How much time remains to me?
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."
Five minutes remain to Deputy Burton, if she wishes to use them.
Increasingly, I find people to be highly sceptical about the Lisbon treaty. In part this is because they have no sense that the Government is seriously engaged in explaining the treaty's terms to them, with the possible exception of one or two Ministers. It is understandable that people who have a deep antipathy towards Europe and the various European treaties should be highly critical. On the whole, many people regard Europe as having been very good for Ireland. They recognise that while it is not perfect, the country has done well from its membership and that, in particular, issues such as employment rights and the rights of women in respect of work, working conditions and pay have advanced significantly through our membership of the European Union.
However, there is an enormous deficit in respect of the Government's engagement in the argument. The point has been reached at which many of its supporters have asked why they should bother to vote if the Government does not care. Consequently the challenge for the Government is to put some effort and thought into explaining what is a complex treaty. It should explain it and should convince its own supporters that it is worthwhile to vote for it. Otherwise, the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach designate, should recall that on a previous occasion when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs, he misread a European treaty and we ended up by having Nice I and Nice II.
I can understand that the Government parties, particularly Fianna Fáil, have been somewhat paralysed by the drama of the political events associated with a change in leadership. However, when will the leading party in the Government, Fianna Fáil — I except one or two Ministers — engage? Unless it does so, people will be sceptical. In their ordinary weekly shopping, people face extraordinary levels of price increases. They face extraordinary conversion rates from sterling to euro. Moreover, perhaps 100,000 people who bought houses at the height of the property market face some degree of negative equity. This morning, someone stopped me at the railway station. This is a matter of which everybody is aware. Their son, a qualified carpenter, lost his job when he was not invited to return to his site after Christmas and has subsequently been unable to find other employment. As he only recently qualified, he faces a gap before he can set himself up in business. In the context of the serious economic difficulties being experienced by families and individuals throughout the country, if Fianna Fáil does not seem to care about explaining the treaty to people and making detailed arguments as to why people should vote for it, why would the electorate be bothered to vote?
With many other Deputies, I spent time last week speaking with groups of farmers from various parts of the country. Without exception, they said they were always broadly in favour of Europe but expressed concerns about the WTO negotiations and the lack of engagement by Ministers in Ireland's interest. Irrespective of the potential benefits of the WTO for the Third World, the Government is required to serve the legitimate interests of Irish farmers and their families. It seems, however, that it is not engaged in that regard. I advise the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach-in-waiting, that he better get the troops out if he wants to win on Lisbon and the Ministers better get out of their cars to meet the people on the streets.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this debate on the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. On the last point raised by Deputy Burton, I would not expect her to be completely au fait with Fianna Fáil’s activity and the 50 meetings that have been held in recent weeks or that will be held in the weeks to come. These meetings, which are being held in all parts of the country, are open to the public and have been very well attended. Only last Friday night, I attended one such meeting in Cork which attracted as many as 500 people. The Deputy can rest assured that Fianna Fáil intends to do all it can. We will commence an active campaign when we officially launch it in the coming weeks.
I will address some of the specific aspects of the reform treaty and explain why it is imperative that Ireland endorses it, but first I want to put the treaty in a wider context. The forthcoming referendum will be the sixth referendum on a European treaty since I was first honoured to be elected to this House. While I have played an active role in each treaty, I was particularly involved in the Treaty of Nice because I helped to negotiate it as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Each referendum has had its own character and threw up its own issues but the basic arguments on both sides have tended to be similar. This is because in essence the debates have revolved around competing visions of Europe and of Ireland's place in it. Most of the time, those of us who support Ireland's active engagement in a developing European Union have been able to connect with the public. We have been able to draw on the underlying positive attitude of the Irish people towards Europe, as indicated in recent eurobarometer polls, to persuade them to come out to the polling stations and convince them that a "Yes" vote makes sense for them personally, for their families and their communities and for the nation.
While we can never take the electorate for granted, I believe that we will succeed on this occasion and that the people will vote to ratify the reform treaty. The arguments in favour are unassailable and I have absolute confidence in the maturity and good sense of the Irish public. However, not least from my experience of the first Nice referendum, I am aware that one should never be complacent. It is not enough merely to make the case, it has to be made in a way that persuades busy people that their personal stake in the outcome is sufficient to make it worthwhile for them to exercise their franchise. It also means ensuring that every voter feels that he or she has sufficient knowledge of the issues involved to make an informed choice. This requires those of us who argue in favour of the treaty and of Europe to do all we can to set out the issues involved clearly and simply. We must also examine the points we are advancing to determine whether they are indeed relevant to the lives, aspirations and anxieties of the voters.
