It might be useful to recall the way the Convention was established and what it set out to do. It was asked to establish a more precise delimitation of powers between the European Union and member states, reflecting, in particular, the principle of subsidiarity. It was also asked to examine the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed at Nice, and how it could be incorporated into a future constitutional treaty. It was asked to simplify the treaties with a view to making them clearer, more understandable and easier to read without changing their meaning. It was also asked to examine the role of national parliaments in terms of the European architecture. It has gone a long way towards achieving these aims.

I strongly believe the Convention has been a success to date. As a result of its work, the European Union will be much better equipped to meet the challenges and take the opportunities enlargement will bring. It will also be much better equipped as a result of the work of the Convention to meet the expectations of citizens of the Union.

The new draft is in four parts. Part I represents the "constitutional" elements, the broad principles of how the Union operates and its values, objectives and institutional framework. This part is the constitutional heart of the new treaty. Part II contains the Charter of Fundamental Rights and is a stand-alone part. It will contain the charter which will incorporate the horizontal provisions. While we are still finalising the details, we expect it will also include a bridging reference to commentary on the charter. Part III contains the detail of the Union's policies while Part IV sets out the general and final provisions, especially regarding ratification and future amendment.

There is no doubt that the draft produced is simpler than previous treaties. Its structure is clear and much more comprehensible. The new constitutional treaty will contain much that should be welcomed by citizens. The convention has worked hard to address the evident disconnection between the European Union and its citizens. The aims and objectives of the Union are set out clearly and more concisely than has been the case heretofore. Decision-making is to be simplified greatly while the number of legislative instruments will be dramatically reduced. I remind the House that an incredible 15 separate legislative instruments are used by the European Union. When the new constitutional treaty takes effect, there will only be five.

The fundamental nature of the European Union as a union of states and peoples is underlined and maintained. There has been no significant shift in competence, but the division of competence between member states and the Union has been made clearer. The role of national parliaments in the life of the Union has been recognised and they will be given an enhanced role in monitoring respect for the principle of subsidiarity. I was disappointed to some degree in this area in that I also hoped they would play a key role in the election of the President of the European Commission. These are changes that I believe will be welcomed in the House.

The Convention proposes the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the constitutional treaty. Much work has been done by the Government in the Convention to clarify the scope and application of the charter, to ensure its incorporation confers no new competencies and that it applies only to the EU institutions and member states and only when implementing EU law. It will not affect the domestic legal orders of member states. This is an important issue in Ireland.

With only a week remaining to conclude its work, much of the focus has been on trying to resolve the outstanding institutional questions. The leader of the Convention has been criticised for leaving institutional matters to a very late stage. We all recognise a political tactic when we see it. Throughout the convention process, the Government tried to be flexible and open to change as long as the key principles of balance and equality were respected. We worked closely with partners in the Convention to achieve this balance.

As the House will recall, there was much criticism of the original proposals on the institutions brought forward by the Praesidium. They did not meet the key tests of equality between member states and decidedly did not meet the key test of balance between the institutions. While we have yet to see final texts, the latest proposals seem to be a considerable improvement and go a long way towards rectifying the imbalances in the original and earlier draft texts. They also retain most of what was agreed in the Treaty of Nice a short time ago.

Equality of access to the membership of the European Commission has been guaranteed. This is the single most important result of the negotiations in the past seven days. While it is proposed that there will be 15 voting members within the Commission rotating on the basis of strict equality as defined in the Nice treaty, all member states will be entitled to have a nominee in the Commission. It is important to emphasise this point because naysayers in this country are trying to persuade us that black is white and words mean something other than what they mean. Equality means equality and translates into all the working languages of the Community. There are some wording issues on which we are still negotiating. The Leader knows this is one of the reasons I am anxious to travel to Brussels this evening.

While it looks as though there will be a long-term elected president of the European Council, his or her functions are to be so defined as not to cut across those of the Commission. This is a particularly important point. If the institutional balance is to be retained, some of the more exotic ideas about a crossover between the presidency of the Commission and the Council and vice versa would have to be avoided.

The principle of rotation in other formations of the Council, the so-called Council of Ministers sector meetings, is set to be inscribed in the new constitutional treaty. This is important as the idea of rotation in the Council of Ministers is fundamental in illustrating equality to citizens in a clear and recognisable way. I argued strongly in favour of this, as did a majority of current and future member states. I firmly believe the benefits of rotation far outweigh the problems and I am pleased that these arguments have been taken on board. We will have to see the final text before we can proclaim that we have won on this issue.

I also welcome the restoration of the deal agreed at Nice on the size and composition of the European Parliament. Members will be aware of the debate which took place on this issue last week. There had been deadlock on Nice treaty related issues in the Praesidium. By demanding votes in the national representatives group we were able to ensure there was no doubt the vast majority wanted to retain the institutional areas outlined in the Nice deal.

There are some outstanding institutional issues which will be discussed later this week, both in meetings of the component parts of the Convention – national representatives, national parliamentarians, Members of the European Parliament and the Commission – and in the plenary. Ongoing discussion is likely on the definition of qualified majority voting and the question of a legislative council. I am not convinced that a legislative council would serve any purpose. It would create a great deal of confusion and run counter to good organisational arrangements within member states. National representative groups voted on this issue last week and only two countries indicated any interest in the proposition.

In general terms, however, substantial progress has been made on these issues which were of concern to this Parliament. We should welcome what has been done to date. The Convention has not sought to alter the basic mix of policies which have served Ireland and the European Union well such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the Internal Market. As Members will be aware, proposals have been brought forward in the areas of justice and home affairs, foreign policy and defence. While we have made some progress in these areas, discussions are continuing and some of the issues are likely to be revisited in the Intergovernmental Conference where it has been suggested that no changes should be made. Unless there is absolute agreement in the Convention, it is not possible to suggest that no amendments will be made at the Intergovernmental Conference. We will undoubtedly see changes in the areas of justice and home affairs, foreign policy and defence. Taxation is an area in which we will continue to oppose moves towards harmonisation and qualified majority voting. We have worked closely with a number of partners, both current and future, in this area to ensure it is clear that this is an issue of paramount importance to us.

The Convention has done a great deal of good work over the past 16 months. I am sure that its report to the European Council will receive a broad welcome from EU leaders. It is important to note, however, that much more work needs to be done, some of which will be done at the Intergovernmental Conference, which is not to say anything negative about the Convention. The report will form, in large part, the basis for the negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference that will follow in the autumn. At the same time, it is important to remember that the constitutional treaty will still only be in draft form and that it is highly likely that all Governments will have concerns that they will wish to revisit at the Intergovernmental Conference. The Government will give the final report of the Convention its most careful and detailed consideration with a view to ensuring any points of concern it identifies will be examined at the Intergovernmental Conference.

It will also use the interval between the end of the Convention and start of the Intergovernmental Conference to try to ensure that citizens are aware of the Convention's report and its true content. The agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference will largely determine its length. It cannot be ruled out that it will extend into Ireland's EU Presidency – the more agreement there is at the Convention, the shorter the Intergovernmental Conference should be. If that is the case, the Government will be honoured to take its work forward and, if necessary, conclude it.

The Convention concludes its work this week. I reiterate that I believe it has been a tremendous success. It has made substantial progress in a wide range of areas that might have been deemed unthinkable. Six or seven months ago, it did not seem likely that we would reach this point. Its final report this week should have the broad support of the Convention as a whole and we will have solid foundations on which to base the work of the Intergovernmental Conference later this year. All of these positive aspects, however, are in contrast to the fact that we still do not have final texts. We will have to wait until we see these. As Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe once said, it is not the devil that is in the details but God – even if he has not made his appearance so far in the preamble.

