Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Apr 2008

Vol. 651 No. 4

Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008: Second Stage (Resumed).

Atairgeadh an cheist: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Ireland has benefited greatly from the expansion of the European Union to 27 states and immigration from the likes of Poland has helped sustain economic growth here and the Celtic tiger economy. There are now more small states in the EU and it is better that Ireland, a small country, is not surrounded only by large, dominant countries.

I wish to share time with Deputy Jimmy Deenihan.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ireland must not be seen as selfish in Europe and it is important that we pass this treaty. If we fail to do so we will not be seen in a positive light by our European neighbours because we have received many benefits from the EU, including the Common Agricultural Policy and Structural Funds.

Supporters of the "no" campaign have tried to scare people into voting against the treaty by using the same stories they have used in the past. I hope there is a strong "yes" vote for the forthcoming EU reform treaty.

Ireland has a proud record in Europe and Europe has been good to us. We have received over €70 billion in aid over the years and this has benefited agriculture, roads, education, transport and almost every aspect of Irish life. We have paid approximately €19 billion to the EU so we have been net beneficiaries, something that is evident throughout the country.

My party, Fine Gael, has been active in Europe and, as a member of the biggest voting bloc, the European People's Party, has a proud record there. Our slogan in a number of European elections was "proud to be Irish in Europe", which we are, and we have provided some great advocates for Europe. Dr. Garret FitzGerald was the Minister for Foreign Affairs who led us into Europe and he was widely respected. The fact that he could speak French elevated Ireland to a new level because there was an impression that Ireland was a backward country. The leadership of Dr. FitzGerald in the Department of Foreign Affairs changed such attitudes to Ireland. He made a significant contribution, as did subsequent leaders, such as Mr. Alan Dukes and Mr. John Bruton, who is now the first EU ambassador to the United States. Mr. Bruton's appointment to that position was a great honour for him and the Fine Gael Party. Deputy Enda Kenny is vice-president of the European People's Party.

When ratified, the Lisbon treaty will be the sixth formal amendment to the founding treaties of the European Union in their 50 years of existence. It is worth recalling that the Irish Constitution has been successfully amended 23 times in its 71 years of existence. The amendments to the European treaties, including the Single European Act, the Amsterdam treaty, the Maastricht treaty and the Nice treaty, were all designed to make Europe an entity better equipped to meet the challenges of a changing world.

The number of member states of the EU has been successfully enlarged over the years from six to nine, 12, 15, 25 and 27, the current total. In the process, the EU has helped countries like Ireland and Denmark to catch up economically with their neighbours and has helped ensure the re-establishment of sustainable democracies in countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal; not long ago there was turmoil in those countries. The EU has brought countries such as Austria, Finland and Sweden fully into the European political family and has contributed hugely to the re-establishment of liberal parliamentary democracy and market economies in the ten newly independent states of central and eastern Europe. The EU is the largest aid donor in the world and leads the way in terms of action on climate change. It has established its own currency, now one of the strongest in the world, which is used by 13 of its member states.

The Lisbon treaty is the outcome of an extensive and open process that has gone on since December 2001. The process included a convention on the future of Europe that included not only national governments from member states but also representatives from national parliaments. There was real participation in this process by the European Parliament and the social partners. The convention was held in public and was accessible to the media and the public and it produced the proposals for the constitutional treaty.

The treaty we are now debating has, therefore, been thoroughly analysed over a lengthy period, not only by governments and members of national parliaments but also by a wide variety of other interests. In the process, almost every question that could be raised about its provisions has been raised and dealt with. Many accommodations and compromises have been reached, many of which have worked out well. What has emerged is an agreement unanimously accepted by the governments of the 27 member states. Countries are concerned about their sovereignty but we are all aware that there are many areas in which common and concerted action at EU level can offer more advantages to citizens than action at national level.

I will refer to the matter of obesity in passing because this is a major issue in sport and for the EU. This treaty will provide new direction on this epidemic that is sweeping through Europe and the world. All these considerations were carefully weighed up in the process of designing the current treaty text.

It is claimed that provisions in the treaty will prejudice our ability to retain our favourable corporate tax system and to promote Ireland as a destination for foreign direct investment. Answers to questions I have raised and the information that has been distributed to us show that none of these claims is true.

As spokesperson on defence for Fine Gael, I would like to discuss the treaty from that point of view. Speakers on all sides of the House have discussed such issues already. Claims that the Lisbon reform treaty threatens or undermines our neutrality are obviously inaccurate and misleading. None of these claims stands up to scrutiny. Some of the people opposing the treaty are credible and are concerned about our sovereignty but some claim we can be forced to take part in missions of which we do not approve. This is simply not accurate. We have a veto and we will still have a veto under the Lisbon treaty.

I confirm that the treaty explicitly includes a sentence that enables Ireland and other neutral states to avoid abandoning neutrality. The treaty states that nothing in the defence section shall "prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states". This means nothing in this treaty shall require any member state to breach their own neutrality. The amendment we are adding to the Constitution repeats, as in previous amendments, the existence of the triple lock. Involvement in any military role, therefore, must have the approval of the Government, approval from the Dáil, and the authorisation of the United Nations. That is a high bar strict standard that must be followed. We have and will continue to have a veto. We can and will, at any stage, say no to anything we do not want to go ahead.

Given that Europe has been good to us to date and that this treaty will strengthen our position within Europe that will make it more accessible to our citizens and will provide a charter of fundamental rights to our citizens which I am sure everybody wants. More people are looking to Europe for justice. This treaty enshrines that in law. For that reason I am very comfortable with the treaty and I hope it will be passed overwhelmingly by the people in June.

Tá lúcháir orm a bheith anseo agus a bheith páirteach sa díospóireacht tábhachtach seo. The Lisbon treaty or the reform treaty as it is known, is the latest revision of the EU treaties. The stated purpose of it is "to enhance the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union" — a Union that originated in 1950, long before I was born, when the then French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, announced in Paris on 9 May, the "Schuman Plan", the first step towards European Union. This date has become known as Europe Day.

Robert Schuman was a visionary. His idea was to end old hostilities that had led to wars and conflict among the nations of Europe. He had instead a vision that would create more prosperity through co-operation and collaboration among all Europeans. As proposed in the Schuman plan, the six founding members of the European Union signed a treaty on 18 April 1951 creating the European Coal and Steel Community. In 1957 these countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, West Germany and Italy signed the Treaty of Rome thereby creating the European Economic Community or the EEC. This was the beginning of the Common Market as we know it and its aim was free trade between its members. People, goods and money could now move freely between member states.

In so far as agriculture is concerned, the Treaty of Rome encapsulated the notion of the Common Agricultural Policy. The objectives of the CAP were to increase agricultural productivity, to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, to stabilise markets, to assure the availability of supplies and to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. It is worth noting that some 50 years on these principles remain every bit as relevant as when they were first introduced.

