Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the eve of the signing of the European Union reform treaty, it is entirely appropriate that Seanad Éireann should consider this issue. We are at a very important moment in the life of the EU. The reform treaty will, first of all, allow the EU to move away from the stasis of the past six or seven years when we have been looking internally and really achieving very little. It will allow the European Union to move forward to a more outward-looking, concrete and tangible agenda. It will also allow the European Union to better address global problems. These are problems which cannot be solved by any individual member state, such as climate change, energy security, the challenges of globalisation and other problems like international terrorism, which are way beyond the control of any individual state, large or small.

To do this in an effective way the European Union needs the new reform treaty. One of the most frequently asked questions is why Europe needs a reform treaty. The answer is straightforward. The institutions, arrangements and structures designed 50 years ago for a European Economic Community of just six member states were stretched by the time the Union reached 12 member states, were already under pressure when that number rose to 15 and were stretched beyond breaking point in a Union of 27. One of the world's most important economic and trading blocks requires an effective treaty arrangement if it is to be effective. Recognising the reality, the member states have reflected for well over six years on how the EU works and in this treaty, have put forward improvements which will help us and which will be in all of our interests.

At the outset, it is important to note that this treaty had a completely different genesis from that of any of the previous treaties. It differs from the Maastricht, Nice or the Amsterdam treaties. It was not produced by unelected officials or the mythical faceless bureaucrats closeted behind closed doors away from public scrutiny — a criticism we heard in respect of all the earlier treaties. This treaty's substance has its roots and essence in the Convention on the Future of Europe — a body of more than 200 public representatives from the member states, civil society and the EU institutions, which met throughout 2003.

That convention, of which I had the significant honour of being a member, was a forum for full-blooded, regular and open debate. Sometimes the debate was calm, sometimes it was heated and occasionally it was infuriating but the convention shaped this treaty and the future for the Union. When the convention completed its deliberations member states negotiated further on the outcome document. Those negotiations produced the draft EU constitutional treaty.

Final agreement between the member states came on a memorable night in June 2004, the crowning achievement of Ireland's Presidency. As a small nation we can take some pride that the draft constitution and its daughter, the reform treaty that will be signed in Lisbon tomorrow, owe much to Irish ingenuity in drafting, tenacity in negotiation and political patience. I recall that night well, it is a moment for memoirs. After a long hard day, tired and emotional Heads of State were beaten into an agreement we could all celebrate. People refer to small nations and this was a wonderful example of how small nations in Europe can make a difference and show leadership. I hope the people of this small nation show leadership and show Europe the way ahead when they record their views on the reform treaty at the ballot box.

Regrettably, the draft constitution was not accepted by the French and Dutch electorates and a revised document built very firmly on the constitutional treaty and protecting all of its strong points was forged in yet more discussions. In October member states reached an agreement on that new document, the reform treaty. It is worth recalling the genesis of this treaty primarily to underline the fact that in it we have a document that has its origins in open and democratic debate. The treaty is decidedly not the product of a secretive and elitist process. Rather, it is the fruit of the labour of hundreds of men and women democratically elected to parliaments and governments by the people of our Union.

The treaty includes many improvements. I will outline five reasons we can ask the Irish people to vote yes in the forthcoming referendum. It will make the Union significantly more democratic. The treaty provides an enhanced role for the European Parliament and a greater role for national parliaments. For the first time, the treaty also provides for a European citizens initiative that will put more power into the hands of the citizen. People will be able to have a more direct say on European matters. A petition with at least one million signatures obtained from a number of member states can be sent to the European Commission inviting it to take a legislative initiative. These are major democratic breakthroughs and will strengthen the democratic character of EU legislation.

The treaty increases the number of areas in which the European Parliament, the physical expression of the democratic choice of the people of Europe, becomes the co-legislator with the Council. Perversely, some who have spoken critically of a democratic deficit in the past are now complaining about this democratic step forward. The Parliament's budgetary role is also strengthened. The progression of parliamentary democracy within the Union structure has been remarkable. Any historian or student of the spread of parliamentary democracy must examine Europe and see what has happened since 1979 as a model for movement.

Even a quick glance at the Parliament's history demonstrates just how positive that evolution has been. When it was first elected in 1979, the Parliament's involvement in co-decision making was minuscule, in single figures when expressed as a percentage. The reform treaty will ensure that the Parliament will be involved in virtually all areas in which the Union legislates, an important democratic step.

The greater role for national parliaments is also a significant added dimension of democratic oversight. For the first time our national parliaments will have a direct input into the evolution of European legislation. The reform treaty will provide for national parliaments to bring to bear their influence by offering reasoned opinions on the appropriateness of EU Commission proposals. This is a vital recognition of the role of national parliamentarians and, by extension, their constituents. It is noteworthy that Jaime Gama, the former Portuguese foreign minister, who is now speaker of the Portuguese Parliament, saw national parliaments as the greatest winners of this new treaty.

Enhanced co-decision and greater involvement by national parliaments creates greater transparency by its nature. If the elected representatives of the 27 member states and those who reflect democracy in the European Parliament are involved in the process of legislation, democracy is well served. This demolishes one of the criticisms that has been made time and again about the democratic deficit. When this treaty is enacted the democratic landscape of the Union will be improved in a way and to a degree that could hardly be imagined a few years ago. That is something all democrats will welcome.

This treaty gives the Union a better decision-making system. The new system of double-majority voting will give proportionate weight to population while protecting the interests of small and medium sized member states. The double majority system will require specific majorities of people and nations. A qualified majority will require 55% of the member states and 65% of the Union's population. This should be welcomed. Only those measures that truly attract majority support can be adopted at EU level. The new voting system is, in addition, more straightforward, more logical and more effective than the current one.

On the matter of voting the majority of Council decisions, close to 90%, are still taken without a vote and agreed by consensus. Those who try to conjure up images of the big member states outvoting the smaller ones are not describing reality. Under this treaty, even if all of the member states were to conspire together, which is highly unlikely, they would still need the support of a significant number of smaller member states to push forward a policy. Such circumstances never have and never will operate.

On most occasions, Ministers do not bring issues to a vote. As a Union where member states respect and treat each other as equals, compromise is sought in order that a balanced outcome can be reached when decisions have to be made. The view that the Union operates as some form of zero sum game where Ministers are sent empty-handed from Council meetings is a false one. It was never a true picture and, if it were, the Union's very raison d'être would cease to exist.

The third reason why we can confidently speak to the Irish people on the strength of the treaty and why they should vote for it is that the treaty makes the EU more accountable by strengthening protection for human rights in the work of the Union. A new treaty article will explicitly state that the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

The reform treaty will confer legally binding treaty status on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I urge Members to read the charter, an uplifting statement of all that is good in the democracies of Europe. It condenses the protection of human rights on which all of our democratic states are based. The treaty marks a significant development in this area because the charter was only a political declaration when it was initially agreed in 2000. By conferring legal status on the charter, we are giving practical effect to some of our most cherished values, the values at the heart of democracy, espoused and upheld by the Irish people. The aim of the charter is to consolidate existing fundamental rights and make them more visible. The rights listed in the charter are derived from existing international conventions, Union law, or the common constitutional traditions of the member states.

Another reason is the institutional change this treaty makes to strengthen the coherence of the EU and give it a clearer voice on the world stage. Up to now, Europe has been an economic giant but, in world affairs, a minnow.

There will be a new full-time President of the European Council who will co-ordinate its work. As the Union's highest-level forum, the European Council will benefit from a dedicated chair who will be in a position to facilitate and steer its discussions and provide valuable continuity. The latter is not present in the existing system.

The new post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will increase the visibility and influence of the European Union in international affairs. This will provide a better platform to project the priorities of Ireland and Europe in areas such as development assistance, human rights, peacekeeping, disarmament and all other issues of global interest.

Some critics have complained that the creation of these two posts is a centralising move which will deprive member states of influence. I would counter that by saying the people who fill these roles will be appointed with the agreement of the member states and they will take into account the balance of member states' interests. It is also important to note that the wider world will hear a common voice from the Union on vital global issues. The latter can be only positive for small countries.