I pay tribute to my colleagues Deputy John Bruton, who has done extraordinarily good work in the Praesidium, Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, Deputies Gormley and Carey and my alternate, Bobby McDonagh, all of whom have done extraordinary work. Such work is not often recognised in this country, where we are more inclined to be cynical than to give praise. A huge amount of good work has been done. We have been able to fight for the issues that are significant to this country, while being prepared to listen to others and to work to bring forward improvements in the institutional and constitutional framework of Europe. Our job is not yet done – we cannot pat ourselves on the back – but hard work has been put into this and the country has not been let down.

The most recent proposals, which contain much necessary compromise, set a fair balance between those whose dream of a new Europe was a federal development against those who have a much more modest demand that the 27 countries of the European Union would co-operate to the highest possible degree. The hopes of those who desired to see some type of united states of Europe could not be realised on this occasion. A Europe of nation states, with every country's sovereignty fully protected, is the only way forward for the vast majority. The Convention chairman, Giscard d'Estaing, was very disappointed at what he felt was the slipping away of the federation. His idea was of a cohesive federal Europe with its own President and Foreign Minister, a small Commission and a powerful Parliament. He was certainly entitled to this opinion but it was a step much too far for the majority of European citizens, certainly for the majority of European states.

Last week's sensible compromises, while they represent a comprehensive victory for Europe's small states, also mark the best way forward. They provide the most attractive welcome to the new states hoping to enter the European Union. I welcome the positive result of the Polish referendum last weekend. However, I do not believe the Polish people who voted overwhelmingly in favour of the European project last weekend would do so if they felt their country was about to become part of a united states of Europe. The Polish people, the peoples of the former Soviet bloc, the Irish and many others look forward to playing a meaningful role within the new structures of Europe but they wish to do so as fully fledged independent countries. I welcome the fact that the new draft treaty makes it very clear the European Union will be a union of states and citizens and that its powers will be conferred on it by the member states. As Giscard d'Estaing said some weeks ago, democratic legitimacy is enshrined in our national parliaments.

The new Europe of up to 27 countries will obviously need management structures which will actually work and administrative structures which are not just citadels of bureaucracy. If the European Union is to be relevant and beneficial to its millions of citizens and, in particular, its citizens in the newly emerging countries, it is fair to say administration will almost be as important as ethos. In that regard, I am very pleased with the progress made last week, particularly in regard to the landmark proposal that each country, whether big or small, will have one Commissioner. This is not just an improvement on the Nice treaty proposals. It will also mean that for the first time since 1973 a country such as Ireland will have the very same Commission representation as the larger states such as Germany, France and Britain. So much for the anti-European sloganeering of those who suggested that we would be taken over by a European 'big brother'.

The proposed new composition is probably the biggest victory of the small states in the negotiating process. It is a clear indication of how the smaller states of the European Union, working together, can achieve progress. Ireland, including the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, in particular, has played a very major role in this campaign to retain a Commissioner from each country. Our success will ensure Ireland will continue to be the natural leader of the small countries brigade within the Union. This will bring significant positive benefits in a Union where alliances will continue to play a major role in policy-making. It was vital that we kept full Commission representation but it also must be conceded that for the Union to work well, the Commission must have the capacity not just to debate but to also make decisions.

The concept of having an inner core of 15 Commissioners voting at Commission meetings helps achieve this balance. The fact that these 15 Commissioners will be rotated on the basis of strict equality between member states is the only fair and equitable way forward. Each country, big and small, will have a Commissioner for ten out of each 15 years. This is a significant advance on the Nice treaty proposals. Should this most recent compromise be finally agreed, as I hope it will, we can expect some of the larger countries will then press for a major extension of qualified majority voting. We have to be extremely careful of any such proposal. The present concept of a qualified majority – a majority of member states representing at least 60% of the EU population – should not be watered down in any way. I hope the proposal of the so-called super-qualified majority for more sensitive policy areas will be seriously taken on board.

I wish to refer briefly to the question of the proposed permanent president of the European Council. In effect, what now appears to be envisaged is a chairman or co-ordinator, not the powerful "president of Europe" type of figure suggested by some in the earlier debate on this issue. I noted with interest the various proposals on the issue, varying from Deputy John Bruton's idea of a president directly elected by the citizens of Europe to the much more status quo approach of Commissioner Neil Kinnock when he addressed the Joint Committee on European Affairs some weeks ago. I appreciate Deputy Bruton's vision in this regard but, at a time when the clear consensus is that the European Union is a group of individual states working in close harmony, not a united states of Europe, the new proposals for the European Council permanent president or chairman is possibly the best way forward. I was impressed by the argument of Commissioner Kinnock that an elected president supported by a particular political grouping would have to come forward with an almost party-political agenda and one would have to question whether such a person would have the necessary political independence and neutrality that a president or chairman-type figure of the European Council would need.

Apart from the EU presidents, much attention will fall on the EU Foreign Minister whose difficult task will be to shape and articulate a common foreign policy. In an ideal world, there should be a single EU voice on foreign policy matters but this may be a bridge too far. Recently we saw the difficulty in this House, this country and Europe in forging a common European approach to the crisis in Iraq. One remarkable feature was the difference in opinion between newly emerging states of eastern Europe and countries such as France and Germany. There may be cynics – not in this House, of course – who would suggest that the American dollar might have been an influencing factor but this is over-simplistic. We have to appreciate that countries which emerged from the grip of Soviet dictatorship are probably in no rush to take new dictation on what their views of world affairs should be. The EU Foreign Minister will, therefore, have to proceed with caution and I am sure that much compromise and fudge will be necessary to make this role workable. As with the proposed EU president, it is possible to envisage in the years ahead a much more powerful EU Foreign Minister of a Union speaking with one voice on international matters. However, that is a debate for another day.

The same can be said in relation to the area of defence. There seems to be little change in the current position and no great advance towards a common defence position. The proposals certainly put no pressure on Ireland to abandon its formal status as a country of military neutrality. This is something we will have to address at another time but it cannot be conceded that the current proposals from Brussels are causing any difficulty in relation to our neutrality.

If we really believe that the European Parliament matters, just as we believe that local government matters, then we, as party politicians, must take whatever step is necessary to increase turnout next June. Whether this will necessitate Sunday voting or a two-day voting block on a Saturday and Sunday such as took place in Poland at the weekend, all of this must be taken on board and must be examined. If we want to make the institutions of Europe relevant, the one on which we can have the most impact is the Parliament. With elections taking place next June, we must try to engage the public to whatever degree possible.

I again congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and everybody involved in the work of the Convention. This work will now move to the Intergovernmental Conference and the Governments will eventually make the final call, but from this House the message can go out clearly that Ireland is doing well in the Convention negotiations. Of all the countries in Europe, Ireland has possibly done best since its entry in 1973. Europe has transformed us economically and socially. It has made Ireland a truly independent nation. We can look forward to the future where we will continue to play a major role, probably punching significantly beyond our weight on the European stage. I wish the Minister of State and the Government well in their further endeavours in that regard.

The area in which there was the greatest triumph, fronted by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, was that of the composition and size of the Commission. It was said that the small states saw off an attempt to cut the size of the Commission and regained the right of each member state to nominate a commissioner. This is an improvement on the bargain struck at Nice and I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, on the huge amount of work done in achieving this. It is now established that up to 2009 every country will have a Commissioner and from 2009 onwards there will be two types of Commissioner, one having voting rights and the other non-voting rights, but they will work on a rotating basis, each qualifying for equal access. This is a marvellous achievement for the Irish delegation. It is important for us that we will be represented at the Commission. It ensures that the Commission will be part and parcel of the Irish citizen. That will ease the unrest which came out strongly in the past couple of months on the issue of where we were in relation to the Commission.

I welcome the roll back in the area of taxation. Ireland again took the lead in opposing any move towards tax harmonisation by qualified majority voting. I was delighted to hear yesterday at the Joint Committee on European Affairs that Deputy Ruairí Quinn strongly backed the Minister in arguing that taxation issues should be retained by the member states. It is nice to get a consensus of opinion across our parties on this major important issue. It is a fundamental issue that the relationship of the citizen and the state regarding taxation should remain within the member states.

