face any kind of discrimination if they wish to join the work force. As I look around this House and the Dáil I can see how far we must go to give real power to women.

An important element of this vision will be a clear articulation of where we will be in Europe and the nature of our participation. We must avoid a situation where the agenda is set at ministerial meetings and twice yearly summits. This treaty gives us a real opportunity to extend our influence. We have risen to the challenge in the past and we must do so again. Ireland can play a leading role among the medium-sized and smaller states who are waiting to join the Union. We can set the agenda with them and establish like-minded groups of member states, ensuring that the voices of smaller nations are not only heard but articulated in a strong and forceful manner.

With the larger states losing their second commissioners, all states will now be placed on a level footing. More importantly, commissioners are there to serve the needs of the Union and not as representatives of the states that nominate them. The last thing the Union needs now is a large, unworkable Commission with one or two representatives from every member state. This would surely be a recipe for disaster. What we need is a Union that addresses legitimate concerns: the need for a more democratic environment and greater responsiveness to the needs of ordinary people. We must examine the decision-making process and its mechanisms and decide how they can be reviewed and made more transparent.

Let us broaden the debate by creating a clear vision for this country at the centre of Europe, incorporating Europe's history of defeating poverty and strengthening democracy. Let us not keep our heads in the sand, as some would wish, and pretend we can remain full members of the EU and at the same time vote "No" to Nice. We in the House must take up the challenge of ensuring that we give real leadership so that we can succeed in making Ireland more relevant and more central to the process of building a new Europe.

I call for a commitment to a vision of Ireland in 2020 as part of a new Europe, one that is confident and based on equality and democracy with equal participation for all concerned. This vision should be developed by all stakeholders – young and old, women and men – and all communities including the new Irish of whom I spoke earlier, the political parties, businesses, trade unions and churches. Those of us in the House who are in favour of Nice must go out and campaign for the ratification of the treaty. We must listen to the concerns of the people and learn from them. Let us push for the active participation of this country at the centre of Europe and not on the sidelines, as some people wish.

I voted "Yes" at the last referendum and I will be doing so again this time. I will explain to the best of my ability the reasons for my support of the campaign to ratify the Nice treaty. The text of the treaty has not changed since the last referendum but the question being put to the people has. On the last occasion the question centred on the ratification of the treaty, while this time the people will also be asked whether they will accept a constitutional guarantee of Irish non-participation in military alliances or defence commitments of any description. This gives us for the first time a constitutional underpinning of Irish neutrality. The Labour Party sought this guarantee and, in fairness to the Government of the day, it acceded to the demand and gave it to us. It was particularly frustrating, therefore, to see elements of the "No" campaign making a huge issue of militarisation during the run-up to the last referendum, and they still have not recognised the significance of the fact that we now have a constitutional guarantee which underpins our neutrality. Therein lies the confusion, arrogance and, in some quarters, ignorance of the "No" campaign.

I will be asking my constituents to vote "Yes" to the proposition to ratify the Nice treaty, which allows for the enlargement of the European Union. When those who oppose the treaty ask people to vote "No" they will be asking them not only to reject the ratification of the treaty but also to reject the constitutional guarantee we successfully sought. The hostility shown by some to the European project, especially to the treaty, is very difficult to fathom. Anybody who aspires to democratic politics will surely question the intentions of some people in the "No" campaign. It is absolutely bizarre and very frustrating. The arguments put forward by the campaign simply do not carry weight. As a socialist I believe that the applicant countries have every right to become economically vibrant and to be part of the European movement that gave us many of the good things we have today. They are fully entitled to apply for subscription to a union that gives them the same guarantees and economic stability sought and successfully obtained by us throughout the 1970s and 80s.

The changes being made by the Nice treaty are necessary to accommodate enlargement and whatever the arguments may be, at the very least the prospect of enlarging the Union will recede if it is not ratified. We need an enlarged and effective Union to assert the rights of the people of Europe over the power of capital. In today's globalised economic environment it is no longer possible for individual nation states, even large ones, to curb, control and regulate big multinational companies. That can only be done effectively when countries come together in regional political institutions such as the European Union and pool their sovereignty to assert those rights. We had a recent example of this when an international television company sought to buy the broadcasting rights of our home soccer games. We had recourse to EU laws, so we now have what some would presume was a basic right to watch those matches live on terrestrial television. If it were not for the EU, there might not have been such a positive outcome.

There are many reasons to be opposed to a Government and many reasons to be opposed to the workings of the present Administration. However, it would be wrong for people to vote against this treaty for domestic political reasons. There are two distinct issues here. If people want to vote for these reasons let them wait until the next election so that they do not treat the applicant countries with the disdain they wish to express for the Government. They must not take advantage of the situation and use the treaty to land punches off the Government.

I can in many ways understand the position of Sinn Féin – any national party may ultimately end up in conflict with the Government, whether in Yugoslavia or here. I cannot, however, understand the intentions or logic of some people in the Green Party who have taken a completely different view to that of their counterparts in every other European country. The party's website now asks visitors to sign up to an anti-xenophobic campaign but goes on to indicate that it subscribes to the same views as the xenophobes. As elected Members of this House and of local authorities there is an onus on every one of us, no matter to which political party we belong, to go out there and campaign for a "Yes" vote. This did not happen the last time due to a perception that it did not affect Members personally and the need to concentrate resources on the general election. Many people were let down when those who should have been campaigning for a "Yes" vote were not seen to be doing so. This time it is essential that each of us gets out there and campaigns day and night for the ratification of the Nice treaty. A Chathaoirligh, I thank you for the opportunity of addressing the House.

While the specific text of the Nice treaty is one of the more complex issues that has been put before the people of this island in recent years, it can be distilled into more understandable language. Put simply, the Nice treaty is about modernising the workings of the European Union. The main institutions were established almost 50 years ago. A great deal has changed in the interim and the EU now needs to evolve. The institutions need to develop in order to accommodate the many changes that have taken place. A number of people on the "No" side have put forward the argument that we should be satisfied with the status quo. The same argument was put forward when Ireland had to decide whether to join the then EEC. It was not a strong argument then and it is not a strong argument now. Surely everyone can see that those who stand still end up going backwards.