From my previous experience as a student of the European Union, as an academic who lectured on its structures and, in more recent years, as someone who participated in the decision-making process, I am in a position to state that the manner in which it works is the very essence of democracy. However, it is not often described as such. It is critical that the Union should have a coherent say in respect of matters such as global warming, energy security, international terrorism, the trafficking of human beings, drugs and international crime. All of the issues in respect of which coherence is needed can be dealt with more appropriately under the new structures.

I am very pleased the reform treaty provides for member states to retain the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. We will operate in teams of three member states working together over an 18-month Presidency. This is a much more logical system than that which obtains at present and reflects the Troika arrangements in many ways. The Presidency provides a great opportunity — albeit an onerous one — for each member state to guide the Union. At the same time, it gives a member state an opportunity to bring home to its people the sometimes hidden importance of the Union to their daily lives.

We live in a world where the challenges are immense. I refer here to climate change, energy security, international terrorism and providing development assistance to the poorest countries. Committed members of the international community must act together to address these challenges. This treaty gives the member states of the European Union the opportunity to work in concert, speak with a common voice and be truly effective.

The fifth reason to which I wish to refer — I said I would deal with only five reasons but there are many others — is that the treaty will better protect the interests of smaller states. We live in a world where commentators often speak of the disproportionate power of a small number of large countries. The Union already recognises the rights and interests of small member states which, after all, make up its majority. The treaty will give greater effect to the equality between all of the Union's member states. Many of the issues that specifically relate to the expression of equality arise out of arguments put forward by the Irish during the debate at the convention and the subsequent drafting process.

All member states will, as is the case at present, have equal access to membership of the European Commission. There will be one Commissioner from each member state until 2014. The treaty will protect the equality of member states because, from 2014 onward, membership of the Commission will rotate on an exactly equal basis. A national from each member state — regardless of whether it is Germany, Malta, Luxembourg or Ireland — will sit on two Commissions out of three on the basis of strictly equal rotation. This principle of equality between member states, regardless of their size or population, is vital and it is an important achievement for countries such as ours that this is being firmly enshrined in the reform treaty.

When the issue of a smaller Commission first came up for discussion, it was suggested that each of the larger member states would have only one commissioner and that the balance of posts would be shared among the smaller member states. The latter informed the convention that this was not acceptable. Ireland was very much to the fore in that regard and all of the states eventually recognised that it was not acceptable. This proved to be a singular victory for the smaller member states.

A strong and cohesive Commission is essential to Ireland's interests. The Commission is obliged to take into account the balance of interests of all member states. This is why it is important for small member states such as Ireland to have a strong Commission in place. A smaller group of Commissioners — but based on strict equality — is more likely to be effective than a very large one, which would be more difficult to manage and would have a weaker sense of collegiality. Questions are already arising in respect of this matter, particularly in light of some of the portfolios that have come into being at the 27-member Commission. In circumstances such as those I have outlined, it is likely that a two-tier Commission could have become a reality. The smaller member states rejected this scenario, which will, once and for all, be ruled out by the treaty.

In the referendum campaign that lies ahead, for which I know there is strong support among Members of the House, the Government will focus on the positive. In line with what I have been saying, we will make the case for the treaty based on a realistic assessment of where the balance of benefits lies for Ireland. We have no doubt whatsoever that it is good for Ireland and its people. However, we will be also obliged to the points that will be made against the treaty and the Union. We must do so in a way which respects the fact that other people take a different view. I do not think the Irish people will be easily persuaded to vote yes if they are bullied and hectored. However, they will vote yes if we have an open, informed, courteous and respectful debate.

As the Taoiseach pointed out on Monday last, one of the most striking things about the series of EU referenda held in this country during the past 35 years is how the negative arguments remain the same. It is a case of ignoring the facts and putting forward the same old arguments. The portrayal of the European Union as an evolving military superstate which will deprive Ireland of its non-aligned status is a recurring scare tactic. I already heard this point being made on several occasions in the past two weeks. This argument has been made in some guise or other from the outset of our European Union membership. Members will recall that this was one of the big arguments put forward in 1972 and the basis of it was that Ireland would be forced to join NATO and would lose its neutral status as a result. This argument was not true then and it remains untrue today. There is nothing in the treaty that undermines Ireland's neutral status.

Let us consider how perverse is the argument regarding the militarisation of Europe. The EU's humanitarian and peacekeeping work in Aceh after the tsunami and its painstaking efforts in the western Balkans represent a much more accurate representation of the Union's ambition in this area. The proposed EU-led mission in Chad is another example of the good work the Union can do in a troubled world. These missions also reflect the principles and interests underlying Ireland's national instincts. Nothing in the treaty can change our neutrality. The latter remains a matter for the Irish people alone to decide upon.

In addition to preserving unanimity in the area of defence, we are happy that there was no attempt to press for changes in taxation during the agreement on the reform treaty. This was one of the red-line matters I brought to the negotiations at the convention. I was supported in that regard by Members from all sides from both Houses. The treaty will not change anything in the area of taxation.

In engaging in a positive campaign, the Government will challenge the treaty's opponents to spell out why the balance of it is against Ireland's interests and why voting against it could be possibly in Ireland's interests. We will also challenge those who have consistently opposed the Union to explain how Ireland would be better off without it.

We will make the case that we should judge our relationship with the Union in its totality. We should measure its benefits in the aggregate and, despite the sometimes understandable temptation to allow individual policy setbacks to colour our view, we should bear in mind the widest sense of Ireland's interests.

The Government will engage in a vigorous information campaign. An explanatory pamphlet — a very small document — will be published tomorrow to coincide with the signing of the treaty. The reform treaty website, which has been established and is accessible to the public, will go live today. A consolidated version of all EU treaties to date, including the reform treaty, will be available from tomorrow, as will a link to the consolidated version on the reform treaty website. A more detailed information booklet in plain, simple, unadorned language will be available in late January and a White Paper, which will follow the more traditional format which usually is not read, will be published shortly afterwards and shortly before the introduction of a referendum Bill.

I recognise and record the support for the reform treaty, especially from Fine Gael and the Labour Party and from across the political spectrum in the other House with only one party officially being against it. Separate from the political parties' campaigns the Forum on Europe will undertake a series of meetings throughout the country which will provide the public with information and a forum for debate on the treaty. This was done very successfully on the previous occasion. The former Senator Maurice Hayes and the Forum on Europe are building on the model used on the previous occasion. I saw the list of their intended town hall meetings yesterday and, to put it mildly, it is impressive. There will be no part of this country where there will not be a debate on the facts and realities of this treaty. When the referendum Bill is published, a properly resourced referendum commission will be established to provide information on the treaty to the public and to encourage the electorate to vote.

Our experience in the Union shows that small countries can prosper and that we can have our voice heard. By pooling our sovereignty we have joined others to strengthen our case on many issues of national importance, namely, agriculture, foreign policy and economic policy. Standing alone would not allow us to project or protect Ireland's interests or the interests of the Irish people to the same effect. Acting collectively has allowed this small nation to achieve far more than we could ever have hoped to achieve alone.

The Union has proved a welcoming place for small nations such as Ireland to prove their worth. It certainly has given us the opportunity to prove our capacities. Some of our presidencies have witnessed historic European moments such as the reunification of Germany in 1990 and the enlargement of the Union in 2004. One of the memories I will always carry with me in politics and beyond is that extraordinary moment in Áras an Uachtaráin when the leaders of ten member states came out of the clouds and walked into the sunshine.

We have reason to be proud of Ireland's role in Europe. We have not just taken from Europe, which is often a mistake that is made in the debate on Europe. The debate is often about what we get out of Europe, namely, how many euro, but our contribution has been much greater than that. As a small nation, we have always punched way above our weight. We have been generous with our time and efforts. Through different Governments in different presidencies, we have made a real difference. Irish Commissioners have brought something very special in the past. I am thinking of the former Commissioner and President, Paddy Hillery, the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund. I ask Members to reflect on the good that was done from Irish thoughts that were brought to the table. Ireland has given to Europe as well as taken. Irish citizens have thrived at the heart of the European Union's institutions, proving again that small countries can play a central role.