In 1962 the EEC took the first concrete steps to develop the Common Agricultural Policy with the establishment of the Common Organisation of the Market in Cereals. There followed the development of the Common Market organisations for beef and for milk and milk products. By 1968 customs duties between member states were gone paving the way for what was to become the Single Market. In 1972 the exchange rate mechanism, ERM, was introduced to guard against problems caused by sharp shifts in the value of the currencies of member states.

On 1 January 1973 Ireland, along with the United Kingdom and Denmark, became a member of the EEC, later to become the EU. Prior to that date Ireland was an island on the fringes of Europe, almost completely dependent on its nearest neighbours, the United Kingdom, for its export trade, with little or no access to other European countries. Since then the EU has grown to 27 member states and some 495 million citizens. Ireland has grown as well. Up until December 2006 the value of Ireland's exports to the EU amounted to €56.6 billion while imports are valued at just in excess of €36 billion.

The benefits of EU membership to every aspect of Irish life are immense and agriculture has been among the principal beneficiaries. As a nation that must export in order to prosper, the EU membership has provided Ireland with a huge barrier-free internal market for our products and support for exports to world markets. Today we have free access to half a billion consumers across Europe providing huge potential to every Irish farmer.

Irish farming has come along way since we joined the Common Market in 1973. The Common Agricultural Policy of the EU has played a key role in the development of farming and the food industry in this country since then. Although the number of farmers and those involved in full-time farming has declined, its contribution to the national economy is still hugely significant. Farm size has increased significantly, from 22 hectares to 32 hectares. EU membership has increased farmers' incomes and transformed living standards to the benefit of farming, the food industry and above all, the rural community. Among farm households, total income from farm and off-farm sources averages almost 90% of the State household average. Irish agri-food and drinks exports have reached record levels in recent years — €8.62 billion in 2007 — and nearly three quarters of these go to other EU countries.

Society at large has also benefited in the form of a better environment, higher levels of food safety, additional employment in food processing and a positive contribution to our balance of payments.

From 1973 to 2006, Ireland received a total of over €41 billion from the EU. Some €38.7 billion came from the guarantee element of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, EAGGF, funding direct payments, market supports such as export refunds, intervention and aid for private storage, APS, as well as the accompanying measures including REPS, early retirement scheme, fish withdrawal schemes and forestry.

Receipts from the guidance element of the fund amounted to €2.7 billion in the same period funding Leader programmes, an EU initiative for assisting rural communities in improving the quality of life and economic prosperity of their local area, farm waste management schemes, installation aid schemes, the dairy hygiene scheme and forestry NDP schemes on native woodlands etc. On the fisheries side funding was provided for decommissioning of fishing vessels and investment in aquaculture projects.

On-farm investment has increased product diversity and productivity and has facilitated environmentally friendly practices and hygiene measures. Investment in the food industry has generated a quantum leap in the production of value-added products, which we can see on the supermarket shelves in Ireland and throughout the EU and which forms a rapidly growing component of Irish exports.

Enormous benefits have flowed from Leader and the other rural and local development programmes which have given rural communities some measure of control over their own futures.

The rural environmental protection scheme, REPS, early retirement and forestry measures have made a substantial contribution to the agricultural, environmental and socioeconomic development of rural communities.

Looking to the future, in the period from 2007 to 2013, Ireland can expect to receive approximately €12 billion from the CAP, with €2.3 billion coming from the European agricultural fund for rural development, EAFRD, to fund REPS, ERS, farm investment programmes, installation aid schemes and Leader programmes. An estimated €10 billion will come from the European agricultural guarantee fund and will be used to fund the single payment scheme and market support measures, export refunds, intervention etc.

This is the background against which we need to look at the Lisbon treaty. This treaty provides for Ireland's voice to continue to be heard in the EU in an effective and efficient manner. A positive vote in the referendum on the treaty will send a clear signal that Ireland is determined to maintain its place at the centre of EU decision making. I have been asked on a number of occasions to state what practical differences will arise for agriculture with the adoption of the reform treaty. In practical terms, the reform treaty will not alter the arrangements that currently apply in the agriculture and fisheries sectors to any great extent. The reform treaty introduces the principle of qualified majority voting to certain new areas but the principle has been enshrined in the agriculture and fisheries sectors for some considerable time. While there will be some alterations to the thresholds for reaching a qualified majority under the new arrangements, these alterations will not have significant implications for decision-making. The reality is that most decisions on agriculture and fisheries are arrived at by consensus. It is highly unusual for matters to come to a vote on agriculture and fisheries issues and when they do, close voting margins are unusual.

However, the treaty will provide a greater degree of democracy in the decision-making process. Provision is made for the wider use of co-decision procedures in the agriculture sector. This means that the European Parliament will act as co-legislator with the Council on a wide variety of dossiers, rather than the consultative role it has at present. Essentially, the European Parliament will have a greater say in future EU legislation on agriculture and fisheries with the exception of a small number of dossiers related to fixing of prices and quotas.

The Oireachtas also will have an enhanced role under the Lisbon treaty with the national parliaments of the other member states. The treaty dramatically extends the role of national parliaments in regard to decision-making and these changes apply equally to the agriculture and fisheries sectors. National parliaments will have a longer period of time to scrutinise proposals. They will also have the power to object to a draft proposal on the grounds that it breaches the principle of subsidiarity.

As to commercial policy, the current decision-making arrangements in regard to international agreements are contained in Article 133 and Article 300 of the consolidated treaty. These articles will be replaced by articles 207 and 218 respectively of the Lisbon treaty.

There is a suggestion from certain quarters that the Lisbon treaty will diminish Ireland's influence on the negotiation and conclusion of international trade agreements, such as a new WTO agreement. This is simply not true and to those who would make such observations I suggest that if they have another look at the relevant articles they will find that, in substance, they are no different from the current position albeit the wording is clearer than it used to be.

To summarise, the purpose of the reform treaty is to make the institutions of the EU more workable in a Union of 27 member states. Given the crucial importance of agriculture to the Irish economy and the critical and central role played by the Common Agricultural Policy in contributing to the success of the sector, it is important that we continue to have the effective institutional reform that will allow us to take the CAP and other EU policies forward. The impact of the reforms will not be hugely significant in terns of what has been in place for many years in the agriculture and fisheries sectors. The reforms will, however, contribute to the better functioning overall of the European Union and that is something to which we all aspire.

It makes sense to alter the make-up of institutions that were designed over 50 years ago for a Community of six member states to cater for the expanded needs and organisational arrangements of the current 27 member states. As we approach Europe day, let us look back at the Schuman ideal of more prosperity through co-operation and ask ourselves has this been achieved. The answer must be a resounding yes. I urge anybody promoting a "no" vote on this reform treaty to take a look back at where we have come from, take a look at what being a member of one of the most successful unions in the world has meant for Ireland, take a look forward at the opportunities that lie ahead and then tell me what is best for this country. There can be only one answer — vote "yes" for the reform treaty, vote "yes" for the EU and vote "yes" for Ireland.