Of course there is more to be done and there are modifications in some areas. I note that there is an ongoing discussion regarding Justice and Home Affairs. While great progress has been made, thanks to the contribution of the working group chaired by Deputy John Bruton in the area of immigration and the fight against serious cross-border crime and bio-terrorism, this is an area where we must pool our sovereignty and resources. However, it does not necessarily mean that we should pool all our sovereignty. Where military alliances are concerned, naturally the member state must have its own definition of its power within that area.

I also understand that in the area of public health there has been wider co-operation in European states on disease controls. We saw examples of that during the foot and mouth disease outbreak and we should extend such co-operation to the area of contagious human disease. A mechanism to deal with that would be very welcome and I know there is ongoing discussion on it.

On the institutions, there seems to be ongoing discussion and unfinished business regarding the definition of the workload, the shape and the brief of the Presidency of the European Council. It is important that no matter what changes or reforms come about within the institution, the balance will be maintained between the various institutions within Europe. That balance should be strengthened. It should not be a case of one overcoming the other or overlapping into the other areas. As the Minister of State said, there is ongoing debate on that issue.

We are at the final stage of this draft constitutional treaty and consensus has been reached on most of the issues. It is important that we redefine the role of national parliaments. I welcome that development which has already taken place the area of EU scrutiny, where the directives emanating from Europe are now being monitored and will be redirected back to Europe with amendments and perhaps a yellow card to show that we are not happy with them. The public at large would welcome that development because this is where it broke down during the Nice referendum, where people felt that a decision was taken from them and there was no sense of being part of Europe. The people felt that the power had disappeared. What has been happening over the past 16 months will certainly reassure the public. When we put forward this constitutional referendum to the people within the next year they will be much happier in dealing with it. Educated citizens want honesty, clarity and a well-argued debate. They will not take what we say for granted. They want to know what is being done. By working through this Convention, we have made that happen. In the next couple of months, when the final stages of the Convention are put to the intergovernmental conference, we will come out with a very favourable treaty which will be understandable, comprehensible and simple, and the public will understand where we are at.

We will then be in a Union of 27 members. It will be a different type of union. We need to let the public know that the reform had to come and that, whatever the changes which must go with that reform, we will hold our identity. We are a member state and each of the states has a different history, different culture and way of life. We must maintain that difference while working together. The Convention has achieved this aim. The composition and size of the Commission, the reform of the Council of Europe and the Council of Ministers and the achievement of a balance in the institutions are issues to be considered.

We must explain the workings of these institutions to the citizens and make them feel part of the whole. This House must examine how it can best explain that message. As Members of this House our duty is to explain to the public that we are doing the best we can for Ireland and that our national identity, history and culture will not be sacrificed. We are empowering ourselves and we will pool our resources where necessary. We will work and co-operate but will do so with refinement and simple clarity, as this Convention has done.

There are worries about the framework of the Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the right balance must be achieved so that competence is not eroded. We want to be able to maintain our ability to deal with issues such as fundamental rights and yet to give way where necessary when it comes to a question of European law. These are areas of concern that must be reformed and refined over the next days. Hopefully we will have time for reflection before the intergovernmental conference next October when we expect to have a very good treaty to put to the people.

The conclusion of the Convention is a great occasion. It has taken a long time and great commitment from all the members of the Irish Government who have spoken on our behalf at the Convention. It has been a success story and we can feel confident that the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and his team made it work for us. I predict a successful Intergovernmental Conference and possibly a treaty of Dublin in 2004 as a result.

A provision which has been in the treaty since the early 1970s, in the Treaty of Rome and now in the Irish Constitution, effectively states that anything that is part of European competence will automatically override Irish law. This has suddenly become controversial and it is symptomatic of a loss of confidence. Those of us who have always believed in the project are reluctant to make the argument any more. Senator Bradford emphasised phrases such as "fully-fledged independent states" and "loss of sovereignty". Being part of the European Union involves a loss and a pooling of sovereignty. This is essential for the working of the Union. The sharing of sovereignty is decided as a matter of policy in certain areas. I acknowledge that the Government is not saying that we are all entirely independent and that we have a veto over everything. I regret that there has been an element of serious backsliding in what has been this country's long-held position. I am not afraid of the word "federal" and the ever closer Union formulation. I am not particularly afraid of the united states of Europe formulation. I have almost always endorsed the manner in which the European Union has operated its social and environmental policy and the limited extent to which its foreign policy has dealt with issues such as the Middle East. I would like to see QMV extended into other areas.

To deal specifically with the treaty, in terms of institutional change the compromise about the Commission, if it holds good over the next week, is not a bad one. The notion that each country is treated equally in that all can nominate a Commissioner, whether that is a front line Commissioner or a super junior Commissioner, is a reasonable compromise. The principle that each country is treated equally is clearly important and I am pleased that has been secured.

I am more unsure about the notion of a European foreign minister, largely because I am not sure what it amounts to, if anything at all. Commissioners Solana and Patten are doing what will be done by a European foreign minister. I am in favour if it makes things simpler. The bottom line is that a European foreign minister or two Commissioners is meaningless if there is not some form of consensus as to what European foreign policy should be or at the very least in terms of the treaty, a mechanism whereby one can be agreed. We are a long way from that agreement, as the events of the past ten weeks have illustrated only too clearly. As long as Britain and France insist, they are entitled to an independent say on the most powerful body in the world, the Security Council, without any reference to the European Union. This is a serious problem for the European Union.

Following one of the meetings in Brussels which followed the ending of the hostilities in Iraq, it was put to President Chirac that his view on Iraq would have been defeated if the principle of QMV on common foreign and security policy which he supports had been in place in a European Union of 25 members. He had the good grace to acknowledge the truth of that proposition. He also acknowledged that if the European Union is to have a common foreign policy then countries such as his will have to accept the notion of defeat. That must be the core of the formulation of any process for achieving a common foreign policy much less a foreign policy itself.

Countries as powerful as France, Germany and the United Kingdom must be willing to accept that occasionally they will find themselves holding a minority opinion and must act accordingly. The treaty imposes a serious moral and legal obligation on individual countries to co-operate with others in terms of foreign policy. That is a good provision and I acknowledge that it cannot be taken any further now. We should explicitly state that we will have to go further, in time, if it is to be meaningful. It is not enough simply to impose, for the moment, a moral obligation which the United Kingdom clearly feels entirely happy to ignore. The reform that will be involved in putting in place a foreign minister will count for nothing if we do not have a policy that means something.

Article 40, which deals with defence matters, is a problem for my party and me as it is currently formulated. I appreciate that these matters seem to change from day to day, but I understand that the current draft places a treaty obligation on member states to increase spending on armaments, establishes the armaments agency and requires, as a matter of treaty obligation, that there be co-operation between the European Union and NATO. I am in the majority in my party, albeit not a large one, in so far as I am not one of those who shrinks away from the notion of the EU acting in a military fashion. I support the existence of a capacity to deal with Petersberg Tasks, as we need to be able to enforce security in the current territory of the Union, as well as in a broadly defined Europe, which may include the Caucasus, parts of eastern Europe and the Balkans. This capacity is needed so that we can prevent the horror of events such as those in Srebrenica and Gorazde without the say-so of the United States.

I have always taken this view and I do not have a problem with the fact that it requires a military capacity. We may also be required to co-operate with NATO, on occasion. Most people on the social democratic left, including my party and I, although not the British Labour Party, would like such a capacity to intervene, independent of the White House or the Pentagon, to be developed. Having read Article 40, it seems clear to me that those who want to ensure the European Union acts only in concert with the Pentagon are winning the day. I have grave difficulty with such an approach. We will run into serious trouble when we come to put the Convention to the people if Article 40 is not amended substantially.