Who can argue that the EU has not been good for this country? Consider all the money that has come into our country as a result of our membership of the EU. From the Common Agricultural Policy to grants for roads and other essential infrastructure, the EU has been the patron of this country since it became a member. Not long ago, aspects of this country and its economy were being compared to those of the Third World. The Ireland of today is the Celtic tiger, an economy prowling the international jungles of world finance with nothing to fear and a far cry from the young defensive cub it used to be. None of this would have been possible without our membership of the EU.

Perhaps the greatest endorsement of our membership of the EU is that some of the applicant states see our country as an example of the importance of membership to themselves. Many of the applicant countries are in a similar position to that held by Ireland when it first joined the EEC. They see how we have thrived through our membership of the Union and how we have been able to develop through our use of Structural and Regional Funds. Ireland is the reason that some of the smaller countries want to join the Union in the first instance. It is true that voting "No" to Nice will not legally prevent some of these countries from joining the EU. However, a "No" vote will slow down their applications dramatically. Do we really want to be seen as preventing them from enjoying the benefits we have enjoyed for many years?

Surely these countries are entitled to share in a Common Agricultural Policy, to receive Structural and Regional Funds to develop their infrastructures, to provide protection for their workers, to provide decent levels of social welfare payments and to ensure that their female citizens receive equal treatment, equal pay and equal opportunities. We should do everything in our power to ensure that these developments are brought to the applicant countries, not some time in the future but as soon as possible. Surely the people of this country, who have benefited so much from the European project, should not be throwing a spanner in the application works of other member states. How would we have reacted had some of the existing member states stalled our membership application when we were trying to join?

This country may be enjoying a relatively sustained period of prosperity at present, but that will not always be the case. As sure as night follows day, there will be tougher times ahead for us. Who will we turn to at that point? Our partners in Europe? Why would they want to help a country that would have shown little regard for those only interested in helping themselves? If we vote "No" we will, in effect, be turning our backs on Europe and, as a result, Europe will turn its back on us.

There are a number of myths and false truths about this treaty. Contrary to what some would have us believe, it will not bring about any changes which will affect Ireland's traditional military neutrality. It will not give the European Union any powers to raise income tax or introduce changes to our social security codes. Taxation is not even mentioned in the Nice treaty and the power to raise taxes remains the preserve of local authorities and national governments throughout Europe.

One of the other arguments against the Nice treaty is that so-called smaller member states such as Ireland will lose out. I do not know what members of the "No to Nice" side have been reading, but if they believe that they have certainly not being reading the text of the Nice treaty. Rather than weakening our position, it strengthens it. Why would we be against a treaty that puts us on an equal footing with Britain, Germany France and the other larger member states?

By voting in favour of the Nice treaty Ireland will receive a number of benefits. Enlargement of the European Union will offer excellent opportunities for Irish businesses. As an nation which exports 90% of goods and services developed here, Ireland needs to be in a position to penetrate new marketplaces as we have successfully done within the European Union since we first joined in 1973. In 1994, Ireland's exports to the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe were worth £160 million. In 2000, they were worth £1.187 billion – a sevenfold increase in a matter of six years. Imagine how much that figure is likely to increase as our exporters are given freer access to these markets.

Our main trading partners among the applicant countries are Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. A total of 400 small and medium-sized Irish enterprises are operating in these markets and 60 companies have established local operations there. Enlargement of the EU will increase its population by 130 million people, over 33 times the population of this country. At present, these 130 million people only represent 4% of our annual exports. They represent 130 million extra customers for our products and will give us higher profits and more jobs and opportunities at a time when we badly need them.

There is a definitive link between Ireland's ability to secure foreign direct investment and the fact that it is a central and active member of the European Union. I need not remind Members of how crucial this investment has been to our recent economic prosperity. US multinational corporations are locating in Ireland because it is perceived as the gateway to the marketplace of the European Union. Will these multinationals want to locate in a country that can no longer be seen as being euro-friendly? The "No" side has been putting up posters with the caption "A second chance to become a second class citizen". We will become second class citizens in the eyes of their foreign multinationals if we vote "No" to Nice.

As a native of County Clare I am aware of the importance that foreign direct investment is playing in the development of the west and mid-west regions. Such investment will continue to facilitate such development in the future. The thought of losing all or even part of that investment is extremely disturbing. However, it is not the only investment that would be under threat if we vote "No" to Nice. We need EU funding for the new roads and other items of infrastructure that are urgently needed, particularly in the west and specifically in County Clare. Without these improvements, how can we hope to attract additional multinational employers? Quite simply, we cannot hope to do so. If we vote "No" to Nice, why would the EU want to continue to provide this funding which we desperately need?

There has been a great deal of discussion in farming circles in recent months concerning the CAP review proposals which were published by the European Commission last July. The Government has made it known that it will vigorously oppose the European Commission's plans for the operational framework for the CAP for the period 2003-06. Ten countries in Europe, including France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, Finland, Austria, Luxembourg, Greece and Ireland, have objected to these specific CAP review proposals. We are, therefore, in a strong position to join forces with the Governments of these states when the mid-term CAP review negotiations get under way later this year.

It is not a case of Europe versus Irish farmers. The fact that ten countries are opposing the European Commission's review plans means that our negotiating hand is strengthened not weakened. The Common Agricultural Policy is more important to Ireland, per capita, than any other member state. In 2001 we received £1.6 billion from the Common Agricultural Policy. We received livestock premia, area aid, price supports for milk and export refunds. How strong will our negotiating position be if we are seen to be holding up the development of the Union? The fact is that a "No" vote would dramatically weaken our hand in the discussions to which I refer.

The expansion of the Single Market to a total of 500 people will open up the prospect of supplying many new customers with our products and services and our agri-food exporters are ideally placed to exploit these opportunities. We must recall that the Berlin agreement in the spring of 1999 explicitly specified that expenditure earmarked for the existing member states cannot be used to meet the cost of enlargement. Irish farmers, therefore, have nothing about which to be concerned with regard to the enlargement of the European Union. They must grasp it as an opportunity to sell their products overseas to a much larger market.

The future policy framework for agriculture and rural development in Europe will continue to benefit existing member states. In the past, Ireland has benefited because decision-making procedures in Europe concerning agricultural issues have functioned well. The Treaty of Nice will ensure that the enlarged Union will continue to function in the interests of all citizens who live in rural areas.