I welcome this debate, which is unusual in the degree of unanimity on both sides of the House in respect of supporting the Lisbon treaty and urging the public to vote "yes". That does not necessarily mean we will have a successful outcome. We are all mindful that in the case of the referendum on the Nice treaty, those who supported it did not cast their votes the first time and it required a second referendum for it to be successful. It is a debate that has importance.

I have been involved in a number of referendums, some of which have been extremely contentious, and I welcome the peace that has been achieved, although we must debate the issues in an open fashion and deal with questions and concerns.

This seems a simple matter at heart, even though it is a long, complicated treaty. It is essentially about ensuring we have a framework for 27 countries. At present we are operating under rules that apply to 15 country membership. With the considerable growth in the EU we must ensure it can operate as efficiently as possible. We are conscious that an element of bureaucracy surrounds the EU. To an extent this is inevitable but it must be streamlined. More importantly, the EU must be democratised further than has been the practice in the past.

One of my concerns is about meetings of the Council of Ministers, which have always been held in private. The fact that co-decision is provided for between the Parliament and the Council is an important step forward. The greater openness in respect of coverage of meetings is a step forward although there are always means to circumvent this when difficult decisions must be made. Human ingenuity will ensure this pertains into the future.

It is important to recognise that the Commission must be streamlined. According to the terms of the treaty, Ireland is doing rather well. Although opponents of it state that we are losing out, in the overall balance of the larger pool we have done well. I cannot imagine anyone having difficulties with the new office of the president, whatever about who will fill that position. The voting procedures seem practical for efficiency, ensuring that the very large transnational organisation that is the EU will function coherently.

It is unfortunate that there is misrepresentation in respect of tax and defence. Madame Lagarde's rather arrogant intervention in the past few days does not help. I am surprised at this intervention by a senior Minister in the French Government at a time when discretion is the better part of valour. I am glad the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Joe Costello made clear rebuttals of such proposals on tax harmonisation.

There is an important element in respect of the input of national parliaments. This is a new departure for European structures and the way policy is framed within the EU. It may be a small step but it is one that recognises the attachment to the importance of national parliaments across Europe.

Important principles, some of which are repeated and some of which are new, underpin the Lisbon treaty and must be echoed and affirmed in the House. One concerns the Charter of Fundamental Rights. These are principles on the rights of people across Europe, whatever their circumstances or class, and they are important to establish the underpinning of social democratic values across Europe. There will be social proofing in terms of social partnership and this has done much in this and other countries in ensuring prosperity and fairness, limited as it may be.

The humanitarian values expressed in the Lisbon treaty are important. On global poverty, it seems that we are in danger of excluding more people as we become richer, as the rich part of the world can assist those areas that are suffering deprivation and severe poverty. Under Article 188D, the treaty states: "Union development co-operation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty". While this is a simple statement and people can claim it is only an aspiration, its inclusion in the treaty is important, as are statements regarding the third countries that are victims of natural and man-made disasters and the establishment of a European voluntary humanitarian aid corps. These practical measures must be underpinned in the treaty and outlined to the public when discussing the treaty because of the danger of discussing the mechanics rather than the fundamental philosophies.

The other great set of values included in the treaty relates to the environment. The EU's record has been positive and significant in terms of environmental change and measures to protect the environment. For the first time, however, the considerable challenge everyone faces in tackling climate change has been included in a European treaty, which I welcome warmly. While the EU has set us great challenges in terms of our role in tackling climate change, we have not lived up to them until now. The challenges have not gone away just because the Government disregarded the issue's importance in the past decade. The problems are getting more acute and the responsibilities are deepening. The EU has set us a stringent target of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, representing a fall in CO2 production from 77 million tonnes to 55 million tonnes. This is a significant change, but it is in the interests of the world and we must play our part. The all-party consensus referred to by the Tánaiste is not the issue, as it is not a question of parties falling out concerning climate change. Rather, it is a question of whether the Government has the bottle to introduce measures that will make a difference.

Regarding the forthcoming referendum, the Ceann Comhairle led a delegation to Germany some months ago where I attended a range of interesting meetings with German parliamentarians. How conscious they were of the importance of the referendum was striking. As we are the only country that will have one, the future of Europe hangs on the decision of the Irish people effectively. The importance of this was brought home to us, but I am not sure as to how far the referendum's importance has sunk into the public consciousness. The impression I have of the public mood concerning the Lisbon treaty is of bewilderment and boredom. We must address this by ensuring the issues are clearly and coherently explained in a way that is true to people's genuine commitment to Europe. There is a genuine understanding that Europe is increasingly affecting our lives, an effect that will be even greater as the world shrinks and economic power shifts eastwards.

Co-operation at European level will become more important to us. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated that we are no longer a small island on Europe's periphery. While we are that small island, we are on the periphery of a united and integrated EU that has an effect on our lives. For example, the cost of mobile telephone roaming charges was determined by the European Commission last year and a decision has been made regarding the use of mobile telephones on aeroplanes. The latter, a simple and small matter, is an example of the practical ways the EU affects us. The EU's position on child abduction is another example of how strong a united, large and diverse Europe's policies on managing and tackling issues can be. This fact is brought home when we see that we can do something significant, not just in Ireland, but across the Continent, to ensure children are protected. This is one of our great achievements through EU membership.

We can deal locally with issues such as crime, the environment and immigration, but our efforts are amplified when Europe works as one. The Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland's premier research body, published its annual report in which it itemised the key issues it will investigate and analyse. Almost all of them have a strong European dimension, be it in terms of immigration, the environment or social cohesion. In light of this, it is important to have a debate. In a sense, it is good that some opposing opinions are being expressed. We could get cosy if there were no parties and individuals probing and testing our comments. I welcome the debate. Yesterday, I listened to Deputy Morgan to discern the opposing argument. While one could claim that Sinn Féin or Libertas are opportunistically jumping on the band wagon to get publicity, are genuine concerns to which we must listen being expressed? In a sense, the answer is "Yes". The idea that one can send the treaty back to get a better deal is attractive, but it must be recognised that a constitution produced by a long democratic process was found wanting, subsequently rejigged — some would say watered down — and agreed. Yesterday, Deputy Morgan raised issues such as workers' rights, the Laval judgment and the exploitation of migrant workers. While these matters deserve attention, we must sometimes be honest, that is, the EU has generally been positive in terms of the protection of workers' rights. Sometimes, national governments have fallen down in this regard, particularly in respect of agency workers.