I am almost alone in my party in holding the view that tax harmonisation is not as bad a thing as people seem to think. I am firmly convinced that in a couple of years' time, many of the current applicant states will have corporation tax rates lower than that in Ireland. This process, which has already started, will directly and immediately cause a serious problem in this country. When a workforce that is capable of doing the work that US multinationals currently do here becomes available, such companies will move to the Baltic or elsewhere in eastern Europe. It is in our interest to provide for a minimum level – it does not have to be exactly the same in all member states – of corporation tax throughout the European Union. Such a minimum level may not be any higher than this country's current rate, a situation that would suit us perfectly, but we will have to move in the direction of harmonisation. I do not agree with the blanket refusal to contemplate tax harmonisation as a matter for qualified majority voting.

I would like to deal with the religious aspect of the treaty. Although it is not central to the treaty, I will comment on it largely to be provocative. I have no real difficulty with the reference in the draft treaty to the recognition of specific churches, as I recognise that they have been significant social forces in Europe for a long time. I would have a difficulty with a preamble, were it to emerge, which reflected the Preamble of the Irish Constitution. Although its tradition is basically Judeo-Christian – the Christian churches are responsible for much of its culture and most of its historical problems – it should be acknowledged that Europe is a diverse place. A large percentage of European people, including citizens of this country, do not adhere to the beliefs of the Christian churches or other churches. A significant percentage of European people adhere to churches that are not Judeo-Christian. There are substantial Muslim minorities in France and Britain. One can try to list these churches and to draw together a formula which acknowledges them and genuflects in their direction, but I think it would be meaningless to do so. I would prefer to see a defined distinction between church and state and a clear statement that this treaty is between states and is intended to govern the secular world rather than anything else.

The treaty contains some interesting monetary union proposals, such as those dealing with economic and social governance. We need to balance these areas. It is all very well to talk in terms of the broad economic policy guidelines which are produced every year by ECOFIN, but a counter-balance in social policy is needed. This issue has waxed and waned over the years – sometimes it is there and sometimes it is not – and tends to depend on the political colour of the national Governments in the Union at any given time. I gather that an intervention in the area of social policy has considerable support in the Convention, particularly in the PES. If we can define a right for the free movement of capital, we should also be able to state that workers have certain treaty rights. If one goes one way, one also has to go the other way – it is as simple as that. There needs to be a balance in terms of social rights.

I agree with many of Senator Ormonde's common sense remarks about justice and home affairs. Crime is an increasingly cross-border phenomenon. There are difficulties as a result of crime which originates outside the borders of the European Union, for example from the Middle East or from the Russian mafia. It is clearly in our interest to combat this issue, but it is difficult to do so when there are such entirely disparate criminal justice systems without a common system of enforcement or prosecution. I acknowledge that we have to ensure the rights of accused people are observed, an issue on which the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, has been strong. I do not support the position that obtains in a few European countries, where somebody can be detained and charged or not charged a year later, depending on what has been discovered in the meantime.

I support the notion of harmonising policy in a defined range of areas such as cross-border crime, in relation to the sort of criminal offences as a result of which people are prosecuted and in relation to the way in which people are prosecuted. This can be done by developing a joint prosecution service. This is a good thing and we should not be nervous about it. We need to develop the joint arrest warrant and the mutual recognition of arrest warrants and I appreciate that progress is being made in that regard. Equally, individual traditions, such as Ireland's common law past, should be recognised and acknowledged.

I will summarise by saying that we need some courage, mes amis. We do not need simply to tweak what has gone before, as if we do we will lose when we present it to the Irish people. The second referendum on the Nice treaty was won when people who believe in the European project and in ever-closer union, who were willing to define what such ideas mean to Irish people, took their arguments to the people. We will win a further referendum if we take a similar approach. We are destined to lose, however, if we falter or slide backwards by trying to qualify every move forward with half a dozen defences which look backwards. The latter approach is not worth a candle.

Greater philosophical questions need to be considered when we talk about the Convention on the Future of Europe and examine its detail. Such questions, which are coming more to the fore, relate to the nature of federalism and the Union, or the degree to which sovereignty should be pooled and maintained. These issues were submerged for a long time during the European debate, which centred on the detail of the institutional apparatus and framework. The use of such jargon can make the European debate impenetrable to the public. We are beginning to engage with people on the important philosophical questions within which the debate takes place. The work of Senator Maurice Hayes in the Forum for Europe, which has attempted to engage people throughout the country, is to be applauded in that context. The European movement has also done some valuable work in that regard.

We have come a long way – much further than I expected – in relation to the Convention on the Future of Europe. The Minister of State mentioned this progress in his opening remarks. I expressed serious reservations about the ability of the Convention to produce a report before the Thessaloniki Council. I thought it would not be possible and that the process would drag on into the autumn. It was possible that the Dublin Intergovernmental Conference might have to begin to discuss the issue, rather than finalising the debate on the matter and producing a treaty of Dublin.

The Convention has gone a long way towards minimising the extent to which the Intergovernmental Conference might attempt to unpick what has been included in the report. It would be unhelpful for it to do so. While it may be surprising that this is the case, a broad consensus has emerged. That is not to say that it should not have a view or that people should not promote their particular national interests. We are approaching a point where there is a genuine synthesis. In that respect, the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and his officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs are to be applauded, together with Deputy John Bruton, Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, and the alternates, Deputy Carey and Mr. Bobby McDonagh. They have done a remarkable job, not just for the country but also for the smaller states within the Union.

The degree to which a coalition has been fashioned from the smaller states is something that is, perhaps, at the essence of the Union. Many of us tried to promote this as one of the strengths of the Union in successive referendum debates. The capacity of a range of countries to come together to form a common view and to have that view sustained has been amply demonstrated. The message was always there, but it is now more evident that it is possible through networking and finding common interests with other groups within the Union to have those interests promoted and sustained. That is a significant and important aspect of what is emerging from the Convention. Despite everything that was said in the past, the small states have shown the ability to have their points of view at least listened to and, in many instances, to have their ideas incorporated. This trend is likely to be reinforced when the Union is enlarged. Those coalitions can be extended and they can shift one way or the other over time, which is to be welcomed.

The issue of federalism is at the heart of this debate. It was a cause of some anxiety at the start due to the presumption that Giscard d'Estaing would try to develop a federalist model. At the core of the problem is what exactly is meant by federalism, a point Senator McDowell made quite forcefully and well. What do we mean by sovereignty? We have to acknowledge that the Union is federalist in its nature. It is federalist in many things that it does. It has shared competences and there are federalist aspects to how it operates. However, it is not a federation in the same way as Germany or the United States. While it has federal characteristics, it is not a federalist state. I would not like it to become such a state and I do not believe it will.

I accept that we have pooled our sovereignty, but we have done so to our great benefit. Society has been utterly transformed and the country has become a better place. An economic boom might have taken place had we remained outside of Union, but I suspect that this would not have been the case. It is by pooling sovereignty that we have gained some of our strengths and achieved considerable social and economic progress.

People who have been opposed to every treaty and who have always been on the "No" side of every referendum put forward the proposition that the Constitution will be more or less swept aside to be superseded by an over-arching European superstate. This will not be the case. The Union will only be responsible for the areas in which it has competence. The Constitution is supreme and will remain so. It is quite wrong to suggest that the Constitution will, in some way, become subservient to Europe. Irish law will certainly be adjusted as a result of our membership of the EU. That has always been the case and it will continue to be – in my view, beneficially so.

This brings me to one of the key issues raised by Senator McDowell, namely, our vision for the future. What is the vision of the Union as it emerges and what is our vision of our role within it? The Nice treaty was the first occasion on which the achievement of Spaak, Adenauer, Schuman and others was recognised. After a war that tore the whole of Europe apart, they were determined that it would never happen again. They created the European Coal and Steel Community, out of which grew first the Common Market and latterly the European Union. That is their achievement. During the past 500 years, there are not many instances of when a period of 50 years passed without a major conflict. It could be argued, however, that we have had a major conflict, namely, that which occurred in the Balkans, which are on the European mainland.