In many ways, the fundamental arguments in favour of the treaty are the same as they were in successive referendums since 1972. Their truth has been amply demonstrated by experience. The European Union is, above all, about consolidating peace and democracy across the European Continent. What was the scene of the bloodiest wars in the history of the world and the most sustained and murderous genocide is now peaceful. Old enmities have been cast aside in favour of partnership and co-operation, and war between the members of the Union is now unthinkable. The record shows that membership of the Union, and indeed the prospect of membership, has strengthened and sustained young democracies in southern and eastern Europe.
If we did not have a European Union when communism imploded, how would the progressive forces in those countries have given a vision on reconstructing their societies in accordance with equality and the rule of law? We would have reverted to the narrow nationalism which characterised past political development in those countries. I remind Deputies that the evidence is before our eyes. Yugoslavia imploded because of a refusal to look upon the European Union as that country's political destiny. Other countries looked to the EU as a pole of stability and an opportunity for reintegration into the Continent of Europe, with the result that, during Ireland's Presidency in 2004, I had the great privilege of attending Áras an Uachtaráin as they returned to the European fold.
The Union has also helped to create and underpin economic growth and prosperity throughout Europe. The Single Market and economic and monetary union have helped to create the largest and most affluent consumer market in the world. Barriers to trade and investment have been swept aside in a way that respects social solidarity, the environment and the cultural particularities of each member state.
As we all know and as we ought constantly to remind ourselves, Ireland has perhaps gained more than any other country from EU membership. The scale and pace of our transformation have been dramatic. The radical change in our economic situation was largely based on being able to take advantage of the Single Market to attract inward investment, find new customers and escape undue dependence on the British market. Twice as many Irish people are at work now compared with the beginning of the 1990s and the country is dramatically wealthier. While we are now funding our own ambitious national development plan, support from the Structural Funds was crucial in earlier investment in our infrastructure and human capital.
Irish agriculture continues to depend hugely on the Common Agricultural Policy, even after the sweeping reforms it has undergone. Thankfully, former Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Ray MacSharry, was able to steward those reforms in ways that allowed new opportunities for Irish agriculture. On the basis of what has been agreed for funding the CAP until 2013, I contend that Europe must remain the focus of agricultural interests and promoting Irish agriculture. The increase in commodity prices which, thankfully, is improving incomes in our farming community and the fact that our agriculture is grass based provides us with an excellent opportunity to enhance our competitiveness, particularly in respect of beef, because our competitors must face the recent hikes in the cost of grain and other commodities.
Rather than considering this issue negatively, we will continue to monitor and address the challenges. Today, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met her German counterpart to discuss issues which will ensure the mandate of the Commission continues to respect the need to avoid dislocating markets in Europe, particularly given the importance of beef to the development of our agricultural industries. We should not consider that aspect solely in respect of the WTO, important as the upcoming negotiations will be. Let us be clear that the worst case scenario will not be allowed to happen in that respect. We must also consider the European Union development of agriculture in the context of freer trade generally. Using the sensitive product regime and the quota system provides us with the mechanisms within what is happening at the Geneva negotiations to protect us quite adequately in that respect.
Obviously, the Government is continually monitoring this, and our Minister is acutely aware of developments in that arena and informs the Government on a weekly basis. I hope that one of the great positive constituencies for European Union development in Ireland, namely, the farming and agricultural community and the rural community, will look to this context as a means by which we will continue to adapt, modernise and improve our agriculture, rather than succumbing to the idea that we are in a static situation that would see a downward spiral.
The European Union has been a steadfast partner in the search for peace in Northern Ireland. Today, it is still helping to entrench the settlement by supporting cross-community reconciliation. Only last Monday, I visited Mr. Peter Robinson, the First Minister designate in the new Administration and the present Minister for Finance, and with Commissioner Danuta Hübner from Poland helped launch the PEACE III and INTERREG programmes in Northern Ireland.