The opinion that we can have a perfect treaty that will do everything is erroneous and a misrepresentation of the EU's nature. The Union is a work in progress and no treaty will provide every answer. We must assess and measure whether the treaty is progressive or backward. I objected to the Maastricht treaty because of its right wing bias. Does the Lisbon treaty progress the social agenda? The answer is clearly "Yes". While the progress is limited, the issue is being advanced. Is the environmental agenda being progressed? Again, the answer is "Yes". It is surprising that the issue of climate change has taken until now to be included in a European treaty because the EU's record on tackling climate change is, comparatively speaking, good. Certainly, it is fantastic when compared with the USA's record. The point is that the values underpinning this treaty are those we support as a people and we should act positively by supporting a treaty that promotes such values. Without values, politics are worth nothing.

The European Union often seems to be a distant body which does things that create difficulties, such as straightening bananas and so on, that are at a great remove from people's lives. However, one should look back and consider the longer term. The European Union has been an enormously benign influence in respect of inequality and at times has been a persuader in ensuring that we dealt with such issues. As someone who has been involved in the women's movement for far too long, I recall times when we depended completely on the European Union to protect and promote our rights. When we were obliged to fight tooth and nail against reactionary Government policies that excluded, denied and neglected women, we were able to reach beyond the national Government and obtain support from the European Union in a manner that was transformative for our lives and for women of my generation. This was not limited to women as it also applied to workers' rights and to Northern Ireland.

Today, Members are celebrating the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Belfast agreement on Good Friday. The European Union played its part by providing support, funding and space for the peace process to thrive and to come to a conclusion. At times, such EU support was highly important because there were many dark days and difficult times for many Governments that were trying to deal with what appeared to be an intractable problem, but which came good in the end.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, mentioned the urban-rural divide. As I represent County Wicklow, I also recognise that. My county enjoys the benefits of the Leader programme and it has been recognised that one cannot leave people behind in the course of our development and that helpful supports can be brought in on foot of the provisions within the European Union.

As for the environment and tackling climate change, the greatest challenge imaginable has been presented to us. The Government has set a target in the programme for Government of a 3% reduction in CO2 emissions every year. However, when one queries this target, even Green Party Ministers suggest that rather than meaning 3% every year, it means annual reductions of 3% overall. I do not sense the Government is conscious of what must be done. I refer to the tough and radical change that will be required to meet the targets set for Ireland by the European Union. A debate on climate change will be necessary and while active discussions have taken place at committee level, ultimately unless the Government makes a focused and co-ordinated effort on climate change, Ireland will have failed in its role in respect of the European Union. Members have a responsibility to ensure the Lisbon treaty is passed and that Europe can be made more democratic, efficient and socially conscious. If we do so on 12 June, we will have done a good service to the European Union. However, this will only constitute the beginning because given our responsibilities regarding the environment and climate change, Ireland has not yet begun to live up to its obligations.

I wish to share time with Deputy Peter Power.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The European Union is the second greatest achievement of politicians in the history of the world, the first being democracy. The major contribution has been peace in Europe. When one considers the history of Europe, one can see how it devastated itself, century after century, for the past 1,000 years. Two world wars took place in the last century and 60 million people were killed in the second one. There now is peace between the nations of the European Union and for more than 60 years there has been no war between those nations. I refer to the insistence on the rule of law, human rights, civil rights and respect for human dignity. It is always important to remember such features when discussing the European Union because people seem to stress the importance of the economic and social benefits for the citizens of Europe, which of course are of fundamental importance.

Ireland always has been a good European country and the Irish always have been great Europeans. This extends as far back as the fifth and sixth centuries, when we sent our highly learned scholars abroad to establish centres of learning throughout mainland Europe, where they flourished for centuries. In recent days, colleagues in this House have referred to numerous incidences of close links between Ireland and Europe through the centuries. Ireland joined the European Union in 1973. We struggled for 800 years to secure our sovereignty and, having enjoyed it for 50 years, we sacrificed a little of it to become members of the European Union. However, in so doing we enhanced our sovereignty because for a country of 4 million people, we play a role that is out of all proportion to our size on the world stage and this relates closely to our membership of the European Union.

Why should we ratify the Lisbon treaty? First, the Lisbon treaty contains little when compared to, for example, the previous treaties such as the Single European Act or the Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice treaties. Its main purpose is to make the European Union more manageable. The same structures manage the European Union today as obtained in 1953, when there were only six member states, as opposed to the present total of 27. The three institutions that drive the European Union are the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers. The role of the European Parliament will be enhanced in respect of input into legislation and policy for the member states and citizens of Europe. Membership of the Commission has been reduced from 27 to 18 and it is important to remember this measure is not new to this treaty, because we already agreed in the Nice treaty to reduce the number of Commissioners.

An important point for the Irish people is that we will have equality with all other member states. Although our population is only 4 million people, we will have a Commissioner on exactly the same terms as Germany, with a population of 80 million people, and all the other member states of the European Union. Moreover, the five bigger states, namely, Germany, France, Italy, Britain and Spain, had two Commissioners until 2004. However, they will only have one Commissioner, in exactly the same way as Ireland, that is, in every 15-year cycle there will be a period during which member states will not have a Commissioner.

Qualified majority voting already exists and will be increased to combat certain areas such as crime and global climate change. It is of benefit to have 480 million people represented while addressing these issues, rather than trying to address them on our own. An important aspect of the new treaty is that it makes no change to the position on taxation. We will continue, as will the other member states, to implement our own taxation structures howsoever we wish in our own country. It is disingenuous of people to suggest otherwise as the treaty does not change our way of dealing with taxation in this State.

The same applies to defence and section 15 of the Bill continues the prohibition on Irish involvement in a European Union common defence. We now have five different legislative provisions to ensure we cannot join a common EU defence. The most important of these is the requirement on the part of the Government to get the people's opinion through a referendum before signing up to a common defence policy. Our neutrality is completely protected in this treaty, as it has been in every other treaty since we joined the EEC in 1973. It is interesting that the people who oppose the present treaty came up with the same chestnuts in every previous referendum. None of the predictions they made in the past has come true and they are certainly wide of the mark on this occasion.

The same applies to socio-moral issues, in which regard we have total control of our own destiny. The treaty will give more power to the Oireachtas in terms of input into policy and preparation of legislation. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is very important to the citizens of Europe, will be enshrined in the Lisbon treaty.

Ireland has benefited both economically and politically from the European Union. The greatest benefit is probably our membership of a market of 480 million people, which not only has been an advantage to farmers and the agricultural economy in general but has also made us attractive to foreign direct investment. The number of people working in Ireland has doubled since our accession to the EEC, with an additional 1 million people in employment in the past 20 years alone. Per capita gross domestic product has increased from 60% of the European average in 1973 to 143% today. In the agricultural sector, as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has pointed out, €41 billion has been paid out through the Common Agricultural Policy to date and a further €12 billion will be paid between now and 2013. Furthermore, Structural Funds and regional funds have totalled €17 billion. Therefore, we have greatly benefited as a nation.