To support the Nice treaty is to vote for continued investment and growth in the economy. Those opposing the treaty cannot point to one economic argument as to why we should agree with them. Many arguments in opposition to the treaty have been put forward time and time again since 1973 and have not stood up to scrutiny, nor do they now. The European Union has greatly benefited Ireland, while we have contributed greatly to its development. The referendum offers all people the opportunity to shape the future of the country and of the EU. In short, the Nice treaty marks the cross-roads of the future of this country and we must be sure that we take the correct path. We must be sure that we vote "Yes".

Many people feel that the word "con" was taken out of the word "economy" before the election and that they were duped. When they feel like that they feel like protesting but it is not wise to vote against Nice because you want to kick the Government in the shins. That would be a retrograde step. If you want to do that there will be other opportunities. If you talk to ordinary people that is not clear-cut and recent opinion polls show that there is a large cohort in the "don't know" category. These are the people we have to convince that it is in Ireland's interest to accept the enlargement of the EU. Business leaders will applaud the expansion of the population from 375 million to 550 million with the accession of the central and east European countries. It is only right that they should join. We got the opportunity in the past.

I read the contribution made by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, in the Dáil and I was very surprised that with his strong agriculture credentials he did not use the occasion to appeal to the farming community to support the Nice treaty. The word "farming" was not even mentioned which was disappointing because that segment of the electorate feels concerned about changes taking place in farming. Given the current sheep tagging issue, they may feel inclined to use the vehicle of the referendum to make an extremely strong protest. One of the main beneficiaries of EU membership has been the agricultural community in contrast with the fishing community, which in many cases feels very disappointed that when we entered the Community in 1973 agriculture was looked after and it was not. Perhaps we did not have a sophisticated fishing industry.

Each December there is an annual ritual in Brussels whereby quotas are allocated and, given the area of water under our control, we are disappointed by what we are allowed. I have read about qualified majority voting, but what happens when it comes to discussions in December is that the larger countries often gang together against smaller countries. It is not all wine and roses in Europe but on balance we have benefited hugely. It often amuses me when discussing fishing policy in December that Austria, which does not have a navy, sea coast or fishing industry, quite often aligns with the larger countries with regard to the allocation of quotas. One can say that all countries have a role to play and a contribution to make but in that case there is a contradiction. However, we have benefited from the European model.

If one analyses the contributions on the "No" side, one finds they have very little to offer the electorate as to why this should be voted against. Nevertheless, it ill-behoves us on the "Yes" side to use to people who are often confused words like "fascist", "racist" and xenophobic" which I see in the newspapers. To market this aggressively and hit people with those kinds of epithets is to wreak a vengeance on yourself, because arrogance and bully-boy tactics will be seen as the methods of seeking a "Yes" vote. If one feels strongly about obtaining a "Yes" vote there is enough to talk about without using emotive words like that to convince the electorate. We all sincerely hope the referendum will pass.

There is much concern about asylum seekers in most communities with people phoning local radio and the issue is quite often exaggerated out of all proportion. The immigrants who work in our hospitals and come from non-European countries must often feel confused and disappointed by some of the rhetoric which emerges in the criticisms of asylum seekers. Our health system could collapse if these people decided to go back to India, Pakistan and other countries. The rhetoric used is wrong, but there is a background against which it is difficult for people to accept that more people will come into this country. A survey was recently carried out in Hungary and nobody indicated that they wanted to come to Ireland once membership was extended to them. It is logical that people in those countries will go to their hinterlands, as happened in Germany with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Germany's eyes have turned in a different direction because of the countries that are contiguous with it.

I wish the Minister of State well and hope he succeeds as it is critical to Ireland's interests that he should.

Opponents of the Nice treaty argue that we do not need Europe. The opposite is the case. Integration has been good for the economy. Since joining the European Economic Community in 1973 Ireland has received some €35 billion from Brussels, which works out at €10,000 for every citizen. There are now some 750,000 more people in work, our exports, on which hundreds of thousands of jobs depend, have increased in value from €1 billion to a staggering €93 billion and our farmers have received direct payments from the Community of €29 billion.

The prospect of enlargement has helped resolve causes of tension and conflict and created stable, democratic partners for the future. It costs EU citizens far less financially, politically and socially to help a neighbouring country make the transition to democracy in a market economy than it does to rebuild it after conflict. One only needs to consider the contrast between a candidate country such as Slovenia and Milosevic's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, both of which once formed part of the same country.

Enlargement will enhance co-operation, helping us to tackle problems which do not recognise borders such as pollution, drug smuggling and people trafficking. People fear there will be mass immigration to Ireland. The same fears were expressed about the accession of Spain and Portugal. In those cases the reverse occurred with Spanish and Portuguese people returning home as their countries gained prosperity through membership of the European Union.

Industries in the candidate countries are starting to implement EU environmental standards, improving the air we breathe and the water in Europe's rivers and seas. The candidate countries are not just our partners of tomorrow, they are already our partners today. In the European convention we co-operate with many of them to shape the European Union of tomorrow. Having regained their sovereignty, they are in no rush to lose it and, like us, want to retain decision making at national level wherever that is best.

It is important to dismiss the idea that enlargement will create a federal Europe. Nothing of the sort will occur. We are building a European Union of freely co-operating, independent nation states. The vision of all the candidate countries with their recently acquired national independence and freedom from oppression is not of a Europe in which they must once again give up their freedom. We share that view.

While Irish people take pride in having the Celtic tiger economy, we should not kid ourselves that we created it by ourselves. Our membership of the European Union more than any other single factor made us the economic success we are today. We must go beyond the generosity for which we are known and show solidarity. Do we have the solidarity to support new democracies and emerging economies in eastern Europe? Will we welcome our eastern European sisters and brothers, many of whom have been visited by acute conflict and political transition?

Europe needs Ireland if it is to grow, prosper and guarantee a strong voice in international affairs to other small nations. We must look into our hearts and do the decent thing, that is, vote in favour of the Nice treaty and allow this great country to become a powerful and independent voice and, most importantly, continue to be part of a compassionate Europe. In the words of Tom Kettle, "in order to become more deeply Irish, she [Ireland] must become European." I urge my supporters to vote "Yes" in the Nice treaty referendum.