It is important to point out the PEACE III programme is the only country-specific programme in any part of the European Union to promote reconciliation. We all know from the history of Europe and the changing borders within the European Continent how much of a case could be made for many border communities throughout the European Union to try to obtain that type of funding. To be fair, the European Union has always shown the principle of solidarity towards this country in helping to resolve conflict on the island, and this continues to the tune of hundreds of millions of euro. Funding is provided for 7,000 projects on the ground, across communities which have been divided traditionally not only by the Border but by the conflict itself. Let us not forget the tremendous seed corn of reconciliation and rapprochement those funds represented in terms of the ability of communities which were in the past divided to find common ground and interests and move forward together. This is something we should not take for granted and it should be highlighted as an attribute of the European Union that has had a very positive effect in our efforts at peace building in Ireland.
The example of the Union was crucially important to leaders such as John Hume. In the bleakest days of the Troubles, it helped to demonstrate that peace between the bitterest of enemies was possible though practical partnership. Working together as equals in the European Union context has added an important new dimension to the relationship between British and Irish political leaders, just as working with other Europeans has helped to liberate us from an excessive preoccupation and fixation with Britain. If the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone are today looking down benignly on their people, the European Union can rightly claim at least some of the credit.
Let us not forget that Ireland has also undergone a social transformation during the period of our membership. In many ways we are a more tolerant, open and equal society. The attachment of the Union to equality and non-discrimination has been a driving force behind this change. We were reminded of this fact last week on the demise of Dr. Patrick Hillery, given his singular achievement in bringing forward the equal pay directive as social affairs commissioner at that time. Irish women and men, as citizens and as workers, have benefitted from increased opportunity and improved quality of life.
When, in Eurobarometer polls, citizens across Europe are asked if membership of the Union has been of benefit to their country, we are consistently among the most positive of all. This is entirely rational and understandable. I have no doubt that for most Irish people their view of Europe has been formed and continues to be formed by some or all of the factors I have listed. However, we need to ask ourselves, as we near the end of the first decade of the 21st century, if these arguments alone will continue to shape the thinking of young Irish people, those whose support for the European Union project will be crucial in the decades ahead.
It is worth recalling that even the last people born during the Second World War are close to retirement age. For their grandchildren the idea of war between France and Germany is ancient history. The youngest voters in June's referendum will have been born after the fall of the Berlin Wall. How meaningful do they find appeals to recall the European unification of Germany and of Europe? They have grown up in an affluent and confident Ireland. They do not remember how things were in the 1970s and 1980s, nor can they be expected to appreciate the scale of the change the European Union has helped bring to our country. How then do we convince them that they should follow their parents in appreciating the importance of the Union and voting to support this treaty?
The key to that question lies in the fact that this generation of young Irish people is by far the best travelled and outward-looking ever. They are idealistic and they are also conscious that the world is changing in ways which will pose great challenges to how they will live. The European Union has a central role to play in responding to those challenges, and this treaty is important in helping equip it to do so.
Climate change threatens the world's environmental and ecological balance. Its consequences for us all, and above all for the world's poorest and most vulnerable people, are potentially catastrophic. It is our children and grandchildren who are most at risk of experiencing the worst and most dramatic changes. Even within the past 12 months, the price of basic foodstuffs has risen and in some places doubled — the price of rice has doubled and desertification and the level of flooding continues to increase throughout the world. There is a real problem for the poorest of the poor.
The European Union, as a regional entity, is the largest contributor of overseas development aid in the world. Young Irish people want to know in what way they can contribute to making sure the world tries to deal with these pressing latest problems. There is a continuing imbalance between north and south trade that we must at some stage resolve if we are to deal with the issues of migration, justice and the ability of people to fend for themselves in their own countries which, thankfully, this generation in Ireland is experiencing for the first time since Independence. If they want to make a constructive contribution and try to do something about this, voting "Yes" on 12 June is a means by which they can do it. They can take up the democratic challenge and vote for something which will equip the European Union to be more effectively a partner with other parts of the world in dealing with these pressing problems, not just for the future but as issues are happening now and as we see changes taking place.
Having listened to the managing director of the World Food Programme only last weekend, there is a depletion of stocks to historically low levels, the worst in 30 years, because of what has been happening. This is not only because of environmental and climate change, desertification and drought but also because commodity prices have changed fundamentally in the past 12 months in a way that has not been seen with the price levels of basic commodities for some time.