Ireland is the only member state out of 27 which will hold a referendum to allow people to decide on the Lisbon treaty. Other states are ratifying the treaty through their parliaments. It is interesting that states with considerable numbers of eurosceptics, such as the Tories in Britain, are ratifying the treaty through parliament. It is also interesting, although not surprising, to see Sinn Féin line up with these eurosceptics in opposing the treaty. Only four out of the 166 Members of this House have spoken against the treaty.

It is important that people are informed about the arguments in the weeks before 12 June, that Members who support the treaty canvas and answer questions on doorsteps and that literature is circulated to every household so people can make a well informed decision. The European Union, including Ireland, will benefit from the changes to management structures proposed in the treaty. It is important to vote "yes" on 12 June because we want the world to see our commitment to the European project and ensure we remain at the forefront of the development of the new Europe by maintaining and enhancing the benefits for the citizens of the EU.

I pay tribute to the architects of this treaty, whose identities and backgrounds are instructive to consider. The former Taoiseach and leader of the Fine Gael Party, John Bruton, should be commended on the critical role he played during the early stages of the construction of this treaty. Tribute should also be paid to the outgoing Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, who took up the baton by bringing 27 countries together to agree on a common agenda for dealing more efficiently with issues. The Tánaiste and incoming Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, should also be complimented for the crucial roles they played in facilitating the negotiations that led to the treaty. If ever there was a compelling reason for Ireland to support the Lisbon treaty, it is that former, present and future Taoisigh have played key roles in formulating it. This demonstrates that Ireland's place is at the heart of Europe and the influence we have had on this treaty. Our role in drafting it has ensured our national interests will be protected. It could never have been envisaged 30 years ago that the role Ireland plays in Europe would be so disproportionate to our population and size.

Those who invite us to oppose the treaty would ask us to agree that the referendum will not be about Europe or the European project but about the merits or otherwise of the detailed text of the treaty. I fundamentally disagree. This is a referendum on the European Union and it presents Ireland with an opportunity to pass judgment on where we stand in Europe. This vote is as much a referendum on the European Union as it is about the arguments and complexities of qualified majority voting or the rotation of commissioners. The destiny and ambitions of this country are intricately tied to the European project so we cannot consider the treaty in isolation. Weighing up its pros and cons without having regard for the wider issues would be a fundamental misunderstanding of what is at stake.

This is an amending treaty so it must be considered in the context of the legislation that preceded it. That is a fundamental flaw in the positions being adopted by opponents of the treaty who claim that our national strategic interests will be protected by a "no" vote. In the same way that Ireland's interests are best served by ratifying the treaty, our worst interests would be served by opposing it. That should not be misinterpreted as scaremongering because it is a reality which the citizens of this country need to grasp before they cast their votes. The consequences of rejecting this treaty will amount to a complete abdication of everything we have contributed through the central role we play in Europe.

The facts that should be put before the people are simple. Perhaps more than any other country in Europe, Ireland has benefited from participation in the EU. Our embrace of the European ideal recognises a rapidly changing world in which the benefits for countries of co-operation greatly outweigh working apart. That reality was recognised 40 years ago by Seán Lemass, Charles Haughey and senior civil servants who understood what was involved.

The Tánaiste, speaking yesterday, mentioned the concept of practical patriotism. Surely, if ever there was an example of practical patriotism, it was Seán Lemass with foresight embracing the reality that Ireland's future lay in the heart of Europe, not in isolation at the edge of Europe. I take this opportunity to compliment and congratulate our new leader, Deputy Brian Cowen, on his central role in the process of bringing forward this treaty.

Just 30 years ago it would have been unthinkable for Ireland to be a main player in Europe, which we now are. The reality is that this country, more than any other, has grasped the opportunities that are available through membership of the European Union and we have also contributed to its development. In this debate, we should not forget some of the fundamental driving forces behind the EU. As my colleague, Deputy Rory O'Hanlon, clearly pointed out, the Union — the European Coal and Steel Community as it then was — was born out of the turmoil, chaos and conflagration in Europe half a century ago. Its ongoing development has given us the most prolonged period of peace and economic prosperity for hundreds of years, undreamed of in previous generations. The goal of continuing that development, economic prosperity and peace is a noble one. The lessons of previous treaties are that unless we continue to develop the Union to make it more accountable, effective and efficient to deal with the requirements of the citizens of the European Union, we will be at a loss.

In the same way that the European project was developed to deal with transnational problems of conflict and fascism in Europe, it is now best placed to deal with transnational problems of international terrorism, the diminishing supply of energy, security issues, globalisation and of course climate change, to which reference was made by many Members in this debate. Those who suggest otherwise are flying in the face of reality and logic. I was taken by the comments of a former Attorney General, former member of Fine Gael, former Commissioner and the highly respected chairman of Goldman Sachs, one of the premier international finance houses, who said that this is by far the most minor of any of the EU treaties in terms of transferring sovereignty or competences to Europe and that those who argue against it produce arguments of little substance which are absolutely illusory.

What are the key changes? We are giving virtually no new competences to Europe, except in the area of climate change, which is welcome, as has been acknowledged by all. We are increasing the availability of qualified majority voting, QMV, which is the only way to give the EU greater efficiency and effectiveness to deal with the issues we have been discussing. The one competency which we have not transferred in this treaty, and which we should not transfer, is in the area of taxation. I compliment the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, on his steadfastness and consistency in dealing with this issue. Taxation was our red line in the negotiations.

As I said at the outset, engaging in Europe and having our best people engaged at the heart of Europe, no matter from what political tradition or party in the House they come, is the best guarantee of protecting the interests of this country in the years to come. I commend the treaty and the Bill to the House and the country.

I wish to share time with Deputy Ulick Burke.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The point made by Deputy Peter Power is an important one. One of the great expressions of political maturity in this country has been the virtually unanimous position of the three biggest political parties over a sustained period in support of the European Union. This should not be underestimated. In other countries it has not been the case. In Britain, the issue of Europe has at times been dragged into a kind of domestic political mire, which makes it very problematic for that country to see advantages in Europe. One of the reasons the British have not supported a single currency relates to the difficulty that the two great parties in Britain have not found common cause on the issue of Europe. We should not underestimate the agreement we have had over a sustained period — well nigh on three decades — in the context of this referendum. It is significant that advances that have come about since our membership of the EU have been brought about because of that consensus.

The fact that Ireland is the only country of the 27 EU member states to vote in a referendum puts it in a very unique position on 12 June. It is important for Ireland that we are the only country in which the popular vote will occur and it is important for Europe. It is worth stressing that when citizens come to make up their mind on this treaty, they are aware of the significance of their vote. If this vote goes down, the treaty goes down throughout Europe. It requires 27 countries to ratify it, through whatever means they choose, which we should not underestimate. At the same time, we must never forget that under our constitutional architecture, the people are sovereign and we cannot take that for granted.