This leads us to the issue of defence and a common foreign and security policy. It was wrong of the Union to be in a position where it more or less had to stand back in the face of genocide. It was not able to intervene on its own doorstep and had to rely on a NATO-led force to come in and do the business for it. When that was done, the Union tried to claim some credit. That is how it appeared to me. Important issues have to be decided which may not be within the confines of the Convention and what it has to say on defence. There are some ambiguities that I find difficult to understand. On one hand, it seems to be saying that we are heading towards a common defence while, on the other, it appears to be saying that we are not. We have to confront this issue. Is the Union prepared to stand back in the face of genocide and despotism and not have something to say? More particularly, will it stand back when one member state is subject to attack? It is incorporated that there should be solidarity in regard to terrorism within member states. The other states will come to the aid of the one that is threatened, which is as it should be.

We cannot just pick the parts that suit us – as we have done in the past – and then decide that the things we do not particularly like are not for us. If that were the case, the compromises contained in the document would never have appeared. There has to be some trade-off. There are fundamental principles at stake and people have to adhere to them. I am not saying that a state should compromise its fundamental position, but one has to be prepared to engage in the debate. It has not always been evident to me that we have been prepared to engage in the debate to the extent that is required. There was a bowing towards the Pentagon and an acceptance that if the Americans decided to take action, we would tag along. I do not regard that as desirable.

I take the point that adjustments may need to be made in regard to the Treaty of Nice. However, in terms of the referendum that would be required for us to adopt the new treaty, it would be totally unhelpful to unpick that treaty because it could lead to serious problems with regard to the adoption of the final draft. It is important that the treaties be simplified. Those of us who were involved in the discussions on the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties got weary with the cross-referencing to sections of earlier treaties. It reached the point where we were referring to three or four pieces of paper to find out what was being said. This matter is important from the point of view of being open. In order to connect with the population of the Union, it is important that these things are simplified and that people can actually read them.

It always surprises me that British legislation of the 19th century is a model of clarity and includes clear and simple language. However, we have got to such a sophisticated stage in society that we have to introduce qualifying terms such as "in relation to" and "with regard to", to the extent that documents become almost unreadable. While that may be an oversimplification, there has to be some simplification of the treaties so that one does not have to be an expert in European law in order to tread through the legal labyrinth involved.

The Convention has made good proposals on the role of national parliaments and there is a role for the Seanad in that regard. The Joint Committee on European Affairs has increased its scrutiny of European legislation through a sub-committee and that is to be welcomed. From the subsidiarity viewpoint, it is important for us to be able to flag any difficulties that may arise so that we can return to the European Court subsequently to indicate that subsidiarity warnings were ignored.

As already stated, there is a role in this for the Seanad and perhaps it is something that could be considered by the sub-committee dealing with reform in order to subject European issues to proper scrutiny and debate. In recent months we have done that by welcoming members of the Convention on the Future of Europe to come before the House and hearing what they have to say. They, in turn, have had the benefit of listening to what we had to say to them.

While the Convention has not finalised its work, our representatives on it have done a good job. The institutional question with regard to the Commission has been resolved well, although I still have some difficulties concerning the balance between the Council and the Commission. There is a power struggle going on and I hope the Commission wins it at the expense of the Council. I would not like to see the Council being given too many powers. The role of the European Parliament within that mix is obviously crucial. We look forward to the emergence of the final report and, as Senator Ormonde stated, we shall hopefully, in the fullness of time, have a treaty of Dublin to which all member states can subscribe.

The identification of the values and objectives of the Union is of critical importance to the success of the treaty in addressing citizens' concerns. These values include: the assertion that fundamental human rights transcend national sovereignty; the creation of a peace zone extending to central and eastern Europe; a commitment to global ecology; and the use of development co-operation as a means of reversing colonial exploitation. The implementation of these values would contribute significantly to a better Europe. Many of these points were encompassed in an amendment to Article 3.4, which was proposed during the negotiations by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche.

Defence and foreign and security policy will play a major part in any referendum on the Convention. The role of Irish peacekeepers has been recognised worldwide. We should be involved actively in European defence and security issues, as well as playing a full role as an equal partner, on this as on many other issues, that concern a united Europe.

We should at all times support the primacy of the United Nations in resolving international disputes. We should not be afraid to speak out and stand up to any nation, whether within or outside the EU, that might favour aggression rather than peace and reconciliation in resolving such disputes. In the areas of freedom, security and justice, the combating of cross-border crime – or crime directed against the common policy of the Union – should form an integral part of the treaty.

The proposals before the Convention were modest, carefully considered and called for due regard for the different legal traditions of member states. However, they respond to the need for more effective decision-making structures and procedures and for greater transparency and democratic and judicial control of legislation once adopted. We must have co-operation between the courts and security systems.

The issue of tax harmonisation has been left out of the negotiations and it will be a matter for individual member states. That decision was of paramount importance for this country. The position taken regarding our commissioner is certainly an advance on that of the Nice treaty. The prophets of doom who predicted that we would lose our commissioner have been put firmly in their place.

The Convention covers every aspect of an enlarged Union and will generate lively debate in all member states in the period leading up to the Irish Presidency in January 2004. I have been a member of the Committee of the Regions in Europe for the past five years and we have had some very fruitful discussions with the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, as well as with Senator Maurice Hayes – in his role as chairman of the Forum on Europe – and Deputy John Bruton. We pointed out that it was of paramount importance that the principle of subsidiarity should be strongly defended and this has happened.

I appeal to the Minister of State to brief people regularly in the weeks and months ahead in a coherent and positive manner – and in plain English – on the main contents of the Convention. This will ensure that the electorate is fully au fait with the provisions of the Convention before being asked to vote on the treaty in a referendum. As I said earlier, more knowledge of Europe leads to more support for it.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the work of the former Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, in the Convention process. This has been acknowledged by all Members, including the Minister of State. I pay tribute to him and to the other Irish members involved in the negotiations because they did Ireland proud.

As Senator Dardis said, the Seanad should be more actively involved in European affairs. This issue should be discussed during the debate on the reform of the Seanad. Members spoke on the Order of Business about stress. Given the number of sitting days in the year, we certainly will not be stressed in either the Dáil or Seanad. This matter should be addressed. I do not believe the public are aware of the time we spend here. We should devote more attention to debating issues such as Europe. This should be included in Seanad reform. We also need Oireachtas reform in this regard.

We have gone a long way on the Convention in a relatively short time. There is still a lot of mileage left in these matters at intergovernmental conference level and debates within member states. On the whole it is a good and balanced draft document which deserves support.

I join in thanking and congratulating those Irish people involved either as representatives of the Oireachtas, Government or whatever. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, Deputy John Bruton, Mr. De Rossa and their alternates have done a remarkable job. However, we should recognise over and above that the job done by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche. He was described by Deputy John Bruton in one of the European journals as the shopsteward of the smaller countries, which is an important role to have played. It has made it a better draft agreement than it otherwise might have been. It is important to recognise him not for having necessarily defended Irish special interests but for having improved the draft for all the countries of Europe, particularly for smaller countries. It would have unnecessarily limited the generosity of spirit with which they approached this task if they were activated only by our own self-interest.

This brings me to another point which echoes the point made by Senator McDowell regarding how this message is conveyed to the Irish people and more generally. Perhaps there is a temptation to present these things as being merely minimalist, saying that we should not worry too much because it will not be that different from before. What is in train is something much grander. It reminds me a bit of the mistake the Unionist leadership made in relation to the Good Friday Agreement. This was a considerable achievement but, by and large, they went round apologising for it, saying not to worry because it could have been worse. If we approach the matter in this way, the Irish people might find it more difficult to embrace it. The end point of all this should be our consideration of how it will be presented to the Irish people. It should be presented in a way which engages their interest and enthusiasm, so that they see it as a noble adventure, one which is in the interest of the country and Europe as a whole and in which they would want to be engaged.