It is often asked what influence a small country can have? I remember at one moment during the Irish Presidency answering questions in the European Parliament and the man sitting behind me as President of the Parliament was Pat Cox, a man who brought extraordinary distinction to that office. Sitting across from me was an Irish Commissioner and, more importantly, the persons who were sitting beside the senior officials from the Commission were Irish, as is the case today. Therefore, Ireland not only has punched above its weight but has used its membership efficiently, effectively and with purpose.

It is not too much of a cliché to say that Europe's success is Ireland's success and that Ireland's success is Europe's success. It is in all our interests, including Ireland's, for Europe's political, economic and social progress to take even deeper root across the Continent. This reform treaty will assist this ongoing process.

Similarly, it has been in Europe's interest to see Ireland develop from our relatively isolated and underdeveloped circumstances of 35 years ago. The contribution of the Union to our progress has been immense and it would be less than generous if we as a nation did not recognise that. We have moved from a position where in 1973 Irish citizens had an income that was not that much more than half the European Union average to one that is now above the average. Employment has doubled from 1 million to more than 2 million in that period. The European Union has stood firmly behind Ireland and Britain in the search for peace in Northern Ireland. It has been supportive and generous in political and financial terms.

The historic economic and political developments in Ireland during our membership of the EU represent a European success story as well as an obvious Irish success story. The Union's member states are rightly proud to point to the part they have played and we are right to acknowledge their contribution. The reform treaty will continue to underpin this mutually reinforcing and positive relationship that exists between European countries. It will continue to allow Europe to strengthen its internal bonds and to reach out more effectively to the wider world. The evidence in favour of the Union and of this treaty is incontrovertible. The treaty deserves our support and I hope support for it will be forthcoming when the Irish people pass their judgment in the referendum on the reform treaty.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to share my time with Senator Regan.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is agreed.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and assure him that Fine Gael will be fully supportive of this treaty. We intend to mount a vigorous campaign in favour of this treaty, as we have done in most referendums.

The European reform treaty will make Europe work more efficiently and effectively, as the Minister of State said, by speeding up decision making in Brussels. This is crucial now there are 27 member states, 12 more than there were five years ago. It will also make Europe more democratic by strengthening the role of Dáil Éireann and the European Parliament, both of which are elected directly by the Irish people. The treaty also aims to enhance the role of Europe on the world stage, giving European member states a greater say in world affairs, for example, in the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation negotiations.

The size of the European Parliament has become unwieldy since the two most recent rounds of enlargement. It has been agreed, therefore, that the number of seats in Parliament will be capped at 750. This should ensure the work of the Parliament can proceed in an efficient manner. Each member state, no matter how small, is guaranteed a minimum of six seats, with the maximum number for any one country capped at 96 MEPs. The upper limit will affect Germany, which will have far fewer MEPs per capita than Ireland. We will have 12 MEPs in total, which amounts to the loss of one MEP.

The treaty will also reduce the size of the European Commission. Each member state has one full Commissioner, which is unworkable, as the Minister of State said, with 27 departments operating at present. If the reform treaty is adopted, the Commission will remain like this until 2014, at which point the size will be reduced. From that point on, each member state will have a seat on two out of every three Commissions, with strictly equal rotation. This new situation will apply to each member state, irrespective of its size. Malta, for instance, the smallest member state, thus will have the same level of representation as Germany, the largest member state.

It is widely accepted that the various institutions of European Union are somewhat incoherent and require greater co-ordination. To address this weakness a new full-time President of the European Council will be elected by member states for a maximum of five years. At present the President of the European Council rotates every six months, along with the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. This longer term will provide much greater synchronisation within the EU. Furthermore, the traditional so-called travelling circus of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, which rotates from country to country every six months, will now occur over an 18-month period and will be hosted by a team of three member states working together at one time. Ireland is to be teamed with Greece and Lithuania and will take on the Presidency in 2013.

Henry Kissinger famously said, "When I want to call Europe, who do I call?" The EU has long been at a disadvantage on the world stage because there was no one single voice representing our common position. The EU is currently represented abroad by the Council's high representative for common foreign and security policy and the Commissioner for External Affairs. In order to streamline these positions, the reform treaty proposes the creation of a single position of high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. This person will become Vice President of the Commission and will chair the Foreign Affairs Council of Ministers. He will be supported by a European external action service and will be charged with enhancing the co-ordination of EU activity abroad.

The use of majority voting in the Council, where just one member state could veto any proposal, was becoming unworkable due to the enlarged size of the Union. Therefore, the introduction of majority voting in a variety of areas is a welcome change, which will make decision making much easier. If the treaty is passed, double majority voting will come into force in 2014. This means that a majority of 55% of the member states will be required, in addition to 65% of the Union's population. This ensures that no bloc — either the small member states or the large ones — can gang up on another. It is the fairest possible form of majority voting.

The role of national Parliaments is to be strengthened under the treaty, with each member state having two votes. In Ireland, both the Dáil and the Seanad will have a vote each. National Parliaments will have an eight week period to offer a reasoned opinion on whether a Commission proposal is overstepping the mark. If at least one third of the votes of national Parliaments require it, the proposal must be reviewed. If a Commission proposal for EU legislation is opposed by more than half of the votes allocated to national Parliaments, the Commission must justify its proposal in a reasoned opinion and it may be blocked by the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament.

In order to enhance co-operation between member states on legal and security issues, majority voting will now apply in this area, so that one country may not stop the progress of all others by exercising a veto. The areas affected include terrorism, human trafficking, drugs trafficking, corruption, money laundering, counterfeiting, computer crime and organised crime. Ireland has chosen to opt out of these provisions, along with the UK, but with an option to opt in on a case by case basis. These arrangements are to be reviewed within three years of the treaty entering into force.

A new article will state that the European Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights of persons belonging to minorities. The treaty will also make the European Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding for the first time. The charter consolidates and reflects the human rights which are already set down in European and Irish law.

The date agreed for ratification by the Lisbon Council is January 1st 2009. Most member states are expected to ratify the treaty by parliamentary means, but we will have a referendum. Perhaps the Minister could indicate the likely date for such a referendum.

Fine Gael will campaign vigorously for this treaty to be passed in any referendum. We believe it will ensure more democracy, faster decision making, greater influence on the world stage, greater clout in WTO negotiations, that it will enhance our human rights and will provide a greater role in peace keeping missions. I hope that Commissioner McCreevy's fear that the Irish people would use this referendum as a means of voting against a very unpopular Government will prove to be unfounded. I also hope that we all work vigorously to ensure this referendum will pass and I wish the Minister of State well in his negotiations.

Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been involved in European affairs since 1974, and my own personal experience is that Europe has been good for this country. We have found our way in Europe, we can work within the system and it has benefited the country enormously. Fine Gael was unique in embracing integration and has been at all times a consistent supporter of European integration. I pay tribute to people from Fine Gael such as Garret FitzGerald, Peter Sutherland and John Bruton, who continue to play a role in fostering European integration. Europe has been good for us in every sphere of activity, be it the economy, environmental policy and social rights. It also strengthened Ireland as a small country on the international stage, whether it has been through trade agreements, fostering climate change agreements and other environmental issues.

This treaty is a consolidation of the treaties that are currently in operation. Its objectives are to create an area of freedom, security, justice and peace in Europe and internationally, as well as the protection of human rights. They are noble objectives and I do not think anybody can fail to subscribe to them. The treaty is particularly designed to improve its workability, with 27 member states in the EU at the moment. In many ways it is more democratic and it provides for a greater involvement of national Parliaments. Two of its major selling points are the increased role of Europe in the fight against international crime, as well as the codification in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the rights which have been implicit in the treaty and in the jurisprudence of the European courts to date. I fully support this treaty.