The problem with the Nice treaty was that the political establishment, including my party and others, took people for granted. That is why it is crucial in the weeks ahead that effort is made on the ground, public meetings are held, arguments in local media and on radio are put to the "no" side, and, ultimately, people are not taken for granted. Name-calling and calling people loolahs will not help. We need a mature debate on the issues of Europe.

Deputy Peter Power is correct that this is about Europe. Every referendum treaty effectively becomes a debate about Europe, which is not bad in itself. In many respects my generation and the younger generation have fallen out of love with Europe, which is largely a result of the lack of proximity of this generation to the two great wars in the first half of the last century. The reason the older generation seems to be more supportive of the European concept is that they remember the war, its aftermath and the depression that followed. They remember the Holocaust and the division between the neo-right and neo-left, and the turbulence this caused throughout Europe. People born in 1969 and the younger generation do not remember this. We take it for granted because of the political progress that has been made to date.

It is also important that those who argue for a "no" vote in this referendum tell us their vision for Europe. If, for example, the rules were changed on QMV or the position of the Commission, would they argue for a "yes" vote? Of course they would not. This issue has been used by certain groups in this country for the same cynical reasons of getting 50% of the publicity or trying to push other political agendas. If the Green Party was on this side of the House today, it would argue against the treaty for its own narrow, pathetic little interest, and everybody in the House knows that. The Green Party has used in the most cynical fashion every EU treaty debate for its own political ends and the people realise that.

We need to put it up to the "no" side. What exactly do they want? How could they possibly argue that by voting "no" and turning down this treaty they would get a better deal the next time? Can we conceive a situation where the Irish people would vote the treaty down after the other 26 member states have voted it through in their parliaments and where we would have to come back and renegotiate, and would get a better deal the second time around? The world does not work like that. Those who argue in that way need to confront the reality.

It is very important that in the course of this campaign people reflect on the positive aspects for this country. I do not believe our relationship with Britain, which has changed dramatically in the past two decades, could have been possible were it not for the EU. In the same way that the French and the Germans have come together in a form of mutual interdependence, the British and the Irish have come together also. We are now equal partners with them in the European Union. That could not have happened were it not for the new European Union and its political reality.

Irish citizens like the idea of having a second layer of rights through the European Union. We have primary rights through Bunreacht na hÉireann but we have EU-wide rights also, for example, for workers and women. One can ask whether the advance of women in this country would have been possible two decades ago were it not for the European Union. At that time this country was still in a very conservative mode in terms of the position of women. It was the European Union that led the way. Irish citizens know this and they have a multifaceted view of their rights being domestic but also Europe-wide and international.

If we are serious about issues like climate change it is important that we pool our resources and sovereignty as a means of countering those particular problems.

The dark side of Europe is neo-nationalism. The two great problems in Europe historically have been anti-Semitism and neo-nationalism. The dark forces of neo-nationalism still exist in this country and throughout western Europe and we must confront them. The European project is a political expression of how we counter neo-nationalism by moderate positions and through people of a moderate political dispensation supporting that process.

One can ask why the Lisbon treaty is good. It is the first treaty in a long time that is bottom up. It did not come down from the heads of government or the Council of Ministers; it came from the national parliaments. That point needs to be made. For too long we have had a top-down approach from Europe but this has been bottom up. The European Convention, the Praesidium, involved ordinary parliamentarians on all political sides having a discussion over a protracted period to see whether we could reach agreement. It is unique in that way and it is therefore important.

The key positive for parliamentarians is the recognition of the democratic deficit. It is important to realise there are new powers in this treaty in terms of what is called the "yellow card" and the "red card", whereby national parliaments can hold up various proposals, scrutinise draft proposals, or hold the Council of Ministers to account if a third of all parliaments come together and state a position that puts a brake on an initiative.

That is important but it also means responsibility for Members of this House. We cannot say we want these additional powers so that these national debates occur if we are not prepared to put in the time and effort to work in committees to ensure that those powers are realised. Parliamentarians in this House and the other House need to realise there are significant new powers in this treaty which will allow the democratic deficit, a constant problem within the European Union, to be challenged and that is a very good thing.

I also think it is good that Ireland now has the same rights to a commissioner as the great countries of France, Germany, Britain or Italy. The notion that a country of 4 million people has the exact same rights to a commissioner as the British or the Italians, countries with up to 70 million people, is an astonishing deal. Where would one get it? This notion is very significant. We must recognise this is an important new deal and a mechanism by which Ireland can move forward within this complex political architecture. Twenty seven countries, all from different backgrounds with different languages and history have managed to come together to create — as Deputy O'Hanlon correctly identified — one of the most important political developments in the world; the establishment of the European Union.

There is a responsibility to defend that Union and for the younger generation to understand the history of how that Union came about and on the people to vote "Yes", as I hope they will, on 12 June.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate. From listening to the contributions in the past two weeks, there is a clear indication that all of the main parties recognise the benefits we have received from our membership of Europe. Since 1973 Fine Gael has been to the forefront as a pro-European party at all times. I note that in his contribution, Deputy Peter Power clearly indicated the part played by various taoisigh from that period in supporting the idea of Europe.

Nevertheless, it is important that we realise there is work to be done to ensure that this treaty is passed. The eyes of Europe are on Ireland because we are the only country that is holding a referendum on the treaty. All of the other 26 countries have either passed the treaty through the parliamentary process or will do so in the near future. We have given the electorate the opportunity to make a decision.

At the outset of the debate the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Roche, made some unhelpful comments, as did the Taoiseach on one occasion in response to something that was said. Be that as it may, there is a responsibility on the Government parties in particular to clearly rise from their slumber with regard to the treaty and show to the public that we are serious about our commitment to Europe and to ensure we deliver on this treaty campaign for the sake of the Irish people and Europe at large.

There is no doubt but that we have been major beneficiaries in many areas from European funding. I refer to the Common Agricultural Policy, the Social Fund and Structural Funds. Without that inward movement of resources to Ireland many of the major infrastructural projects would not have even started. It is an ongoing process and there are still many shortfalls in certain areas. The application and interpretation of European directives and how they are administered by our Ministers is a source of widespread concern. I hope clarification can be provided in a number of areas between now and 12 June.

The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Browne, is present. His Department administers the REP scheme from which the agriculture sector and environmental protection has benefitted greatly. The doggedness of departmental inspectors, however, has resulted in the penalisation of applicants by 50% of payments for insignificant administrative reasons. I come from the west and am familiar with counties Galway and Mayo. A reply to a parliamentary question two weeks ago from the Department revealed that these counties experienced the highest refusal rate, including on appeal. The people who are hurt by this will obviously have serious reservations about supporting the treaty in the referendum. Such instances and many others besides have to be rectified and guarded against.