All member states need the treaty if the institutions are to work effectively after enlargement. At the very minimum there will be further serious delay, confusion and doubt with no guarantee that a legally sustainable and political agreed alternative will be found. Ireland, the country which has benefited more than any other from EU membership, will have brought about this crisis in the European Union. That perception and reality could not be other than damaging. We would squander goodwill and influence for no good or positive reason, either economic, political or cultural.

It is contended by the "No" side that it is undemocratic, some say even unconstitutional, for the Government to put the issues before the people again. This is incorrect. The people have a sovereign right to make up their own minds. Not only does the Government have the right, it also has the duty to ask the people to think again. There are times in all our lives when it is right to think again. The Government has tried to respond positively to the people's concerns. The Seville Declaration confirms that the Nice treaty poses no threat to our policy of military neutrality. The proposed amendment to the Constitution copper-fastens this by making it clear that Ireland will never commit to a common defence policy without the agreement of the people obtained in a referendum.

For the first time there has been a structured national debate on Europe in the National Forum on Europe, to which Senator Feeney alluded. The Government has introduced rigorous new arrangements to assist the Oireachtas in the more effective scrutiny of EU business. Ireland's economic, social, cultural and political well-being has, to a significant degree, depended on its relations with the outside world. Consequently, Ireland must identify its interests in the emerging Europe and define its relationship with its neighbours and the EU.

Our economic climate has been outward-looking since the late 1950s. The single currency has facilitated a stable economic regime with interest rates less than half those that prevailed before we joined. It is expected that an expanded EU single market will provide significant trade, investment and job opportunities in Ireland. A "No" vote would put this developing trade and investment relationship in jeopardy and adversely affect Irish jobs.

Foreign investment is vital to our economy. We promote ourselves as the gateway to Europe. Unhindered access to the European market is a huge attraction for foreign investment. A perceived retreat to a "No" vote from full commitment to the EU Single Market, to the expansion of that market by enlargement, would give a negative signal to foreign investors which would be exploited by our competitors for foreign investment. Already Ireland must compete with its existing EU partners for such investment and does so very successfully. It will be up to us to meet any challenges that may arise. Given our very successful track record and the continuing upskilling of our workforce, we should be able to respond well to any new challenges.

The choice to be made in the referendum is straightforward. This is not the time for us to hesitate or to turn away from the path we have followed for 30 years. Europe will continue to be good for Ireland and Ireland will continue to be good for Europe. The Treaty of Nice is the key to a better future for all Europeans. A "Yes" vote will open up a new pool of political good will from which we can draw in the future. Ireland needs Europe and Europe needs Ireland. The Treaty of Nice should be ratified. A "Yes" vote means jobs, growth and Ireland's future.

This could have serious consequences for the future of this country. In the current uncertain world financial climate, can we really afford to take risks with our future prosperity? A recent report by The Economist intelligence unit showed that one in six Irish jobs depend directly or indirectly on foreign firms. Our ability to attract foreign investment with greater job creation has been largely down to our image as a country that has embraced the EU and its ideals. This image allows foreign multinationals to look at us as the portal to the heart of Europe and, more importantly, a target market of 370 million people. Let us not delude ourselves that these companies pour millions of euro into developing factories and other premises in this country just because they like it here.

While there are many reasons that foreign investors should choose Ireland as a location for their company, by far the most significant is our close relations with our fellow EU members. Voting "No" to the Treaty of Nice would show that this image of Ireland is false. It would send out the message that we wish to marginalise ourselves from the rest of Europe. What company wishing to target the European market would want to locate in a country that has shown itself to be against the very ideal of the EU, a country that has hampered the progress of the EU?

That is not the only manner in which we will lose out if we reject the Treaty of Nice. In my county, Laois, millions of euro are being spent on the development of new roads. I shudder when I remember how poor our road infrastructure was before we received the much-needed injection of funds, most of which came from Europe. How can we expect funding for future development if we show we are not willing to do what is best for the future of the EU and that we want only what is best for ourselves? We would, in effect, be biting the hand that feeds us.

We seem to have forgotten some simple facts, or at least they have been clouded in the current debate. Voting against the Treaty of Nice will hold up the membership of the applicant countries. It will cause uncertainty in these countries and disrupt the EU as a whole. Thus, rejection of the Treaty of Nice by Ireland will hurt these applicant countries. Ireland will not be overrun by foreign workers and Irish jobs will not be put under threat. In the unlikely event that there is more movement into this country than our economy could reasonably deal with, the Government retains the ability to introduce measures to protect the domestic labour market. The likelihood is that none of these measures will be required; the expectation is that the EU will present increased opportunities for our people to develop and expand their own employment options. The Treaty of Nice will in no way threaten our military neutrality. The two agreements obtained by the Taoiseach at the Seville European Council recognise that Ireland will not participate in a common defence arrangement without the approval of the people in a referendum and that Irish troops will take part only in UN operations in the EU. A "No" vote will benefit no one.

It has been suggested that Ireland voted in favour of previous EU-related treaties because of financial incentives. The most famous was the £8 billion that some people would like to believe was the only reason Ireland voted in favour of the Maastricht treaty. Certain critics have pointed to the lack of financial incentive as the reason the Irish public voted against the Treaty of Nice last year. What people do not seem to realise is that this time the financial carrot is just too large to quantify. Think of the benefits all those extra new citizens will represent when the restrictions on buying Irish products are removed. Think of the Irish entrepreneurs who will be able to move into the new markets and provide products and services that are not currently available in the applicant countries. Think of the opportunity that will be thrown away if we vote "No".

The Treaty of Nice should not be feared but embraced. Not only should the people of this country vote for it, we should be leading the charge to have it implemented. It not only helps Europe, it helps Ireland and its interests. We need the Treaty of Nice as much as the applicant countries. We have it in our power to play a central part in the dramatic progress of Europe, to help develop, energise and invigorate the entire body. A "Yes" vote will guarantee a bright future for Ireland and the EU.

Ireland makes up almost 1% of the present population of the EU. It is a small country on the periphery of Europe. As a result of our membership we have received €35 billion which has been invested in our roads, agriculture and training etc. Some 700,000 more people have been employed since 1973. Our standard of living has greatly improved. Our exports have grown enormously. We have low interest rates. This is a wealthy country and must now share the burden of enlargement. A "No" vote would show a lack of generosity to the applicant countries. I agree with Senator Hayes that we have taken Europe and its benefits to us for granted.