Before the date for a referendum is announced, advice has been given on whether the referendum is legally required. I question whether it is legally required. We all support the holding of a referendum, because it has worked to involve people in the process of European integration. However, just because we are having a referendum, it does not follow that it is legally required. In the Crotty judgment, many changes on Europe were permitted. The changes that are envisaged in this treaty are simply improvements in natural developments from the treaty.

We will also have to overcome a number of problems which inevitably will emerge in the referendum campaign. There has been a failure, in the five years since the Nice Treaty, to fulfil a promise to scrutinise EU legislation and to involve the Oireachtas intimately in such scrutiny. The recent decision of the Government to opt out from policing and criminal law matters has created a doubt on whether co-operation in that area is beneficial for this country, when I believe it is a selling point of this treaty that Europe can enhance our efforts at national level to combat organised crime.

A more fundamental issue arises at this point that voters will find difficult to ignore. The main proponent of this treaty, the current Taoiseach, cannot be trusted to tell the truth even when he is giving evidence on oath. There has been a cover-up about payments received by him in 1994 and 1995 and the entire Fianna Fáil parliamentary party and the Government are complicit in that. This is an issue of confidence and trust in politics. It cannot be avoided and it will emerge on the doorsteps. I ask the Minister of State to address these problems and explain how he proposes to overcome them, especially the latter, which will be a fundamental problem in the referendum campaign.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I must rebut the constant allegations being made by Senator Regan in connection with the Mahon tribunal. That tribunal is currently underway and it will report in due course. I believe the Taoiseach's evidence will be vindicated. When Senator Regan makes those comments he should refer to his former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, who contradicted his evidence to the Mahon tribunal. One could not get a stronger admission of responsibility.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not relevant to this debate.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know it is not but the Leas-Chathaoirleach allowed Senator Regan to make allegations against our Taoiseach. I am rebutting those comments in the name of fairness and balance, separate from today's debate. When it is allowed on one side it is fair to allow it on the other side. I make no reflection on Mr. Bruton, who is an honourable man, as is our current Taoiseach. Whatever events take place in the Mahon tribunal are a matter for that tribunal.

I would like to return to the beginning of our membership of the European Union. The application was made by the late, great Mr. Seán Lemass, as Taoiseach in the early 1960s. Ireland was the first country outside the original six to apply for membership, and that is relevant. It indicates Fianna Fáil's forward-looking approach to the EU. The late Mr. Jack Lynch and former President Dr. Paddy Hillary were involved in the negotiations, and our membership was acceptable to the Irish people. I need not emphasise how important involvement in the EU has become for Ireland. The reform treaty is crucial to continuing and developing that involvement and Ireland is in the unique position of holding a referendum on the ratification of the treaty. The Attorney General will confirm that it is necessary for us to hold the referendum to ratify this important treaty.

It is vital that the public be fully informed of the implications of this long and complex document. Only then can we have an honest and informed debate on the question which will be put to the people in the forthcoming referendum. The Joint Committee on European Affairs, of which I am a member, has discussed a public awareness and information campaign and I hope to see a genuine debate in the media and the public arena. The Chairman will announce this in a press conference tomorrow to begin the campaign from the committee's point of view.

On institutional reform, the principal proposals of the treaty include a double majority voting system whereby a qualified majority will require 55% of the member states and 65% of the EU's population. Membership of the European Commission will be rotational and each member state will appoint a commissioner for ten out of every 15 years. This will reduce our influence on European policy formulation on occasions but is probably necessary for the efficient working of an ever expanding organisation. The rotations will be strictly equal between all states, large and small. I commend the tremendous contribution of Ireland's European Commission appointments to the increased successes of the European Union, most notable recently in the great respect in which Commissioner Charlie McCreevy is held throughout Europe.

The post of President of the European Council will be better defined and elected on a more permanent basis than the current six month rotation. This will give more stability and direction to the role and therefore to the European Council. We have been fortunate in the appointments of all governments to the Commission. This country has been well served by all the Commissioners, although they are also serving Europe.

There will be increased co-operation between states in justice and home affairs. Ireland has secured the right to elect whether to opt in to these proposals on a case by case basis. This decision by Ireland will be reviewed in three years' time and in the meanwhile we will seek to participate to the maximum possible extent in all co-operation in judicial and police criminal matters, co-operation which is likely to become increasingly necessary due to the borderless nature of modern day crime. We have secured the best possible arrangements for Ireland in this area by leaving the door open to necessary co-operation without compromising our legal system. I compliment Deputy Roche on his work on this.

The treaty will give a formal direct role to national parliaments for the first time in the history of European institutions. This will mean all EU legislative proposals will be forwarded to national parliaments for scrutiny and comment. This will formalise the already increasing role that these Houses play in discussing European matters. The Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, of which I am a member, is dealing with an enormous backlog of legislation which we are trying to clear as much as possible. It gives our Parliament a great opportunity to discuss European legislation and is a democratic approach to European affairs. It gets little coverage, nevertheless it is happening.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights will be given legal status under the reform treaty and it will formalise targets to combat climate change, something with which very few people will disagree. Ireland has been an enthusiastic member of Europe. We have benefited immensely from our involvement in the EU and are seen by new member states as a case study in the transformation of an economy. Irish people are well informed about Europe and I have no doubt they will choose wisely. I suspect people will embrace the new treaty, provided they are given full, cast-iron assurances that certain elements of our sovereignty will be untouched. The low rate of corporation tax of 12.5% was a key factor in our recent economic success and the ability to set our own tax rates in the future is sacrosanct and must remain so. One of the declared aims of the EU is to facilitate and encourage competition in all sectors and the forced harmonisation of tax rates and interference with Ireland's competitive rates would be surely anti-competitive. The Minister will play an important role, as he did in the second Nice treaty referendum, where he secured a majority vote. It is vital that this be part of his campaign and that our ability to set competitive tax rates be copper-fastened. People will consider this issue more than most when they vote in the referendum.

Our tradition of neutrality is also crucial. While I suspect the Irish Defence Forces would relish the opportunity to work with their European counterparts, as the Irish Army will soon be doing in Chad, it is vital that any such joint EU operations, which receive broad support, do not bypass the triple-lock mechanism by which the Irish Defence Forces require the approval of the UN, the Irish Government and the Dáil.

The Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern will sign this treaty tomorrow in Lisbon. I understand the Minister of State will accompany The Taoiseach to that historic event. Although a date for the referendum has not yet been set it is never too early to encourage public debate on the treaty. Because we will hold a referendum on the treaty, 4 million people in Ireland will decide the future of an institution with an overall population of 490 million people. That is a significant opportunity and responsibility. Every vote will count. All of us in this democracy are equally entitled to express our concerns and vote for what we feel is in the best interests of this State, ourselves, our families, our communities and Europe.

There must be a fully informed debate on all the proposals of the treaty. While I commend the work of the Government, particularly the senior statesman of Europe, The Taoiseach Deputy Bertie Ahern, in negotiating the treaty, and I intend to fully and strongly support the ratification of the treaty by the people of Ireland, I accept there may be legitimate reasons for opposing the reforms and this must be fully discussed. We are on the threshold of a major step forward for Europe and Ireland has a crucial role as a country to which new member states and aspiring member states look for economic inspiration and as the only country in which the citizens will have direct role in shaping the future of Europe. We have no shortage of experience in European referenda. A disappointing turnout in the first of the Nice treaty referenda was the likely reason for the treaty being rejected by a small margin, with 54% voting no. This decision was convincingly overturned by the people in the second referendum with a more representative turnout and a 63% yes vote. I therefore urge all voters to inform themselves of the proposals of this treaty, to consider the implications and to vote on the treaty when the referendum is held. It represents a step forward for Europe and for Ireland. Whether we vote yes or no, there will be no second opportunity and people must not be complacent. The treaty has been fully negotiated and 27 member states have agreed to it. Some 26 Parliaments will vote for it because they have already negotiated a treaty.