Farmers in the mountainous areas of the west, especially sheep farmers in Connemara and other areas, have been told they will be unable to make a living for much longer as a result of the implementation of the directive. It is unfair that these directives are implemented much more strictly here than in other European Union member states. There is something wrong in a Department if an individual superintendent or regional inspector can penalise one area. Thankfully, this unfair approach is not uniform throughout the country. The Government must take responsibility for this problem.

Penalties are also applied unjustly in the areas of heritage and the environment. Their implementation suggests individual officials are pursuing a vendetta. I hope this problem will be corrected because the core opposition to the treaty in certain areas stems not from the arguments promoted by those campaigning against it but from the failure of departmental officials to implement the directive as intended.

It is important to recognise the benefits of EU membership. Income from Europe has transformed agriculture, for example, and Ireland has been a net beneficiary of €60 billion in EU funding, having contributed approximately €19 billion to EU coffers. This helps to explain the advances secured in agriculture since we joined the EEC in 1973.

Ireland is a major food producing country. We have made tremendous improvements in farm production and output and added value to our products. While significant increases in income from agricultural exports contributed to the Celtic tiger, food costs in Ireland are the highest in Europe. Why are those who should have benefited most from increased productivity and higher prices, namely farmers, not sharing the benefits? It is no longer attractive for many young people to remain in farming, despite European incentives, and many older people working in agriculture realise they will not be able to pass on their land to be farmed in the traditional way. It is wrong to blame European directives for this problem. On numerous occasions, the Government has unfairly blamed Europe for its own inability to fairly apply many of its policies.

I wish to share time with Deputy Chris Andrews.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Lisbon treaty. Following the Treaty of Rome and the establishment of the Common Market, Ireland joined the European Economic Community in 1973. For many years, the European Community was closely associated with the agricultural industry and many of the benefits flowing from membership were regarded as exclusive to the sector. One of the foundations of the Treaty of Rome was to guarantee food supply throughout Europe. However, as the European project has progressed and developed, society as a whole has enjoyed significant benefits. The European Social Fund, for instance, has delivered many social benefits, while trade and the education sectors have also advanced.

The Common Agricultural Policy has played a key role in the development of farming, especially the food industry, since we joined the EEC in 1973. Community decisions exerted a major influence on the sector. It is vital for the future of the agriculture industry and its spin-offs that we continue to play a full and positive role in EU decision-making, specifically in the key agrifood sector. Given that agriculture is our most successful and important indigenous industry, we must ensure we continue to be major players in Europe.

As speakers noted, difficulties have arisen as a result of the interpretation of some European directives. Notwithstanding such negative factors, membership of the European Union is good for agriculture and rural communities. The agricultural sector has made significant advances since 1973, with farm size, productivity and output increasing substantially. From 1973 to 2006, for example, Ireland received €41 billion from the European Community, of which €38.7 was from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, EAGGF, for direct payments, market supports, export refunds, intervention aid for private storage and the accommodating measures, including the rural environment protection, farm retirement, fish withdrawal and forestry schemes.

The MacSharry reforms of 1992 included the introduction of the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, one of the most successful EU schemes to date. REPS delivered major improvements in the agricultural and rural environment by encouraging farmers and landowners to improve their lands. The Government must support the continuation of the scheme.

The Leader programme has provided support for rural industry. Deputies will know their respective areas but in my area, Duhallow and Ballyhoura have benefited enormously from the projects funded under the Leader programme, which has increased off-farm employment in rural communities through the establishment of many new indigenous industries. Long may this fantastic programme continue because it delivers excellent value for money.

In the past, particularly in the 1950s and 1980s, one of Ireland's greatest problems was the ongoing exodus of young people leaving on the emigration boat. Many social issues have arisen because, for once, emigration, which existed since before the Famine, has been stopped and many more people now live in Ireland. We must ensure through the European Union that we provide for every sector of society. Funding that came through in the early days of EU membership for the education sector has helped to equip our young people with a better education and, in turn, helped maintain our economy.

Many opponents of the treaty are making much noise about rejecting it. We must accept the treaty. Ireland is the only member state to have a referendum on it. This opportunity to exercise our democratic right on the treaty is a lasting testament to de Valera's 1937 Constitution.

While it is easy to pick out and focus on, for example, three negative points of the treaty, it is important to have an informed debate. Opponents claim the treaty will affect our neutrality. Nothing could be further from the truth. In a recent reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated: "all member states remain free to determine their own policies in these areas ... and other areas of EU competence. The reform treaty does not change this position".

Ireland has participated fully in Europe since 1973. Many of our best ambassadors have done good work across the European Union. We must ensure the reform treaty is passed. Uniquely, the three largest political parties are in favour of the treaty when in other countries that is not the case. We must use this unanimity to sell the message to the people with an informed debate on the referendum.

Some claim they do not have any information on the treaty. One would need five years to study the entire intricacies of the consolidated treaties. The Lisbon treaty tidies up and consolidates successive European Union treaties. The treaty is to the benefit of the Republic and the whole island of Ireland. We must ensure it is passed and that we continue to play an active and full role in Europe. We must ensure we never return to forced emigration from the island and continue the economic stability and prosperity we enjoy. We must continue to maintain those born and reared in Ireland so that they can live their lives to the full.

I commend the Bill to the House and the Lisbon reform treaty to the people. We must do everything in our power to ensure it is passed on behalf of the Republic.

I commend the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 to the House. Over the next two months we will hear both sides of the debate on accepting or rejecting the Lisbon reform treaty. Two guiding questions must be asked by all voters. First, what would the impact be on Ireland if we were to vote "No"? Second, how will this treaty affect the voter?

A "No" vote would have a serious impact on Ireland's economy and people. We have heard many reminders about how beneficial membership of the EU has been for Ireland. As Deputy Moynihan stated, education was one key area. Foreign direct investment was only €16 million in 1972 while today it is billions of euro. The workforce has more than doubled, social rights have improved significantly and Structural Funds have contributed to improving our infrastructure. We are now part of the strongest currencies and have unfettered access to a growing market of 500 million people.

Ireland's relationship with the EU has been a very positive one. The "No" campaign, on the other hand, is pulling up the drawbridge before less fortunate member states can get on board. Theirs is a selfish and thoughtless position to keep what we have achieved for ourselves. Being part of a wider regional political and economic entity enabled us to modernise in many ways. We are a small open economy. It would never make sense for us to go it alone.