We must think in terms of maintaining this debate and not necessarily closing it down. If issues remain at the end of the Convention which must eventually be sorted out in an Intergovernmental Conference, one would hope the Intergovernmental Conference would embrace the same spirit of openness and transparency and that the leaders would not simply retreat behind closed doors again and come out with a fudged document. Now that the debate has been started, it should be kept going in as open a way as possible. The Irish position might well be reserved on some of the issues yet to come and the fine tuning that will take place, particularly in relation to balance. There is a lot to be said for not unduly unravelling the settlement arrived at in Nice in terms of presentation to the people and otherwise.

They seem to have begun to arrive at an interesting position in relation to the representative nature of the Commissioners. It appears that each country will have a Commissioner, 15 of them at any time will have a vote and countries will have the same chance as other countries of being in that rotation. This is a case where even nomenclature will be important. It is important to recognise that the basic status is commissioner, and everyone has that, but some commissioners for some periods have the enhanced responsibility of carrying a vote with them. I would rather see them as "commissioners plus" rather than have 15 Commissioners and all the rest "Commissioners minus", described as assistants, alternates or whatever. In terms of public support and understanding, the basic thing should be the Commissioner.

It would be sensible to move on to some sort of common policy in relation to the prosecution of cross-border crimes. I do not think we should be frightened about that. There are real difficulties between the code system and the common law system. There are horror tales we can all tell about prosecutorial or investigatorial systems where people can be locked up for quite some time merely on suspicion. If it is narrowly defined, and one is dealing with serious crimes of a terrorist nature or drug-related crimes or serious theft or whatever it might be, and such crimes cross borders, it should be possible to deal with that. We should not be frightened to tackle it.

Though the full text is not available, and I am not sure what form the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights takes, I have one small reservation. As I understand it, there are horizontal provisions there which relate the operation of the charter to the agencies and instruments of the EU rather than to what is done domestically. I was rather shaken by the last clause, clause 54, which purports to say that none of these rights can be used to question the rights that are already there, or to secure any limitation of those rights. I know what is meant, but it is a long way from the language of the first amendment to the American Constitution. This is one of those cases where I would rather be closer to Philadelphia, so to speak, than to Berlin. The Minister of State might look at the impact of that and consider whether or not there is a danger of a truncation of the right to free speech enshrined in our own Constitution. I know why the clause I refer to is in the document, but robust democracy should be strong enough to take robust criticism.

On the broader front, I commend what our representatives have done on our behalf and I wish them well. The Government, and all of us, have a responsibility to ensure the debate is carried as widely as possible to the people of Ireland, and that there is the widest degree of understanding of the issues. We should also use the time and the instruments, including this Chamber, in order to do that. It is important to keep the momentum going, to ensure that – unlike what happened in the past – when the Irish people are asked to make a decision on this issue, it is an informed decision based on a good debate.

I am always fascinated by people who seem to think we will lose some of our identity or our cultural past. I have far too much confidence in our own identity to think that anything like that could happen. Some years ago, the French newspaper Ouest France organised a competition for schoolchildren based on choosing a motto for Europe. A tremendous number of entries came in, many from Ireland. I was nominated by The Irish Times as the Irish judge. We had a splendid time judging the mottoes, and we finally settled on "Unity in Diversity". No one expects us all to be the same. That is foolish. We are all different, but we can be united on a great many subjects, such as those we have spoken of today, and it good to get many different points of view from the Senators.

The euro, which I like tremendously. is now the currency of many European countries. Very clever thinking went into promoting that currency. All the notes are the same, but the coins of each country are different. A noticeable aspect is that though we all go about with pocketfuls of coins, and change them in different countries, the coins minted in each country are still the predominant ones there by a very long chalk. I am quite sure it will continue like that. The identity of the country is absolutely secure for each of us. There is a great deal we can do. It will be like taking a deep breath and going forward into a new version of the European Union. I welcome that very much.

Europe is moving slowly and inexorably towards a large federalist union. I am not afraid of that. I do not care if it is called a federalist union or the United States of Europe or the European Union. The great power and richness of this organisation will be its diversity, because there are so many languages, people, creeds and beliefs and so on. Speaking of languages, this is something that will have to be tackled eventually. We cannot have 25 different languages, but instead should designate one or two. I am sure English will win out in the end, but that is for another day.

We have a Common Agriculture Policy and an Internal Market Policy, but eventually we will have to have a common security and defence policy. We cannot have a common foreign policy without a defence policy. We should not be afraid to accept our role in the defence of Europe. As Senator Dardis stated, we should not be afraid of joining with the other members of the European Union to prevent genocide or such disasters occurring elsewhere. This is something we can work on and move towards.

Senator McDowell stated that he did not see any change occurring on this matter until France and the UK were no longer members of the UN Security Council. However if the Security Council was just invented, where would we get the members from? We would have one from the Russian Federation, one from China and one from the US, while Europe would have two. That is not a bad deal and we can work with that. Membership of the Security Council should not be a difficulty. Both countries can still work within a common defence policy and be members of the Security Council, giving advice at that level.

I agree with the Senator on tax harmonisation in that it suits Ireland at the moment but as soon as eastern European countries come into the Union, perhaps we may be caught out. Being politicians, we have to go with what is best for us at present.

Giscard d'Estaing's problem is that he wanted too much too quickly. I am not sure this will be the final constitution for Europe but we have to debate it properly and ensure it is as good as possible. We will lose some of our sovereignty in a large amalgamation of states into the Union, but we will also gain from it. It is a wonderful experiment that has worked so far. As enlargement continues, it will continue to work.

As Senator McDowell said, there is no mention of God in the draft constitution. Why not? Deputy John Bruton tried to insert it. Why are we so afraid to mention God? The current preamble which is credited to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing refers to:

. the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, which [was], nourished first by the civilisations of Greece and Rome . and later by the philosophical currents of the Enlightenment, .

Mr. Josep Miró i Ardèvol, president of the Convention of Christians for Europe, has recently stated:

It borders on the ridiculous that the preamble should make reference to the Hellenistic and Roman component of Europe's heritage and jump directly to the philosophers of the Enlightenment, omitting the Christian reference without which the Enlightenment is incomprehensible. .

To ignore, as the text does, the reality of European identity, which has Christianity as one of its basic components, constitutes an ideological imposition and expresses the political will that exclusive laicism constitute the sole cultural category and possible reference, thus marginalising the religious factor.

It is, as somebody else said, important that between church and state – whatever church, whatever state – that there are clear cut bonds –"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". I do not see any difficulty in including the word "God" in the preamble. Even non-religioius people can have a belief in a power greater than themselves, an Almighty. However, it may or may not happen.

This constitution for Europe is a wonderful experiment and development. Incorporated into it is the Convention on Human Rights with all its rights, the right to life, human dignity and so on. We need to grasp it and work with it. It will be much easier to sell to people than any of the previous treaties.

Current negotiations have been fuelled purely by the success of the process of European integration. Expanding the Union from 15 to 25 member states, with the prospect of further expansion, raises not only the question of how best an enlarged Union can be made to work, but also what it should do. For these reasons, we now have no choice but to address these big questions that previous Intergovernmental Conferences sought to avoid.

The Convention on the Future of Europe was specifically established with this aim in mind and represents a new departure for the Union. It has been unique in its tasks, its composition and the way in which it has worked. By bringing together politicians from Governments and parliaments from all 28 current and candidate member states, asking them to take a fresh look at how the EU works without requiring unanimity, it has proved itself an effective agency.

It is interesting to note that in many ways the Convention has been an excellent demonstration of the Community method. It has provided a more effective, transparent and structured mechanism for dealing with issues than a traditional Intergovernmental Conference. Discussions at the Convention have been open and the participatory base much wider than before. It is for these reason that the Convention has made valuable strides in policy areas where indecision and ambiguity have always existed.