It is not possible to go back to the drawing board, review the decision and say "No". I urge everyone to vote "Yes" on the day of the referendum as it is in the best interests of the country. Given the Minister of State's experience, especially as regards his efforts during the second Nice Treaty and the manner in which he worked that campaign, his input is vital to the success of the referendum, in explaining the role of this treaty on the lives and future of the Irish people.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State and wish to concur with the words Senator Leyden has just used, about Deputy Roche's enthusiasm, which is great to hear. I experienced such enthusiasm first in 1958 when the Minister of State was perhaps only a baby. Going to Brussels and later France and spending winter in that part of the world was like going to Australia or New Zealand nowadays. It was an adventure. For the first time I experienced being a European. I had grown up in a family that was strongly nationalistic and republican and which had been involved in the War of Independence. Therefore, to sacrifice the independence of Ireland to become a European was not easy. What convinced me at the time was the European Economic Community.

I have heard sounds of concern in recent days as regards the reform treaty, however, to the effect that we are moving away from being a European Economic Community and more towards a European federal united states model. These are the concerns we must face. There is a certain concern among Irish people who are very strongly European but who are apprehensive as regards the empire building that is occurring. I shall take one instance. One of the issues that cropped up was the difference between economic and all the other factors with which we are involved within Europe, one of which is the European Social Fund. I have a lovely booklet here, which perhaps we all got yesterday. It is about the Potsdam Conference on the European Social Fund, the 50th anniversary of which took place this year. There are 16 photographs of the Commissioner in it. It is a very expensive book but it did not cost me anything. We are in danger of being complacent and of assuming that because people are pro-Europe, they will also agree to this treaty simply because the Minister of State has explained it.

In starting to consider the reform treaty we should return to first principles, and that is what I have done. To see those first principles we need to look at the 2001 Laeken Declaration that started off the whole process as regards drafting the constitutional treaty. I recall thinking at the time that the Laeken Declaration was like a breath of fresh air. I have always been a fan of Europe, but over the years I have become depressed by the extent to which the European institutions failed to engage successfully with the various peoples of the member states. As the years went on, the process seemed to get worse rather than better, and that is my concern at the moment. I was therefore delighted when the Laeken Declaration grasped this nettle by the roots. It states:

Within the Union, the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens. Citizens undoubtedly support the Union's broad aims, but they do not always see a connection between those goals and the Union's everyday action. They want the European institutions to be less unwieldy and rigid and, above all, more efficient and open. Many also feel that the Union should involve itself more with their particular concerns, instead of intervening, in every detail, in matters by their nature better left to Member States' and regions' elected representatives. This is even perceived by some as a threat to their identify. More importantly, however, they feel that deals are all too often cut out of their sight and they want better democratic scrutiny.

One of the things that excited those of us who wanted to see an Ireland that was still strong and independent was this subsidiarity. I have a concern, and it is being expressed publicly more and more, namely, that decisions are being made more frequently at the top, by Brussels, rather than closer to where the citizens are.

The Laeken Declaration also spelt out an exciting role for the European Union in the new globalised world that was beginning to emerge. It states:

The role it has to play is that of a power resolutely doing battle against all violence, all terror and all fanaticism, but which also does not turn a blind eye to the world's heart-rending injustices. In short, a power wanting to change the course of world affairs in such a way as to benefit not just the rich countries but also the poorest. A power seeking to set globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development.

That is heady stuff and it is, perhaps, somewhat strange to look back today and recognise it as the start of a long and tortuous process that has led us to where we are as regards the reform treaty. Can the Minister of State say whether it is to be known as the Lisbon Treaty or the Reform Treaty? I understood it was the Reform Treaty until last week, and perhaps he can confirm what it is.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is called the reform treaty. It could, however, have been called the Dublin treaty, rather than being called after any other city in Europe.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State. On the basis of returning to first principles, I pose the question, does the result we now have to consider in the form of the Lisbon Reform Treaty live up to the aspirations set out so clearly in the Laeken Declaration? Along that road, have the lawyers and the bureaucrats taken over the process so that instead of a new beginning we are being presented with more of the same? I do not wish to prejudge the issue but I want to urge the House to consider the question.

We can, and indeed should scrutinise the reform treaty from the viewpoint of Irish interests. The Minister of State had done that today, in taking us through his five points. We should ask ourselves carefully whether the benefits to Ireland exceed the undoubted costs of going along with the treaty. We owe the people of Ireland a duty to carry out that scrutiny, and to do it diligently. Surely we have another responsibility as well, one we embrace not just as Irish people, but as Europeans. We are in the process of building a supranational structure under which our children and grandchildren will have to live. In this reform treaty we are taking a decisive leap towards shaping the Europe of the future. It is incumbent on us to ask ourselves solemnly whether this is really the way we want to go and if the treaty lives up to the Laeken Declaration or does it undermine those fine principles and aspirations on which the reform project was launched?

If we have any doubts, now is the time to voice them, as the Minister of State said, while we still have an opportunity to affect the course the future Europe will take. If we stay silent over the next few months, we are agreeing in effect to one particular way forward for Europe and turning our back on any other. I believe the forthcoming referendum will pose some of the most important and fundamental questions ever put to the Irish people. In preparing for that referendum we must treat this issue with all the seriousness it deserves. The Irish people will not be bullied and there were some sounds of that from the Taoiseach last week. Neither will they be blackmailed into giving one particular answer or the other. They demand a reasoned response and my hope is that they will get. I urge the Minister of State to recognise that the many Irish people who are enthusiastic Europeans are concerned about the drift towards a federal states model, away from subsidiarity and towards losing some of the fervour they had for a united Europe, because we are getting involved in so many areas that are not just about the European Economic Community.

Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also welcome the Minister of State. I am proud that Deputy Roche will lead the campaign for this referendum. He is very knowledgeable and has had the experience of being involved in the intergovernmental convention. His worldview in this area is extensive and he has a great feel for the subject. I have no doubt that with the Minister of State leading the referendum, the outcome will be successful.

As many of the speakers have indicated, however, there are problems. I was interested to hear Senator Quinn speculating as to whether it should be called the reform treaty or the Lisbon Treaty. I had the same problem, and I am glad that it will now be known as the Reform Treaty.

The European Union needs this reform treaty so it can meet internal and external upcoming challenges. The EU must function efficiently and effectively to promote peace and prosperity. We must also ensure the EU can act in a manner commensurate with its economic weight and contribute to global issues such as the fight against poverty, climate change and underdevelopment. The reform treaty will provide the EU with the means to meet these challenges. It will bring to an end the debate on institutional reform which has dogged the EU for so long and allow it to focus on being efficiently and effectively at the service of its citizens.

Ireland is pleased with the mandate for the reform treaty which was agreed in June and has been signed in Lisbon. Our aim is to protect the substance of the 2004 constitution and we have succeeded in doing so. Only relatively modest changes have taken place. The structure has changed and we no longer have a single text but an extensive series of amendments to the existing EU treaties.

A new reform treaty provision will deal with the need to combat climate change. I am glad this was introduced at Ireland's behest. This is the first time this issue will be covered in an EU treaty. We are entering the final stages of the intergovernmental conference and member states have respected the mandate agreed by the European Council in June.

I am particularly pleased the institutional package with regard to voting rights was agreed. The new system of double majority voting will give proportionate weight to population while protecting the interests of small and medium sized member states. We have also succeeded in ensuring that all member states will have equal access to membership of the EU Commission. The enhanced role for the European Parliament will further strengthen the democratic character of EU legislation.

I would like further clarification on these points because while I might understand it I wonder whether the public will understand the significance of this change and how it will impact on smaller member states. This is an important issue but people do not debate it. People will be happy to debate other issues with which they are at ease but I do not believe people will understand this issue. How will we be able to remove the jargon and bring it down to what it will mean for smaller states? I understand it and it is a good move. However, during the referendum campaign we must explain this to the public in ordinary everyday language.

We are satisfied the legal standing of the charter of fundamental rights has been confirmed and a treaty article will assert its legal status. Ireland strongly supports the charter as an important statement of our values as a Union and of the rights of our citizens in their dealings with the EU. We examined the UK protocol on the charter but we should not adhere to it as we have a strong commitment to the charter.