A "No" vote would indicate to our economic trading partners, both in the EU and outside, that we are pursuing an isolationist policy. A "No" vote would reduce, not increase, our speaking voice in European institutions. While Ireland will lose a commissionership for five out of every 15 years, the consequences of this change are being exaggerated. Every state will lose a commissionership for the same length of time. A more streamlined, efficient and co-ordinated Commission will be better equipped to deal with future challenges. Some ask if it makes a difference if there are 18 or 27 Commissioners. The answer is "Yes". The EU is facing more challenges in 2008 than when the six founding member states came together in the 1952 to form the European Coal and Steel Community. Any other successful organisation would alter its rules to reflect major changes. The EU should not be any different.

A "No" vote would signal to investors that Ireland is not fully committed to the EU. The timing of the referendum, when we are seeing signs of an economic slowdown due to the global credit crunch, could not be more significant. Due to our Constitution, we have an opportunity to signal to investors our commitment to Europe — no other member state has this chance.

How will the treaty affect the individual voter? To many people, the EU is regarded as something that happens in Brussels and may not directly affect their lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. The EU has a direct impact on many aspects of our lives through our currency, regulations and directives in the areas of food safety, employment and human rights law, common travel areas and common markets. We are also part of an economic unit that provides a counterbalance to the US.

The five main changes to be introduced by the Lisbon treaty are a two and a half year presidency of the Council instead of a rotating six-month one, the reduction of the Commission from 27 to 18 in 2014, the increase in the legislative powers of the European Parliament, the increase in the role of national parliaments and making the Charter of Fundamental Rights a legally binding document. These changes will affect the individual and quite simply, they will make the European Union better equipped to face future challenges. In particular, it will be able to deal with modern global challenges, such as climate change, transnational crime and trafficking, immigration, significant changes brought about by population increases and the threat of pandemic diseases.

A longer-term EU Presidency will provide a more coherent and co-ordinated policy and will allow the EU to play a leadership role when needed. A more streamlined Commission will, similarly, enable more effective policy making. The expansion of the role of both the European Parliament and national parliaments will create a more democratic and transparent Union, enabling citizens to have a more direct input.

Another example of this is the citizens' initiative, whereby citizens can make a proposal directly once they have a million signatures. The Minister last week reminded us that in 1979, when the European Parliament was first directly elected, it had no legislative power. The EU is therefore moving at a very steady pace towards becoming more democratic and transparent, and not less transparent as one could imagine by listening to some people. As well as being more democratic, the EU will have a more co-ordinated method of policy making.

The side advocating a "No" vote would lead one to believe the Lisbon treaty is undemocratic and a bad deal for Ireland. I honestly cannot see the logic in those arguments. That side contends we are heading towards increased militarisation and a common tax base, all of which are issues being used to try to spook voters. The arguments are without foundation as the triple lock mechanism is protected and we maintain unanimity in the tax area. There is no Irish support, either politically or in the business sphere, for a move towards tax harmonisation. The Lisbon treaty does not give up control in this area.

That Ireland is the only country holding a referendum means we have a great opportunity to have Ireland's voice heard on the international stage. We can signal our commitment and ability to continue to shape European policy in the years ahead.

Over the next two months there is no doubt we will see a very broad range of arguments and issues but this treaty has already received endorsements from a variety of social partners, including employers' group IBEC and the farming group, the IFA, which Deputy Durkan knows well. There is significant support for this and the treaty will be approved, although not without good, clear and coherent arguments. That is what this Government is facilitating and I compliment Deputy Roche on his Trojan efforts to get across the message.

People are always indicating they do not have enough information but there are tonnes of information out there if people make any effort to look for it. Sometimes when people indicate they do not understand something, it means they do not really want to. It is our job to deliver the message to the doorsteps, which we will do.

I ask voters, when making up their minds, to do so on the basis of two questions. These are what the treaty will do for Ireland and what it will do for the individual. When voters reflect on those questions, they will realise this treaty is good for Ireland, other smaller nations and Europe as a whole.

As others have said, this debate affords us the opportunity to voice our opinions on a very important issue. I should declare an interest as I am Chairman of the European affairs committee. Tonight we propose to take committee meetings into the public arena so members of the public can participate, as well as those who are in favour and against the treaty. I hope the debate will be of benefit in assisting the Irish people make up their minds on the issue.

Deputy Chris Andrews noted that people will always say they do not have enough information but we hope to provide a sufficient amount. I contest the view that we do not have enough information.

We are the living testimony to the benefits of European membership. Of all other countries in Europe, no country has progressed to the extent that this country has since it became a member of that greater body. The reason for this is simple; it is because we have had access to more than one market. We were dependent on one market when we supplied our next-door neighbour with cheap food and labour.

It became a way of life, where Irish people were expected to go forth and supply the market on a continual basis, to the detriment of our own economy. That is the reason we exported our population all over the world and particularly to our neighbour. That country was very good to us as it gave us employment and bought our goods, although it was always a restricted market. When things were not going so well over there, we also suffered the chill and draught, ultimately paying the price.

Since accession to the European Union, or the Common Market as it was known at the time, we have done remarkably well. We have also proved something which we needed to prove — that we were capable of doing it and if we got a fair chance and even break we could make it on our own. We moved away from a position where we were dependent on a handout and were expecting manna from heaven to fall at every opportunity. In the past number of years, we proved as a country we could do it ourselves and tango with the best. We have done so very effectively and we have nothing to worry about in that respect.

We have also shown leadership within the European Union, which is very important in this particular context. There is no sense in going forward, sending Ministers or taoisigh to Council meetings and gatherings of Heads of Governments unless they go with a purpose. As well as taking on board issues they must go to lead. With any areas where we have missed out or where we believe we should have done better, this only came about because we failed to lead adequately. Such instances are very few and far between.

People regularly assign blame to the European Union in this country when something goes wrong. It is an easy target and a whipping boy for when something goes wrong. We can blame the bureaucrats in the European Union. Nevertheless, I was told confidentially some years ago that we have a fair amount of bureaucrats ourselves and we did not need to go over there for them. We could supply them with a full market if there was a need.

We have participated and must continue to do so. We must lead, initiate and propose matters. At times we must provide opposition to ensure we do not go slavishly forth into the European arena, with one hand as long as the other and nothing to offer. We have dominated and we will need to dominate in the future in order to do the job which needs to be done, not only for this country but for the benefit of Europe.

There are those who suggest we should vote "No" at this time. It is a little like going into a football match, being halfway through the turnstile before trying to reverse. It is a very difficult exercise, if anybody wants to try it, and it has about the same effect. To say we can vote "No" and it will have no effect is like saying we can stay away from work tomorrow and it will have no effect. Theoretically this is the truth but if one does so too often, there will be recriminations.

It is necessary for us to be seen as positive and give a lead on the matter. We are the only country in Europe that requires a referendum on the matter. We should prove that having a referendum is not an impediment to democracy but is rather a positive step. Some European countries have good reasons for not having a referendum. Some have very stark memories reminding them of this.

There are 500 million people in a market of which we form part. We are leading members of that group of people.

Cuireadh an díospóireacht ar athló.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share