The revised overall draft of an EU constitutional treaty published at the end of May is representative of this work and marks an important step forward for the Convention and the Union as a whole. Though much of the text is reprinted from existing clauses in various treaties, many of the articles are intended to be modernising and reforming. This draft constitution contains many welcome changes. Most importantly, this constitutional draft, together with other work of the Convention, has been effective at dealing with challenges facing the Union going forward.

The challenges facing the Union today are based on three guiding principles – simplification, efficiency and democracy. Simplification is about decision-making procedures and institutions. I welcome all those suggestions that simplify the current treaty structure and rationalise the Union's saturated decision-making procedures. It is clear we need a more obvious division of tasks between institutions. We need to simplify and clarify the legislative function whereby the Commission proposes, the Parliament assists and advises and the Council ultimately decides. The proposed Constitution is a valuable step in the right direction in that it will help citizens to determine more clearly those areas for which each institution and authority, including national parliaments, are responsible.

Achieving efficiency in the Union is about making improvements to the functioning of the institutions, particularly in the face of the challenge of enlargement. The decision-making process must be made simpler and speedier. The EU is soon to have a membership of 25 states. If we do not succeed in making a success of radical institutional reform the Union will run into a decision-making crisis. This includes an extension of qualified majority voting by the Council in its decision-making process.

Ireland has always supported the extension of qualified majority voting to areas where it can help increase the effectiveness of decision-making. We should continue to support this method. Clearly, there are also a limited number of red line areas where unanimity must continue to apply if the discussion of the Union are to have legitimacy with its citizens. Amendments to the treaties, taxation and of course decisions on defence are examples of areas where unanimity must be categorically maintained. Ireland has been particularly vocal on this area at the Convention and the hard work has paid off. Although defence remains a sensitive issue, there has been an obvious roll-back in the draft constitution on taxation. This is to be greatly welcomed and a testament to the wonderful efforts of the Minister of State and his team.

Ongoing negotiations on future treaty changes should be about increasing democracy within the European Union. These negotiations should be about reconnecting the people to the process and, as it is often termed, bringing the Union closer to the people.

The European Union has made significant strides and changes in every policy area over the past 50 years. However, while the benefits of these changes have had a direct impact on citizens across the Union, there has been a stubborn tendency for the project of European integration to be seen as rather technocratic, distant from the people. The political project for Europe has reached a point where EU citizens have to take political and, some would say, even emotional ownership of what we are about.

In addition to increased debate, which the Convention has provoked, it is essential that the public begins to understand what the European Union is doing and why. With this in mind, it is highly desirable for the Union's exercises to be presented in a clearer, more coherent and, ultimately, more attractive way. This is the reason the draft constitution should be seen as a positive step forward.

Bringing the European Union closer to the peoples of Europe is fundamentally about making the system more accountable to those which it governs. Put simply, what we need is a more transparent and democratically accountable system with all institutions held fully to account by the European Parliament and national parliaments. There should be increased Dáil scrutiny of EU legislation and actions. In this regard the Seanad can play a vital role.

Although the Minister of State has laid down a valid argument for a long-term elected president of the Council, I can also recognise merits in having an elected President of the European Commission by an electoral college of members of both national assemblies and the European Parliament.

Although I am aware it is a sensitive issue, now is the time for the European Union to consider signing up to the Convention on Human Rights as an institution. With the Charter of Fundamental Rights, this step would finally legally consolidate the fundamental rights accorded to each EU citizen in the treaties. Every enlargement, new initiative, change and new departure in the Union's history has required a measure of boldness and ambition. By embracing challenge and opportunity together we enabled ourselves to build success upon success and truly have achieved great advances for the peoples of Europe. This time it is no different.

I congratulate our team, including the Minister of State, Deputy John Bruton, Prionsias De Rossa, MEP, and others on their wonderful input and commitment to this process over the past year or so. I wish them, particularly the Minister of State, and those who will participate in the Intergovernmental Conference well over the coming year.

The political consensus on Europe has been good but there is a downside. As we saw in the campaign on the first referendum on the Nice treaty, if we take these matters for granted and stop political discourse on the European Union, more and more people will become distanced from it. We must find a way of engaging with the arguments, probably in a party political way, otherwise we will face the dilemma that as long as the main parties seek a consensus on this issue, more and more people will be disengaged from the process and the discussions will be left to more extreme elements on the left and right. While the political maturity we, as a country, have established over the past 30 odd years in coming to a consensus on Europe is beneficial, there are downsides, on which we need to reflect.

I was in Brussels two weeks ago at a meeting of my European political party, the Christian Democrats, at which all of the member states and applicant countries were represented and we heard a pessimistic view of the Convention in terms of where matters were at. However, there has been a difference in two weeks – two weeks is a long time in politics. The difference is that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has started to listen to people. He did not listen for the past six months but in the past month or so he has begun to do so, largely because of the way in which the Convention is structured. This is the first time we have had a procedure whereby discussions on the future of Europe are in public – the Intergovernmental Conference consists of private discussions. Representatives of this Parliament have been involved in the process as have representatives of the main political families in Europe, the Social Democrats, Liberals, Christian Democrats and other parties. That composition has been crucial in ensuring people like Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and the Establishment of Europe listened to what those of us in politics were trying to say. I came out of that meeting two weeks ago in Brussels pessimistic but I am much more optimistic today when I note the draft compromises made in the past two weeks. It has been a good move.

Two arguments predominate. One, which I have heard mentioned for quite some time, is that in moving rapidly, as we will over the next five to six years, to a Union of 25 member states, we will need to consolidate the changes made and bed them down and that we do not need to move forward as fast. The other argument has been made by federalists. They argue that Europe must continue to integrate. It must quicken the pace of integration and, in a sense, create a federal Europe.

These two arguments are not in conflict because it is largely assumed that we want to establish, what is referred to as, a United States of Europe or some other structure. What has been established in Europe is unique. It is a European structure of governance and democracy. We take for granted too often the unbelievable architecture put in place in the European Union and Community over the past 20 years. We also take for granted the fact that subsidiarity is a fundamental pillar of the institutions that must never be lost. We take for granted that, if the Convention proposal on the Commission is accepted by the Intergovernmental Conference, small countries like Ireland will have the same rights to nominate a Commissioner as a country of 70 million people such as Germany or a country of 50 million such a Britain. That is an amazing political structure that has been conceded in the talks.

We also have interdependency in the European Union, the greatest quality in reducing narrow nationalism between the British and the Irish, the French and the Germans, the Catalans and the Spanish and the Flemish and the Walloons. All these regional ethnic conflicts within Europe that dominated so much of the First World War and the preceding centuries have been reduced by the notion of interdependency – the notion that one cannot attack another because if one does, one is attacking one's own people.

Western Europe is the most civilised place in the world to live. It has the lowest rates of incarceration of any prison system in the world and has the highest rates of economic transfers by way of social welfare benefit and health systems. More personal freedoms are to be enjoyed in western Europe than in any other place in the world but we take all these developments for granted. What we have established in Europe over the past 15 to 20 years is unique. One cannot possibly suggest that an enlarged Union will be a mirror of the United States of America or another area of political control. We should take pride in that. The two arguments I presented are not mutually exclusive.

The acceptance by the Convention that the number of Commissioners will continue at 25 and will come into being once 25 countries enter the newly enlarged Union is important. Senator Maurice Hayes referred to the notion from Orwell that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. The same principle need not apply when it comes to the Commission because, while 15 Commissioners will be at the centre as a type of management core, there will be 25 Commissioners. Every country will have the right to be represented on the inside and outside tracks of the Commission at different times. It is amazing to have achieved that level of agreement and it should not be underestimated.

It is important that the Council has a greater degree of control when the Union is enlarged to 25 members. I have never supported the notion of a permanent president but we need some form of management, be it at secretary general or presidential level, whose powers can be clearly seen and transparent. The fact that we have accepted in the Convention the number of seats in the European Parliament is important as well because it ensures a small country like Ireland will continue to have a greater percentage of representation in the European Parliament than larger countries.