This referendum and the previous one have shown that there is a great need for serious debate. School children should be taught more about Europe, how it works and how they can participate in it. We have a responsibility to educate our children and the general public on European affairs. Our failure to do so has resulted in the type of arguments put forward today and during the last referendum. The House should lead the debate. It should continue with it when the referendum is over to ensure that European issues remain prominent.

I have seen Ireland change significantly for the better through our participation in Europe. The opportunities that enlargement will bring to Ireland must be grasped. The opportunities which it will bring to the applicant countries cannot be denied. I fully support the referendum and will encourage people in my area to vote "Yes".

I am sharing my time with Senator John Paul Phelan. I apologise for not saying this at the beginning.

The Nice treaty is primarily about how Europe and the institutions of the Union cope with enlargement. One of the major problems facing the EU is the apathy of the general public. There has been an apathy towards elections in general in Ireland and other countries in the Union over the past number of years. There is also a lack of knowledge of the workings of the Union which has been caused by its success. The fact that the institutions work so well is not newsworthy, it does not create front page headlines of topics for discussion on television. It is important to improve the democratic accountability of the Union. We must give Irish people a sense that they are the Union. It is not some distant body residing in Brussels but is in Dublin, Kilkenny, Waterford and throughout the country. It is all over the 15 member states.

One of the problems facing the Nice treaty is that the EU is seen to be a symbol of consensus. There has been an unprecedented willingness in recent years to reject consensus. We live in an age of the protest vote, which is used to attack consensus. Voting "No" to the Nice treaty is not the answer. A "No" vote would only secure Ireland's relegation to the second division of the European Union. The key to our involvement in the European Union and its development is to vote "Yes" and have a strong voice at the heart of the Union. We have heard Senator after Senator say that Ireland manages to punch well above its weight by population within the EU. This is true. If we vote "No" for a second time we will lose the clout that we have established over the years.

I had the privilege of visiting Slovakia last year through the local authority members association. Ireland is seen in countries like Slovakia and countries throughout the Union as being very enthusiastic about Europe and as being the country which has benefited most from membership of European Union. A "No" vote would take the gloss off our pro-European approach and we would lose influence within the European Union.

One of the problems which the EU faces in the country is its negative connections. All parties blame problems on EU directives. It is associated with red tape and bureaucracy, also with quotas and limitations. There is not enough positive information about the EU. Senator McCarthy mentioned the recent difficulties regarding rights to broadcast soccer matches in Ireland's World Cup qualifiers. It is EU legislation that will protect us in this area of difficulty.

We all know how we have benefited from the European Union. Speaker after speaker has referred to the benefits under the CAP since we joined in 1973. Enlargement, if allowed to take place, will increase the population of the EU market from 250 million to 375 million. IBEC is on record as stating this could boost trade by up to 30%. It is vital for our industries that we vote "Yes" in this referendum.

I was born in 1978 and never knew what it was like not to be part of the European Union. I appeal to people of my own age to come out and express their support for the European Union in the next referendum. Prior to EU membership we were still an economic colony of the United Kingdom to where some 80% of our exports went. Since EU membership the picture has changed dramatically. The social circumstances of the country have also changed utterly in that period. I urge those voters who may have voted "No" in the previous referendum, or probably did not vote at all, to come out and give a resounding "Yes" to the European Union and not to deny the opportunity to those central and eastern European countries that we got in 1973 when we gained admission to the then EEC.

I add my voice to those of other Senators who caution on the dangers of a "No" vote as an act of revenge on the Government. In my area there is a palpable air of anger among those who voted for the Government parties in the general election. There is a strong feeling that they were sold a pup. The next general election is the appropriate time to register a verdict on the Government, or even the next local or European elections. It is important that disappointment with the Government not be used as a reason for defeating the Nice treaty. During my campaign locally prior to the referendum I will be urging all those I meet to vote "Yes".

Of all the existing member states, Ireland's unique combination of assets has allowed us to make the most of membership of the Single Market. Our favourable tax climate combined with our highly skilled English speaking workforce have allowed us to become a magnet for inward investment and job creation. The leaders of this country in the 1960s had the vision to see that membership of the European Union would help to bring us out of the poverty and mass emigration experienced in the 1950s. I am pleased that there was unanimity on this point in the Chamber yesterday, given its significance to our future development. One has to travel outside Ireland to see how our success story is admired. I was impressed by the unanimous agreement in this Chamber that international investment was critical for Ireland.

I quote from The Making of the Celtic Tiger: The Inside Story of Ireland's Boom Economy, by MacSharry and White:

Ireland's accession to EEC membership in January 1973 provided an opportunity to benefit from participation in one of the fastest growing economic areas in the world.

When we initially sought access to the EEC our population comprised only 2.8 million but how on earth can one develop a market with such a small consumer base? I know from personal experience that it cannot be done. Our business could not exist without export earnings because the domestic market is so small. EEC membership, however, granted Irish business overnight access to a huge market of 250 million consumers. In addition, it gave American multinationals access to an English-speaking EU member state here. That is why, following the result of the 1972 referendum on EEC membership, the Government and the IDA worked hard to attract international investment. The Irish people have enthusiastically supported membership of the European Union but at the moment some are doubting whether EU membership will continue to be good for us in future. It is up to our leaders in Government to argue the case for continued EU membership.

Earlier today I told the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, that there is cross-party consensus on the necessity to encourage acceptance of the Nice treaty. However, the Government must adopt the right strategy and avoid drawing attention to short-term cutbacks. A united approach is required for the business community and the public at large. Business colleagues have told me that the main political parties must remain united on the Nice treaty and speak with one voice on the matter. I am not saying that one cannot make criticisms but some Opposition presentations, while eloquent, have been laced with criticism of the Government.

I wish the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, well in his vigorous attempt to tackle this issue. It is the responsibility of all parties to help him in this difficult task. If people are not seen to wholeheartedly support EU membership, the number of multinationals choosing to locate here will diminish.