The reform treaty provides for a strengthened "yellow card" for national Parliaments with regard to draft legislation. It extends the period during which national Parliaments can respond to a Commission proposal and puts a greater onus on the Commission to take on board the views of national Parliaments. This will strengthen the role of national Parliaments in the EU without distorting the agreed institutional balance.

I listened carefully to what Senator Quinn stated on the role of subsidiarity and proportionality. These are horrible words. I remember I found the jargon too much for me when discussing these matters at meetings of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs and this is another aspect of the matter.

The subsidiarity clause is excellent because it gives national Parliaments the space to decide what they want for their countries and how they will make their decisions. Only when it must be moved on to the European Parliament will it do so. Proportionality means the European Commission should not interfere with how we regulate our affairs. This must be driven home. A fear exists that Europe has taken over and that we are becoming subservient to the European Union. This worries me and it is a key issue.

Senator Quinn also referred to this matter which we discussed at length in a recent session of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs when the intergovernmental convention was on the agenda. The Minister of State was well aware of this and these clauses were inserted so Ireland will hold on to control of its own affairs. It is extremely important to include proportionality and subsidiarity as I would hate to think we are building a federation.

The referendum is the next stage and we must decide on it when the date has been set. We have long experience of ratifying European treaties by referendum and our track record is good. However, the first referendum on the Nice Treaty taught us a salutary lesson, namely, that we have no room for complacency. This treaty is highly complex and will take a great deal of explaining to the electorate. The public appreciates Europe's importance to Ireland and the role Ireland plays within the EU. This is reflected in the results of Eurobarometer surveys in which the Irish public is consistently among the most positive in Europe with regard to the advantages of EU membership.

We must play a role in this and get out and link in with the public. We have a fine record within the EU and we must deliver this treaty to the public and have another successful referendum.

Alex White (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House to kick off this debate on the Reform Treaty or Lisbon treaty. I saw Manuel Barroso interviewed on television last night and he called it the "Lisbon" treaty, perhaps for national reasons. We shall see what it ends up being called.

There is no question that our experience of EU membership has been of major benefit to the country. Perhaps this goes with out saying but it ought not to as it is an important bedrock for this debate. The EU has contributed enormously to the modernisation and industrialisation of our country, which was one of endemic emigration and unemployment and which has become one of high employment attracting large-scale migration from the new member states of eastern Europe.

The new treaty contains a strong social dimension which is the area I wish to emphasise. This social dimension contains a legally binding commitment to an extremely wide range of citizens' and workers' rights. In no small part, the treaty reflects the ethos of the Labour Party and the socialist movement throughout Europe. For this reason, the Labour Party will enthusiastically support the treaty and will campaign for a "Yes" vote.

Other Senators referred to major questions such as climate change and world poverty. These are great preoccupations of all political parties, including mine and they are also reflected in initiatives in the treaty.

I listened with interest and agreement to what Senator Ormonde stated with regard to institutional reform. It is undoubtedly true that institutional reform is necessary if for no other reason than so many new states are joining and to ensure the existing institutions work effectively they must be reformed. In the attempt to persuade people on issues of institutional reform we will run up against the obstacle that people do not get much of an opportunity during their daily lives to wrestle with questions of institutions, representation and democratic deficit. They may feel the effects of democratic deficit but not everybody has the luxury of time or opportunity to debate what this means.

I do not wish to stray into a partisan political debate, much as I am tempted to do so.However, question marks hang over the effectiveness and relative value of many of our institutions. If we have these doubts about domestic institutions, how much more difficult will it be for us to engage in a debate about institutions that are even more remote or to ask citizens to support and be enthusiastic about reforms of the European Parliament or other EU bodies? I do not make this point to diminish the importance of debating or discussing the issue but to emphasise the difficulty we face.

This brings me to an issue the Minister of State and other speakers touched on, namely, the type of debate we will have in the coming months. It is important to pause and consider what should be the content and tone of the debate. The Minister of State correctly noted that people will not be bullied or respond positively to being hectored. The treaty will not be passed by telling people they have no choice but to vote for it or that they should vote based on the benefits we have enjoyed as a result of membership of the European Union. Unfortunately, Commissioner McCreevy last week used words to the effect that people who do not vote in favour of the treaty will need their heads examined. While the Commissioner and others may believe this to be the case, the quality of debate suffers when one tells people they have no choice but to vote in a certain way. Moreover, our sophisticated electorate will respond negatively to this type of argument, as was the case in a previous referendum.

The Minister of State and his colleagues who are promoting the treaty should be aware that hectoring can sometimes be unintentional. One should not dismiss an argument by announcing that one has demolished it in a short few sentences. This is not meant as a personal criticism of the Minister of State. Rather than believing we have given all the correct answers, have made devastating points on the importance of Europe and no one else could possibly hold a candle to us in terms of the strength of our arguments, perhaps a little more humility is needed. Perhaps listening to and addressing genuine concerns in an intelligent manner would contribute much more to enabling others to recognise that a "Yes" vote is appropriate than would telling people which way to vote.

The Taoiseach stated last week that the same people will make the same old arguments in the treaty debate. Even if this proves to be the case, it is important that these arguments are addressed. If someone has made the same arguments during every treaty debate for the past 20 or 30 years, it does not mean it is any less legitimate or important to address them in a fair-minded manner. While the Taoiseach and others may be frustrated, they should respond to rather than dismiss argument.

Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on the impact of differences in the arguments being made in support of the treaty in different countries. French and British proponents of the treaty, for example, use different arguments in its favour, as I noted while attending the British Labour Party conference this autumn as a representative of the Labour Party. On the one hand, treaty supporters in France have argued that the agreement is essentially the same as the proposed European constitution, while on the other, the British Government argues that the treaty and proposed constitution are much different propositions and the latter has been dropped in favour of a pared-down treaty. Differences in the arguments employed in favour of the treaty in different countries will be reflected in the debate in this country because people are not stupid and see beyond their noses. They will not be taken for fools.

It is fine for different political organisations to have different reasons for supporting the treaty. My approach from the left may differ from the approach of other political parties. Let us acknowledge that despite our political differences, we can, for different reasons, advocate the same outcome.

The Minister of State made five key arguments in favour of supporting the treaty. The third of these was protection of human rights and inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. As I indicated, we all have different approaches to the treaty. I believe the protection of human rights is the foremost argument in favour of the treaty because, as the Minister of State correctly noted, the charter and the solemn guarantees it sets out are vital. The precise means by which these guarantees can be enforced in Irish law is the subject of some controversy and has not yet been resolved. Nevertheless, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a great and historic international statement of important principles.

In terms of the achievements of the European Union in social and employment protection legislation, an area in which I have a strong interest, the gains have been immense. The aspirations of the charter elevates this area to a higher plain and sets a major objective for the Community as a whole. The treaty is worth supporting for no other reason that the centrality given to the charter.

Déirdre de Búrca (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, to the House. I am grateful for an opportunity to comment on the reform or Lisbon treaty — I have not yet decided which title I will use. The signing of the treaty tomorrow will put an end to approximately two years of what was described as a period of reflection but which was, in truth, a period of great uncertainty or, as some described it, crisis in the European Union arising from the rejection by the French and Dutch electorates of the proposed constitutional treaty.

Ireland will be in a unique position of holding a popular referendum on the treaty which will be preceded by a national debate. Considerable European and international interest will be generated in the content and conduct of this debate. Senators referred to the importance of the tone with which it is conducted. It is incumbent on us to show to those who observe the debate that we can discuss the treaty and Europe in an honest, balanced and respectful manner. Having been involved in many European treaty and referendum campaigns, unfortunately they are characterised often by a negative, polarised, adversarial tone which is off-putting to the public at large. At a time when people seek information about the European project, from which many feel remote and the workings of whose institutions many do not understand, the last thing they want to hear is politicians attacking each other and conducting a debate in an emotional and adversarial manner rather than presenting facts and arguments persuasively and coherently. I hope for this reason the debate will be characterised by balance and honesty.