The common foreign and security policy is a theme that has emerged in the debate. My party believes that this is an area Ireland needs to discuss in detail before coming to a final conclusion. Europe must have a common foreign and security policy which works, is to the benefit of all European citizens and will counter the reality that the only international policeman in the world is the United States of America. As I said in another place over the weekend, the great shame of Europe is Yugoslavia and what took place in the Balkans. Of the first SFOR troops sent to separate the warring parties in Yugoslavia, 90% were Americans. It was a disgrace that what happened in the Balkans should have occurred within Europe and so close to the borders of the EU. We in Ireland have a duty to debate fully the issue of a common foreign and security policy in the context of the upcoming Intergovernmental Conference. Europe needs a foreign policy to which its members can sign up.

I have said in another place that the Irish left, which has traditionally opposed the establishment of a common foreign and security policy, needs to realise that, had a common European position emerged on the recent Iraqi war, it would have been that of the French and Germans, not that of the British and Spanish, if one takes qualified majority voting as the determining factor in establishing foreign policy. Fianna Fáil is much more pragmatic on these issues and will come around eventually to the notion. However, the Irish left needs to get off its hobby horse on this issue because, if it is serious about ending the tyranny and standing up to the oppression we still see in the world, it must work with Europe in establishing a common foreign policy which is to the benefit of Europe and smaller states.

I would warn against the received notion that the Convention is necessarily going to be the last word if it comes to an agreed conclusion. I do not believe that will be the case. Powerful interests are ranged across the political spectrum and I do not believe the notion that they or other groups are going to give up simply because there is a fait accompli in the Convention and certainly not as long as there is a chance of fighting the outcome on certain issues with which they are not satisfied. I can well imagine the Christian Democrats, who favour federalism, might be dissatisfied with some of the compromises in the Convention. We will be fighting for the best possible result right to the end.

Several people referred to our overwhelming interest in a successful European Union in the context of the benefit of EU membership. Like other speakers, I regret the apparent decline in enthusiasm and loss of confidence. Senator McDowell referred to this. The magnitude of the electoral majorities in Eastern Europe in favour of joining the European Union is similar to the majority in this country when we voted on the Treaty of Rome. It is interesting to reflect that six out of the ten accession states have smaller populations than Ireland. We are becoming a middling small state in the new Union.

The issue is coherence. We have to understand that vetoes do not work. There is no realpolitik in the notion that we can dig our heels in and delay the rest of Europe or overturn something we have already agreed. The only people who put that view forward as practical are those who have never had practical experience of government or the European Union.

The Commission rotation is a good compromise. The point of membership of the Commission is to know what is happening and to act as a sounding board so that others know the likely reaction in one's member state. The rotation was primarily determined by the need to build confidence in the accession states but it should have a positive effect on the confidence of public opinion in this country.

I would not be frightened by the presidency of the Council or a so-called European foreign minister. They will only be able to act on consensus reached. I would be surprised if it were always people from the largest states who would pursue these positions. They may feel they have more power in their own country. Certainly the President of the European Council or the Foreign Minister will not dictate policy. In a sense he or she will receive it from common positions worked out.

I would like to touch on the issue of mutual defence. While I have a copy of the Fine Gael document, I have not read it line by line.

We must steer a course which encompasses coherence but which does not place anyone in a straitjacket, while also allowing ourselves access to our nationalities, cultures and histories. It is often a sense of shared history that is brought to bear on certain issues, whether social or commercial. The countries of Europe have all been either strong colonial powers or have struggled for independence and nationhood. It may seem strange, but in debates on particular issues in Europe there is a wonderful sense that small is the same as big and that each type of country is entitled to its own opinion.

I appreciate the fact that Minister of State came before the House today. He has now departed for Brussels and, as the Convention comes to its conclusions, we wish him good luck in the days ahead and await his return. I thank the Minister of State, Mr. Gallagher, and the others who were present during the debate.

Senator MacSharry referred to the EU's signing up to the Convention on Human Rights. This issue is dealt with in Articles 1 to 7 of Part 1 of the treaty. He also referred to qualified majority voting and made an important point about its extension, namely, that the Government is committed to the general extension of QMV, but as the Senator pointed out, there are some areas – with which we are all too familiar – such as taxation, that we wish to remain subject to unanimity.

Other Senators spoke about defence, justice and home affairs and economic governance. Much of the debate on these areas is contained in Part 3 of the constitutional treaty.

Taxation was mentioned by many Senators. The Government has made clear throughout the Convention process that it opposes a move towards harmonisation and the introduction of QMV in this area. We have taken every opportunity to make this point and have worked with a number of partners in this area. This is not an issue on which we are isolated and we will continue to press it at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference.

The proposal to combine, or double-hat, the position of high representative with that of external relations commissioner offers the prospect of greatly enhancing the Union's contribution on the world stage. I welcome this idea on the grounds that the proposed Union minister for foreign affairs will bring greater coherence and visibility to its external relations. I have pointed out that there should be distinct and separate lines of accountability to the Council for the common foreign and security policy and to the Commission for the non-foreign and security policy matters.

One area in which we continue to have reservations is the proposal for the Union's minister for foreign affairs should chair the external relations council, which we feel should continue to be chaired by member states. We have also proposed the appointment of deputies to assist the Union's foreign minister in his or her work.

Senators referred to the question of large versus small states on a number of occasions during the debate. I stress that the Government has never viewed the Convention as a battle between large and small states. We have worked closely with all our current and future partners in the Union, both large and small, on issues of concern to us. I fully agree with the views expressed that the work of the Government in the Convention was to try to improve the draft constitution for all concerned.

Senators mentioned the issue of whether God should be mentioned in the preamble to the constitution. We must recognise that a large number of members of the Convention do not wish to see such a reference in the constitutional treaty. I, and the Government, of course, would be quite happy to see a reference to God in the constitution, but this is an area in which consensus will be difficult to achieve. Let us hope, however, that it can be achieved.

It was suggested that the changes amounted to a tweaking of the text of the Nice treaty. What the Convention has done is much greater than that. It will simplify and codify existing treaties. This was a key reason for the Convention, as set out in the Laeken Declaration. The treaty will make the aims, values and objectives of the Union clear. It will set out clearly and concisely what the Union is and what it does.

The constitutional treaty will simplify procedures and decision-making structures. These are very positive elements which will be strongly welcomed by the citizens of Europe. It will be necessary to brief and consult the people we represent. I fully agree with the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, that there is a need to ensure citizens are fully informed about the outcome of the convention and the work of the Intergovernmental Conference which is to follow. Irish representatives have appeared frequently before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs and the National Forum on Europe.

It is vital that, when we come to put the treaty for ratification, the people are not presented with what they may possibly regard at this stage as a fait accompli. It is important that there should be a wide ranging and comprehensive debate on Europe, in an open and transparent manner. All of us can recall the first Nice treaty referendum in which I, for one and many others likewise, did not play the role we should have played in communicating the treaty to the electorate. That responsibility rested particularly at a political level. In the second referendum all was changed – we went out and played a more important role.

The treaty is in a language almost impossible to understand. Sometimes we may ask whether that is deliberate. It is vitally important there is not a communications gap between citizens – the most important group – and the various European institutions. The constitutional position with regard to mutual defence arrangements is clear: Ireland cannot join an EU common defence without the approval of the people in a referendum. In our response to the draft articles brought forward recently by the Praesidium of the convention, Ireland has noted that a provision for a possible EU common defence is already contained in the current EU treaty, whereby this is for decision by the European Council, acting unanimously, and the member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. Inclusion of a further such provision in the treaty is, therefore, appropriate.

Reference was made to the Polish situation and the idea of a two day referendum. That is a matter we should consider but it does not arise until the referendum is being put to the people. In the intervening period the forum established by the Government some years ago is extremely important and has brought Europe closer to the people. It has addressed a major communication deficit during the period, which we need to address even more closely in the future.

I thank all Senators for their important contributions to this debate which, I hope, is the first of many to be held in both Houses and throughout the country.