These are the means by which we can put the case to young people and people generally in Ireland that the European Union is not simply about markets or economics. It is also about being a force for good in the world. The European Union has been the mechanism for the transformation of Europe. When we saw the implosion of communism only 17 or 18 years ago, what would have been the political, economic and social development of Europe if we did not have the European Union's example of what practical co-operation between states can bring? It is an issue that needs to be addressed. Those on the "No" side need to convince me and those like me as to the basis on which the Europe we see today would have progressed without the European Union being in place. There is no doubt it has been the revolution of ideas by reason of co-operation rather than competition that has changed the political balance of Europe and brought stability to it, when in the past it was a Continent that was a byword for genocide and war. Young people are to the forefront in demanding and expecting a political response to these issues that are transnational in nature.
The programme for Government pledges us to take a series of ambitious steps, above all in curbing CO2 emissions and promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy. We are determined that this programme will be implemented and our specific targets met over the four years remaining in the life of the Government. However, it is obvious that Ireland cannot do much by itself. Internationally, it is Europe that is continuing to take the global lead in combating climate change. As was reaffirmed at the recent European Council meeting, the European Union is pledged to make major cuts in emissions by 2020, even if these cuts are unilateral. We will make still more significant cuts if we succeed in winning sufficient commitments from others.
The European Union is at the heart of that important international debate and it has the huge task of trying to persuade the United States and the major industrialising states such as China and others of the need to go in the right direction. This treaty, for the first time, specifically recognises the issue of climate change, at the behest of the Government, in the negotiations. It confers upon the Union the competences it needs in this field and in that of energy policy generally, a major strategic issue for Europe going forward. Is it seriously suggested that Ireland can enhance its energy security policy without working with others, given the sources from where our natural gas supply will come in the years ahead and the importance of the European Union having the collective capacity to develop a bilateral relationship with the Russian Federation in a way that enhances the prospect of security supply rather than allows the fragmented Europe to be manipulated for its own particular internal domestic political reasons by a Russian Federation that would have a greater leverage than would otherwise be the case if the European Union did not exist? These are fundamentally important questions.
Another area in which Europe is a world leader is that of development. Many young Irish people, whether as volunteers, donors or activists, expect to see such leadership. Collectively, through the efforts of member states and of the Commission, the European Union is easily the largest aid donor internationally in terms of absolute and relative expenditure. That strong commitment to maintain that role, with the specific target of the 15 longer-standing member states reaching the target of 0.7% by 2015, is something we have pledged to do by 2012. While I would not claim that all European aid is fully effective or as well co-ordinated as it should be, Europe is indeed to the forefront in honouring its obligations and in pressing others to do so.
During the course of this debate there will be many other opportunities to amplify and articulate further on these and other questions, but this House must make the debate relevant for people not on the basis of the past raison d’être for the European Union but for the future, and explain the reason it is important that a Union of 27, perhaps more, must have the basic tools and mechanisms for a decision making capacity that is effective and fair and that honours the basic solidarity between states that is at the heart of the Union’s success to date. If people are enabled to examine this debate in that context, all Irish people, particularly our young people who are looking for a need to affiliate politically, not only in national terms but in international terms, will find that the European Union, and our being at the centre of that Union and all its activities, is the best way Ireland can show it is an international citizen upon which those who are less fortunate than ourselves can depend.
I was wondering why the Tánaiste, three Cabinet Ministers and seven or eight Ministers of State came in to listen to my speech but when the Tánaiste stood up to speak I understood the reason they were here.
It is the skill in oration.
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on the Lisbon treaty. As a fairly new backbencher, it is not always easy to get speaking time and when one gets the opportunity to speak on an issue as important as the Lisbon treaty, I am glad to take that opportunity.
I listened to the Tánaiste speak about the youngest people who will vote in this referendum. The youngest people who will vote in this referendum were born in the early 1990s. I am a child of the 1970s and during my second level education in the CBS in Gorey, I went on a school tour to Dachau. I do not know if anybody knows where Dachau is but it was one of the first concentration camps established by the Nazi regime. Something that struck me on that visit was that we, as young people in our teens, were told that what happened in Dachau could never happen in Europe again, but little did any of us realise that within a decade, within a few hundred miles of that concentration camp, it happened again in what was then Yugoslavia. One of the reasons it happened was that Europe was not strong. It was unable to deal with the issue. NATO and the United States had to come in and try to resolve what was an appalling act of genocide by one nation on another.