There must be no further apathy among voters in the forthcoming referendum. I appeal to the younger generation who are enthusiastic about Europe to vote "Yes". One can see from the attitudes of young people in schools and colleges that they look to Europe for the future. They are learning foreign languages and are interested in what is taking place in the new democracies that have evolved in eastern Europe. Many of these former communist countries have had enormous difficulties in overcoming hardship and deprivation. If we prevent or slow down the enlargement of the EU by voting down the Nice treaty again, it will have a negative impact on our community. I appeal to people not to be swayed by the propaganda and misinformation of the "No" campaign. Another defeat of the Nice treaty here would be detrimental to employment and agriculture and would damage the prospects for our economic advancement. It would create unemployment and hardship as well as devastating industry.

I reject the claim that in the negotiations for Irish membership of the EEC 30 years ago, the fishing industry was neglected and failed to receive due recognition. The reality is that without the EU we would not have a developed fishing industry. I challenge those who claim we have allowed the Spaniards, the French and others to devastate our natural resources. The Spaniards did not do anything to the Irish salmon industry. That industry was poached and overfished by our own people, not the French, the British or anybody else. Irish fishermen damaged the salmon industry and left it in its current devastated state. The Spanish or French fishermen did not damage the herring fishery. The Irish fishermen overfished it on a continuous basis. The damage done to fisheries did not come about because of enlargement of the Community. It came about because of bad management, overfishing and, in the case of salmon fishing, pollution.

When I was Minister for fisheries in 1982, we saw for the first time the benefit of EU membership in enhanced funding for reconstruction of fishing vessels, enhancement of training for fishermen and the provision of new piers and harbours. The reality is that when we joined the Community our harbours and fishing coasts were falling into the sea; in fact, a bulldozer doing some work in Youghal wound up in the sea. It was European investment that enabled the fishing industry here to thrive and develop but we never had proper management of our fisheries. We poached and polluted the salmon fisheries and overfished the herring and mackerel fisheries to the extent that they are now almost extinct.

An enlarged Community would offer further opportunity, especially for the younger generation. I appeal to young men and women, who see the prospect of an enlarged Community as an opportunity rather than a disadvantage and as a challenge, not a handicap, strongly to support the Government in this effort. I hope there will not be the apathy, disillusionment and misrepresentation we witnessed in the previous referendum and that people will be given a clear choice on this occasion to vote "Yes". In so doing they will enable Europe to expand and develop which in turn will enable the Irish economy to prosper, provide more employment and offer a better standard of living for all the people of this island for the foreseeable future.

The only answer to this nonsense are facts and I will now outline the three key reasons working families in local communities in Dublin and throughout the country should vote "Yes". First, to vote "Yes" is to vote for present and future jobs, prosperity and growth in this city and throughout the country. Second, a "Yes" vote will keep the benefits of EU membership flowing to Ireland and to areas of greatest need in the coming years. Third, a "Yes" vote will ensure that Ireland protects its current and future influence and friends in Europe. This means that we can keep the EU focusing on the type of issues that affect ordinary people in their work and daily life.

We all know that the financial benefits of membership total €35 billion. That figure may not make sense to ordinary people but what does make sense is the huge difference EU money has made in the fight against disadvantage in disadvantaged areas. Between now and 2006, the European Social Fund will spend an additional €1 billion in Irish communities on training and development projects. We have to ensure that money continues to flow and that the EU deals with important issues of social justice.

Many of the positive changes taking place around this city and throughout the country involve a combination of EU and Irish taxpayers' money working side by side. A glowing example which springs to mind immediately is the opening this week of the National College of Ireland in the docklands area. That is an area where 35% of all young docklanders left school at the age of 11, 65% of all young people left school by the ages of 15 and 16, less than 10% sat a leaving certificate and less than 1% went on to any form of third level education. That has changed for the better because of support from the EU.

Housing is another clear example of the progress being made. Most flats complexes in the city will benefit from EU investment and, in addition, millions of euro will go towards investment in child care, improving sports and community facilities, traffic calming and the environment. At a local level, we will make these ongoing benefits clear. We will ask people to vote "Yes" to keep EU investment flowing into these areas to help win the fight against poverty, unemployment and hardship.

I hope those in the social partnerships in the city and throughout the country will raise their voices and tell the real story of the importance of EU support for our work to win the battle against disadvantage. I am aware that, at a local level, people welcome the positive changes that are coming about but a huge amount of work remains to be done. The recent phrase, "A Lot Done, More to Do" sums it up. Despite what the reckless people on the "No" side say, we simply cannot afford to risk future EU support. We need a strong "Yes" vote so that we can keep EU support for the Government as it works to deal with the real issues affecting ordinary working people in this city and throughout the country.

Despite all the scaremongering about immigration, ordinary people in Dublin and Irish people in general support the idea of giving a hand to poorer countries wishing to join the EU. People know that in today's world, one country's problems quickly become our problems and they see that we have an interest in working with the EU to create jobs and strong economies throughout an enlarged Europe so that people can have the opportunity to live and work in their own countries.

Many people referred to the famous quote on the Parnell statue at the top of O'Connell Street. By virtue of its location across the Liffey, Parnell's words appeared to me to have special relevance to that side of the city, and in a wider context. He spoke in 1885 about freedom and justice but his words ring true today. They remind us of the importance of retaining all the international financial support we have as we work to develop disadvantaged areas throughout the country.

The "No" campaign is trying to put a stop to the progress we are making in Europe. If people want to keep EU support flowing into Ireland as we move forward, they have a simple decision to make next month. I am looking forward to asking people to vote "Yes" in the referendum on Nice next month to ensure jobs, prosperity and continued EU investment in our communities.

This debate started off in the most remarkable way. There was a measured contribution by Senator Mansergh, from whom I would have expected no less, in which he threw down a gauntlet, a challenge. It will be interesting to hear any response to it from Sinn Féin. He outlined and exposed the paucity and bankruptcy of its intellectual argument in this case.

I was taken by the passion of Senator O'Toole. He was speaking not only as a Senator with many years of experience, but, also, as he made clear, the leader of Irish workers and trade unions. His contribution was a remarkable example of social leadership, the kind of leadership we have come to expect from the social partners.

I was also struck by the extraordinary common sense of Senator Ryan when he said that he wanted to make a brief announcement in response to which another Member on my left made a comment which I shall not repeat. Senator Ryan went on to say why he was convinced on this occasion for the first time in 30 years to vote "Yes".