Unfortunately, two camps have emerged in many of the debates on previous European treaties. The first consists of those who are so enthusiastic about the treaty in question and so committed to having it ratified that they are unwilling to be critical even slightly of any aspect of it or to admit that any part of it may be less than wholly satisfactory. The second camp consists of treaty opponents who refuse to see anything good in it, produce negative propaganda and are often accused of scaremongering. I hope we will be able to conduct the debate in a balanced and honest way, recognising the strengths and weaknesses of the treaty and whether overall it is in Ireland's interest to support it. The Green Party is holding its internal debate at a special convention on 19 January where members will be allowed to debate the pros and cons of the treaty and vote on what position they wish the party to take in the referendum campaign.

There are two main elements to the treaty. Many of its provisions concern reform of the internal workings and the decision-making processes of the EU while others are concerned with strengthening the external identity and the capacity for external action of the EU. It is often difficult to get people exercised or interested in the internal reform process and reform of the institutions, but people would be aware that with the process of enlargement and many new countries joining, decision making becomes more complex and challenging.

In this reform treaty we have seen the shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting in quite a number of policy areas. That points to the fact that member states are more confident they can work with others and do not need to hold on to the veto or the unanimity requirement. The latter stance is often a reflection of the fact that member states have to protect their national interests and can only see themselves doing so by means of a veto. The shift to qualified majority voting suggests much greater confidence in the decision-making processes.

There is also a new system of qualified majority voting or, as it is referred to, a double majority system which means there will have to be a majority of states, 55%, representing 65% of the population to achieve this qualified majority status. It means that the new voting system under this treaty will be based more on population. It is a system that will favour larger countries over smaller countries. That smaller countries are prepared to sign up to it is an indication of the increasing confidence of smaller countries that they can operate and achieve the outcomes they seek within a system that is more population-based.

We see also in the treaty an extension of co-decision which is very important. Many have spoken about the weak role of the European Parliament with regard to the other two European institutions. It is good to see the powers of the European Parliament being strengthened and having a more equal role with the Council of Ministers in the overall law-making process. There will be a streamlining of the Commission in the future. It will mean that all member states will not have a commissioner for a period of five years out of every 15. That will be done on the basis of equality of rotation and Ireland will be no different from any larger or smaller member state. There is a cap on the number of parliamentarians in the European Parliament where a maximum and a minimum number has been set. That will be interesting, depending on the extent to which the EU enlarges in the future.

There is a welcome new role for national parliaments. One of the positive elements of the treaty is that it recognises the right of national parliaments to intervene and object to legislation or at least to make their concerns known about it if they consider it will breach the principle of subsidiarity.

The hope of many is that the EU will evolve into a multi-level system of governance where there is not a centralised power in Brussels and directives coming from there that render national, regional, and local government relatively redundant or ineffective and rather that there is an active role for each level of government in the overall governance and decision making in the EU.

The strengthening of the external identity of the EU obviously is very important. We all recognise the real need for global leadership and the EU is providing that leadership in the area of climate change, energy security, human rights, development aid and so on. There is the role of President of the European Council which will be renewable for a term of five years. We have a high representative for foreign policy and security. Also contained within the treaty is a provision for the Vice President of the Commission. There is a European external action service and also a legal personality conferred on the EU which will allow it to sign up to international treaties.

While there are many positive elements in the treaty, there are also issues that would be of extreme concern to the Green Party, which I will mention briefly. The strengthening of the military dimension of the EU is a matter of concern. The EU to date has used its soft power around the globe in a very effective way, using forms of economic and political co-operation as opposed to the traditional resort to hard military power. The Green Party certainly would not wish to see that change. The shift in terms of strengthening the military capacity of the EU raises specific concerns.

Another issue is the EURATOM Treaty which gives preferential treatment to and promotes nuclear energy within the EU. We are concerned that is attached by means a protocol to the treaty and has not been revised in any way. I hope the Minister of State will have something to say about that and the plans for the future of the EURATOM Treaty.

I hope the debate in this House, in which the Minister of State, Deputy Roche will play a central role, will be characterised by honesty, balance and respect for other points of view. If that happens we will end up educating the Irish public and gaining a positive outcome by the time the vote on the treaty takes place.

Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The electorate of the Twenty-six Counties will vote next year on the Lisbon or reform treaty. We may be the only EU citizens to do so. This places an enormous responsibility on our shoulders to ensure before we vote that we fully understand the content and implications of the treaty.

I have listened carefully to comments from Charlie McCreevy when he said that Ireland would be "the laughing stock of Europe" if we rejected the treaty. This is complete nonsense. The people of France and the Netherlands had no such inferiority complex and were able to conduct a mature debate. The people of Ireland should be able to do the same.

The need for Ireland to have its place at the EU table is obvious. However, we must use that place positively. Our international reputation is not so brittle that we must always act as yes men to preserve it, even when the best course of action is to say "No".

I wish to address two key issues of concern: democracy and neutrality. The Lisbon treaty contains the most substantial transfer of powers from member states to the European Council and Commission to date and it does not propose to return a single power to parliaments in member states. This involves 105 new competencies to be given to the EU in the Lisbon treaty and a further 68 areas which will move from consensus decision making at the European Council to majority voting. Among the areas where the EU will have control are immigration, Structural Funds, judicial and police co-operation, economic policy guidelines for eurozone members and initiatives of the new Foreign Minister.

Sinn Féin is deeply concerned at the scale and range of this proposed transfer of powers. To make some comparison, there was a loss of veto in 46 areas in the Treaty of Nice, 24 areas in the Treaty of Amsterdam, 30 areas in the Treaty of Maastricht and the 12 areas in the Single European Act. Even the Treaty of Rome, the EU's foundation treaty, contained only 38 areas.

Possibly more significant and troubling than the large-scale transfer of powers is the inclusion of eight passerelle clauses in the Lisbon treaty. Passerelle is French for "footbridge" or "escalator". These passerelle or escalator clauses would give the Commission significant scope to acquire more powers in the future while bypassing the need for consent in member states. Next year could be our last opportunity to have a direct vote on the direction of the EU.

While parliaments in member states are to be given some new powers, they are very limited and are insignificant in comparison with the powers transferred to the EU. The role of the only elected EU forum — the Parliament — continues to be limited. The Parliament will not have the power to initiate legislation or to amend it.

The Lisbon treaty will have huge consequences for this country. Let us look at what is happening already. For example, when Sinn Féin and the whole of the farming industry demanded that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, ban Brazilian beef as it does not comply with EU standards, she said the banning of Brazilian beef is a matter for the European Commission. There was a similar response from the Taoiseach when it come to protecting jobs in Irish Ferries. This should alert us to the dangers and consequences when we hand over decision-making powers to the EU.

With regard to neutrality, the militarisation of foreign and defence policies in the past decade is there for all to see at EU level through the development of the Rapid Reaction Force, EU battle groups and common security policies, and in Ireland through the use of Shannon airport by US troops on their way to wage war in Iraq. I find it very telling that the Government did not even try to secure a specific article in the Lisbon Treaty explicitly recognising the rights and duties of neutral states within the Union. Its lip service to neutrality over the years has undermined our reputation abroad in regard to an independent foreign policy and peacekeeping. The EU's military ambitions are set out clearly in the Lisbon Treaty and include a common foreign and security policy and improved military capabilities. This is something to which the majority of people in this country are opposed.

The Lisbon Treaty is not in Ireland's interests. It involves a massive transfer of power to the EU. It significantly accelerates the militarisation of the EU and advances an economic agenda based on a race to the bottom for wages and workers' rights. I call on everyone in this Chamber who shares these concerns to oppose this treaty.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Members for their contributions. It was asked whether we need a referendum. The legal advice is that we do need it, and there is an expectation in this regard.