Senators pointed out that last year's campaign was characterised by a great deal of confusion and misinformation. Senators were right when they said that on the "Yes" side there was a lack of compassion, engagement and an unwillingness to take on the issue. We let the "No" side set the agenda in the campaign. Any objective observer would say that during the past few weeks that has not been the case.

I particularly want to compliment the fact that major leadership has been shown across the political spectrum. I am taken by the great passion Deputy Bruton has put into his campaign. I was engaged by the remarkable sense of position, purpose and occasion in the contribution Deputy Quinn made within hours of announcing that he was stepping down from the leadership of his party. He made the point that he would devote all his energy to campaigning for the benefit of the people for a "Yes" vote. I am particularly impressed by the journey Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, has travelled and by his remarkable contribution to this debate.

If one thinks seriously about this issue, one would realise that the people who have contributed on the "Yes" side have made significant contributions to the lives, well-being and welfare of this nation. How much has Sinn Féin, the Greens or the naysayers, who have been spinning the same yarns for the past 30 years, contributed to the welfare of this nation? People have a right to have different views and to exercise their opinion, but people have a responsibility in political debate to be truthful, factual and accurate.

The Government has learned from the mistakes of last year's campaign and we have done our best to remedy any deficit that existed. We have been comprehensively supported by the other major constitutional parties who have served this State so well since its foundation. We published a comprehensive White Paper setting out the main features of the Nice treaty. It is neutral in its terms. It is not advocatory; it simply states the facts. We have also published a short summary, an information guide. Returning to a point made by Senator Bradford yesterday, it is written in words which are not jargon laden. It does not contain any of the special language which people find offensive. The Deputy was correct when he said that the campaign must be conducted in a way that is not only truthful and accurate, but comprehensible to people who do not have the time to read through turgid documentation.

Several Senators referred to the Referendum Commission. As Senators will be aware, it has been set up and given record funding. It is now up to the Referendum Commission to do its work. I am sure, as the Bill passes through the House and we move on, that the Referendum Commission will shortly issue material which will be of a non-advocatory nature to assist voters by giving them the facts. It has been rightly observed by several Senators that the low turnout of voters last year was not only a disappointment, but a challenge facing us all.

Our people have shown time and again that they are enthusiastic supporters of the European Union. They understand and appreciate all that the European Union has made possible for this country to achieve. They have a sense of vision and purpose for which we do not always give them credit. I have often said in political debates, particularly on Europe, that it is time we raised our eyes and the standard of debate. We do not measure what we have got from Europe in terms of billions of pounds. We gained real sovereignty from Europe. We came of age as a nation because of Europe. We did that because our people have vision. One need only recall the challenges our people faced in 1973. We were entering a great unknown. The people went out and took command of their destiny on that occasion. We are not entering into foreign territory now; we know how good Europe can be. How ironic it was that, on the last occasion, the majority of people voted "No".

The people wisely decided in 1973 that their best and only prospects lay within the European Community. Those who are advising the people to vote "No" now were vigorous in 1973. The National Platform was vigorous then. It said that if we voted "Yes" we would lose all our industries, that there would be no more industrialisation here and that the country would be pastoralised. It was wrong. The leader of that campaign, Mr. Coughlan, said at that time that we would lose our sovereignty. He was wrong. He said we would lose our sense of national identity. He was wrong. He said on that occasion that we would be faced with massive migration, emigration and that the country would be depopulated. He was wrong. He may have been sincere, but on each and every occasion he has been wrong. Why should his doom laden prophecy be right on this occasion, once in 30 years?

Twelve states have been in negotiation with the European Union for some time and ten states are now ready to join. They represent 110 million Europeans who are waiting for the chance to be reunited with the European family. There are differences and diversity. Many of the contributions to this debate have reflected on the extraordinary wealth of cultural diversity which those people will contribute towards the enrichment of Europe. Many of the states are well developed with very sophisticated economies. Others are less well developed. As I said at the outset of this debate, Ireland now holds the key. As of last week, all of the other states have ratified Nice. If we do not vote "Yes", Nice collapses. That is an indisputable fact. If Nice collapses, the whole process of enlargement will be thrown into chaos. That fact is also indisputable. If Nice collapses, there is no plan B.

The people of the applicant countries want no more than we got. They want the opportunity to participate in a Europe which is progressive, dynamic and forward looking. In particular, they see Europe as a guarantee of peace and stability. Why would we wish to deny them that? Many of those countries have recent direct experience of oppression. In that context, the position adopted by Sinn Féin is not just oppressive but obscene. How can any true republican fail to understand the yearning of nations which have emerged from Stalinist dictatorship? How can we say "No" to these people and face ourselves in the mirror? They simply seek security, independence and sovereignty and they need our help to achieve that. The Treaty of Nice is about enlargement, pure and simple. Enlargement is good for all of us, just as all the enlargements which have taken place to date have been extremely good for this country. The facts and statistics speak for themselves. We have benefited. With enlargement, our employment has expanded and become more secure and our exports have grown. We have absolutely nothing to fear. This is not a zero sum gain – it is a win win situation.

Senator O'Toole, in his quite remarkable contribution – I thought he needed to be tied down at times – was absolutely correct in his assessment. Fears that Ireland would lose out on enlargement are totally misplaced. Increased working standards to be enjoyed by workers in the current member states will be extended to the applicant countries. There will be an equalisation process. Anybody who has any reason to fear that jobs or investment may flow east should very definitely vote "Yes".

The truth about the key aspects of the treaty is worth restating as it has been distorted too often. It is vital that the facts are set out in a clear and straightforward way. It is the Government's firm belief that not only have the people of Ireland nothing to fear from the Treaty of Nice but that, in fact, the treaty represents a good deal for Ireland in particular. Many Senators have emphasised that. The reality is that small nations did extremely well out of Nice. The deal in relation to the Commission protects our interests. For the first time it gives Ireland, with four million people, equal status with Germany which has a population of 82 million people. How could any logical person with any comprehension of the English language say that is, in some way, condemning us to second class status? That is manifestly not the case. As a result of the Nice treaty, we are the equals of every other nation in Europe. The deal on the Commission protects our interests. Currently, as we know, the larger member states have two Commissioners but after Nice they will have one.