To put it mildly, I was disappointed by Senator Regan's decision to accuse the Taoiseach of perjury within the four walls of this House. As I have said on many occasions, including when I was responsible for the tribunal, it should be allowed in peace and calm to continue its work to a conclusion. For a Member of the House to attempt to influence the work of the tribunal in a politically partisan and prejudicial way is unworthy. I am disappointed to say this to Senator Regan, for whom I have great personal respect and regard. As Senator Leyden said, one could hurl accusations at those who gave different contributions to the tribunal. My long-held view is that it is better to let the tribunals do their work without assistance from anyone in the Houses.

Senator Quinn, in a thought-provoking contribution, outlined his concerns about creeping federalism. It is a fact that a contribution I made at the Convention on the Future of Europe meant any reference to the F-word was withdrawn from the convention, which only happened because people did not want the word "federal" to appear. This was not to disguise the reality that it is a fundamental mistake to try to characterise the European Union in the old political way as a federal unitary state because such a characterisation does not apply. The EU is unique in that it is a space in which member states have decided voluntarily to pool certain amounts of sovereignty in order to achieve something greater.

I acknowledge Senator Quinn's point that this is an issue that will creep into the debate. We must simply point out the truth. Nobody forced us in and nobody forces us to stay in. We choose to be in the EU because we believe this is a better way to deal with the issues.

It is unfortunate Senator Quinn is no longer present. I intended to point out to him that while I picked out five areas of the treaty, I could have added a sixth, namely, the reference to conferral and subsidiarity. Subsidiarity, on which Senator de Búrca touched, has always been a reality in the Union but it gets specific legal recognition in this treaty. What is even more important is the reference to conferral. The conferral clause makes it clear there are no powers other than those powers conferred willingly by member states. This deals specifically with Senator Doherty's final points on the transfer of powers to Brussels. When powers are transferred to Brussels, those powers are not transferred to anything other than to a group of Ministers in Council to make decisions.

Senator Quinn correctly made the point that one of the most important issues in the Laaken Declaration was that of communication between Europe and the citizens of the Union. This issue was very much to the fore during our Presidency, when we launched the Communicating Europe campaign. It is still a reality within the Union but I accept it is an area that needs much greater strength and focus than it has to date received.

Senator Leyden referred to concerns on CCCTB, the consolidated tax base issue. There is no change whatsoever on the issue of tax in this treaty. Tax will still be a matter for unanimity so a veto will exist. There have been discussions on CCCTB but nobody foresees these proposals moving forward. The view increasingly held is that the only enthusiasm that remains is in Commissioner Kovács's quarters. There is increasing awareness among member states that this is not the way forward and Commission President Barroso has made useful points in this regard.

Senator Alex White and other Senators referred to the nature of the debate. I agree the debate should be respectful, although it should not be neutered. While some have been saying since 1972 that if we vote "Yes" in this or that treaty, we will find ourselves in NATO or lose or neutrality, this is patently untrue. It is important, therefore, that we would cut through such untruths and highlight them. During the last referendum campaign on the Nice Treaty, disgraceful posters were put up in this city and in towns throughout the country stating that if people voted "Yes" for the treaty, they would find themselves in NATO. It was untrue then and has always been untrue. Our position, as a nation that takes a particular view, will not be changed.

Senator Alex White made an interesting point on differentiated arguments, which, I agree, will confuse the debate. It needs to be explained that different member states are moving at a different pace. For example, when the British Government states that this treaty is fundamentally different to the constitutional treaty, that is not untrue because, of course, Britain is opting out of justice and home affairs, which is a huge area, and is taking its own view on the charter, which surprises me.

I believe the charter is the most uplifting part of this treaty. It is the aspect on which we should tell the Irish people to concentrate. Is there any democrat on this island who would disagree with its principles? They are uplifting, as is the language of the charter. I would have preferred if the charter was central within the treaty——

Alex White (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope the Supreme Court agrees in due course.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will outline its view in due course — I will have a view on that also.

Senator de Búrca and other Senators referred to the treaty's title and whether it was to be the Lisbon Treaty or the Reform Treaty. I remind the House that a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. The reality is we should judge this treaty by its content, which is good, positive, progressive and allows Europe to do good things, not just internally but externally.

I will not go down the same path as Senator Doherty, who has left the House, but it does a disservice to us all to characterise, for example, Europe's involvement in Chad, Aceh or the Balkans, where we witnessed the recent horrors, as militarisation. They are civilised, positive, humanitarian interventions in support of democracy in fledgling democracies. I do not understand how any political party can object to this, although I accept the Senator takes a different view on democracy and militarisation than myself. I have always had a horror of the gun and believe it has no place in politics. I welcome that Senator Doherty is engaged in the debate.

Senators Ormonde, de Búrca, Alex White and Doherty, among others, noted that the Irish people will be in a unique position — I believe it is a wonderful position to be in. All of us will have the opportunity as citizens to inform ourselves to the best extent possible and to then make an informed judgment on this treaty.

I disagree with the suggestion that a huge spread of competencies is supposed to be growing. That is a British red-top description of the treaty, which is a rather self-serving and negative approach. If the European Union decides to promote tourism, how in the name of God is that a bad thing? For the life of me, I cannot see how it is a bad thing. If we are going to support European culture, for example, is that a bad thing? It is not. If the European Union decides to take much more concerted action on climate change, is that a bad thing? How could anybody disagree with that? The reality is that we cannot solve climate change alone because Europe accounts for about 16% of global emissions, but the EU can be a positive concerted force in this regard. Sharing competencies therefore aims to increase our capacity to act, for example, on issues including the environment, global terrorism and human trafficking. How can any Member of the House suggest that deciding to take concerted action on such matters is a bad thing?

I thank Members for their contributions. I look forward to the debate and agree with Members that it must be respectful, focused and, above all else, truthful. Otherwise, it would be a disservice to the Irish people and to democracy. In the past, the Irish people have shown — and they certainly showed it in the second Nice Treaty referendum — that when we carried on the discussion in a way that respected different views and concerns, and were truthful and focused on the facts, they could make their judgment. My judgment is that if we put all our efforts into it and leave aside political partisanship, we will be doing a considerable service not just for Europe but also for this nation. I thank Senators for this opportunity to address the House.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Leader ordered earlier that supplementary questions for the Minister of State could be taken at the end of these statements.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When are we likely to have the referendum? I know it is dependent on another referendum so will we have two on the same day? What is the current thinking in that regard?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will be as frank as possible with the Senator. First, a decision has not been made on the date. If it had been, I am not sure that I would be saying so at this point. Second, a judgment will have to be made as to whether we will have one referendum or two referenda on the same day. I would like to focus on an issue, such as this referendum, which I think is important but the Government has promised a referendum on children. As the Taoiseach said yesterday in the Dáil, the Government is anxious to fulfil that undertaking. The date will be in summertime and I hope it will be in the early part of the summer because we do not want to clash with the leaving certificate examinations or the holidays. None of us wants to be out knocking on doors in the dark days of autumn or winter. The treaty must be ratified by Ireland in 2008. My instinct and wish is that it would be sooner rather than later, and that it will be in the early part of the summer. I cannot be more forthcoming than that, however.

John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is there a possibility of European Commission President Barroso confirming the situation regarding tax? It is purely to eliminate the possibility of a red herring being consistently raised by the Opposition, so that once and for all we can get a definitive answer.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, nothing in this treaty changes the current position about unanimity on tax. I welcome the opportunity to clarify that point again. Second, I have been discussing the question of CCCTB actively with other member states, but I see little enthusiasm for it. President Barroso made a forthright statement recently when he was dealing mainly with tax rates. He pointed out the huge advantage of competition in tax rates. There is no advantage to the idea that one can have some sort of more bureaucratic arrangement.

There is an increasing awareness within the European Union that the Italian propositions, which are being worked on, present serious difficulties. I have discussed this matter with a significant number of my EU counterparts. If there was ever any enthusiasm for it, it is now on the wane. There is significant opposition, so I believe it is dead in the water. The Senator is right in saying that it would be helpful to have confirmation of the situation. It would be helpful if the European Commission, which reports back to the commissioners and the Berlaymont, decided that this dead duck is left where it is. The most significant and important point, however, is that there nothing in this treaty that changes the unanimity rule on tax.