I wish to refer briefly to the issue of sovereignty, which was touched on by many speakers in this debate. In successive referenda, the Irish people have chosen to pool their sovereignty and have shown remarkable common sense in so doing. When Monet and Schuman first came up with the idea that led to the European Coal and Steel Community, they saw that the future for Europe was in pooling sovereignty. The French, Germans or Italians did not become any less sovereign as a result of pooling their sovereignty – they gained. It was a win win situation. It not only made war impossible to contemplate but materially inconceivable. It also meant that Europe could move forward in a progressive, dynamic, democratic and prosperous way.

In this debate, much has been said about voting weights within the Council of Ministers. The arguments advanced by those advocating a "No" vote simply do not stand up. It is true that the votes in the Council are being adjusted. In the first instance, this is necessary because of the influx of new member states. Second, it was agreed in Amsterdam that voting rights would be looked at in the context of the larger states surrendering their second Commissioner. However, the minor adjustment adjustments in the voting rights in the Council of Ministers are no threat to Ireland. Anybody who takes the time and trouble to read the handbook which was distributed recently will quickly realise that the small member states have gained immeasurably from each enlargement and that any dominance which may have existed ab initio has been eroded on each occasion. When the Treaty of Rome was enacted, there were six states, of which three were large and three were small. When we have 27 member states, six of them will be large and 21 will be small. How can that be anything other than in the interests of the smaller member states? Contrary to the impression which has been deliberately created by some on the "No" side, qualified majority voting is nothing new and we certainly have no reason to fear it. There is absolutely no example of the big states ganging up on the little states in the European Union. It has never happened. It is a myth existing only in the minds of some people who have been crying in the wilderness for the past 30 years.

The important issue of neutrality has been touched on in many of the contributions to this debate. The situation is very clear. Neither Nice nor any other EU treaty has any implication for Irish neutrality. We are neutral and we will remain neutral. It is our choice and our sovereign right to do so. We have no mutual defence commitments. We have no intention of involving ourselves in a European army – there is no European army and there are no plans for a European army. Senator Ryan said yesterday that this was the issue, above all, that impacted on his decision on this occasion and, of course, he is right. On this occasion, by voting "Yes" the people will have the opportunity, for the first time in our history, to write into our Constitution that the only force on God's earth that can take us into a common defence is the sovereign people of Ireland. Our Constitution has been strangely silent on this issue, given the significance of neutrality to the Irish people but, after a "Yes" vote on this occasion, we will have specifically included the protection of that neutrality in the Constitution. It is incredible that anybody who cares about neutrality would urge a "No" vote. It is crystal clear that if we vote "Yes" on this occasion, the Irish people will not become involved in any EU common defence without a further referendum.

Senator Dooley and others referred to the taxation issue, about which there are certain myths. Yesterday's issue of the Irish Examiner carried the myth once again, alleging that if we vote "Yes" to Nice, Ireland's position will be much weakened and tax harmonisation will be enforced which is nonsense.

If one looks at the contribution from the National Platform –quelle surprise– dated 10 September 2002 it states Germany and France, with their high zones, want to level the playing field. It goes on to state states cannot be compelled to take part in enhanced co-operation, which is correct. It then states that, in some bizarre way, the very states which want to keep their tax rates high can somehow have enhanced co-operation and force Ireland to do likewise. This is pure fantasy and deliberately misleading the people. That is unforgivable.

A great deal has been made on the "No" side of the issue of taxation. The "No" camp is wrong in everything it has said on the issue. It has deliberately created a myth. The setting of corporate tax rates, which are very important in terms of investment, is and will remain the preserve of the sovereign Government. They will specifically be the responsibility of Dáil Éireann. Tax harmonisation cannot be imposed on Ireland through enhanced co-operation. It is important that message goes out with clarity. I have no doubt that many on the "No" side are sincere, but on this issue they are wrong.

There is also an economic imperative. I was utterly mystified by a report in today's edition of The Irish Times which makes reference to some new "No" campaign suggesting that it is scaremongering to suggest that foreign direct investment in this country will be challenged by a "No" vote. I accept that people have a right to hold a view and would defend that right to the last breath in my body. However, I cannot but be stunned by the arrogance of people in Sinn Féin, the Green Party, the National Platform, Youth Defence and the No to Nice Campaign. They have never created a single job, yet they simply dismiss all advice.

I set before this House yesterday the chilling words of the Economist Intelligence Unit which suggested that we, in Ireland, would risk a lot if we voted "No". Many Senators contributed on this and were right to do so as it is the real issue. If Ireland creates doubts, it will lose out. The chief executive of the IDA could not have been clearer in his recent pronouncements, and the president of the Cork Chamber of Commerce, who I quoted yesterday, was equally clear. I also quoted many economists and business leaders yesterday who know something about creating jobs. They have all made the same point. Mr. John Dillon, president of the Irish Farmers Association, said it is inescapable that it is in Ireland's interest to ratify the Nice treaty and retain our influence at the centre of EU decision-making processes. I quoted from Mr. David Begg's sensible contribution yesterday, and Members have heard from the head of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Mr. Bill Attley was also clear on the issue.

How can it be that the leaders of the trade union movement, the chambers of commerce and of Irish business, the leader of the Industrial Development Authority and one of the leading economic commentators in the world are all wrong and Mr. Coughlan is right? I ask the people what the probability is that someone who has been consistently wrong for 30 years is right and everybody else is out of step. We all remember the story about "my Johnny" being in step while the rest of the world was out of step.

It is important that we, as public representatives, make the issues known to the electorate and listen to its concerns. The importance of the decision the electorate faces cannot be overstated. Ireland stands at an important threshold in its history. We can decide to remain fully involved and active or, for no good reason and a treaty that impacts on us in no negative way, distance ourselves from what has been the most successful endeavour in our history. The European Union has not only been the most successful peace process ever known, but, from Ireland's point of view, the threshold to the prosperity we enjoy which allows young people to stay in this country. I urge all Members of this House to support the treaty and, having listened here for two days, have no doubt that they will. I urge the people to vote "Yes" for jobs, growth, Ireland's future and, above all, because it is the right thing to do.

Cuireadh agus aontaíodh an cheist.

Question put and agreed to.