Many people have questioned the need for the Lisbon treaty when the process appears to be working well. The European Union cannot expand from 300 million to 500 million people and assume that the procedures in place are sufficient. I have used the analogy that it is the equivalent of merging Canada, the United States of America, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean Island nations into one trading entity similar to the European Union. The entire population of that area is 500 million people. There are no circumstances in which that could happen and they have a far greater benefit in that approximately 350 million of them speak primarily one language. Ten were brought in, the 15 went to 25 and now it is 27.
The EU is perhaps the greatest political democracy in the history of mankind. Ireland is very fortunate — I am absolutely pro-Europe — that we took the opportunity to play our part in the European Union. Who would have believed that just a decade after the Second World War Germany and France could have got together and started what has evolved into the European Union? I heard the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, give concise historical detail on how the EU came about, but we must not forget — the Tánaiste touched upon this — that twice during the 20th century Europe went to war on a scale that nobody could have believed possible.
I am inclined to agree with Deputy Burton about the campaign. It has been lethargic and slow, and regardless of whether the Government likes it, there is a perception that it has been lethargic in starting the campaign on the Lisbon treaty. I believe it was Disraeli who said that a lie is half way around the world before truth gets its boots on. I am not saying those people who are advocating a "No" vote are lying but they are getting a far better hearing than anyone would have anticipated at the early stage of the campaign. Many people are following the campaign in the United States. We all know it is very difficult to decrease momentum but the momentum appears to be on the side of the "No" campaign. I say to those on the Government benches that it is time to ditch the lethargy and get on with campaigning to ensure the public gets the message that the Lisbon treaty will be a benefit and that it is not something about which it needs to be concerned.
The treaty is aimed at making Europe a more effective and efficient trading and political bloc. Measures will be introduced to streamline the representation, making the Parliament and the Commission much more effective and less unwieldy. It will lead to faster decision-making in the areas on which we must proceed, including global warming, in terms of what happened in the 1990s in Yugoslavia and the current problem of energy and food security or, as they are now being called, energy and food insecurity. It will make the Union more democratic. Some people are trying to cloud the issue about qualified majority voting. Ireland has a strong benefit in that regard in that we are punching way above our weight on the issue.
I want to touch upon the issue of taxation. There has been much talk that if the Lisbon treaty is accepted the EU will have a unified corporation tax. Mr. Barroso, President of the European Union, was here last week and he could not have been more clear that that will not happen. Ireland benefited greatly from the progressive corporation tax rates introduced here in the mid-1990s. Other countries are looking to our success and will try to mimic it. It has worked well for Ireland and they will ask why it cannot work for other countries within the European Union. The other countries looking to compete for foreign direct investment jobs will bring their corporation tax rates down. The challenge for us is to get on with changing the current position. What stood for us well in the past 12 to 14 years will not stand for us well in the next 12 to 14 years. Switzerland is not a member of the European Union but is one of two countries competing better than anywhere else in Europe — the other being Austria, where a zero corporation tax rate is offered. We must accept that we will not be able to leave our corporation tax rates as they are.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union will become legally binding. The treaty will make the charter law, thus giving people recourse to the European Court of Justice. Some concerns have been stated in this regard. I also have some concerns. It will be a matter for the European Court of Justice to adjudicate and it will make its decisions and rulings. As the charter will become law, it will be incumbent on each member state to ensure national laws are compatible with European Union laws.
Will the treaty strengthen the European Union? It will, as there will be greater cohesion and unity. It will also create a stronger voice at a time when it has never been more necessary. The European "nation" is facing a global economic downturn which will affect every country to some degree. A strong and united voice will be critical in World Trade Organisation negotiations, upon which I will touch.
The agriculture sector has been very good to Ireland for decades. The European Union closed down the Irish sugar beet industry and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not cover herself in glory in how she handled the matter. We should not pretend or beat about the bush on the issue — she was poor. She now has a significant challenge with the beef industry, as the industry here is very different from that anywhere else. It is grass-based and has a lower cost base as a result. We must export 90% of our product, although we do not produce a very significant amount. As beef must be exported, we are left in a position where we are absolutely obliged to ensure the markets to which we are exporting remain open and lucrative. If this does not happen and there is a flood of international beef traded on the surplus markets into the European Union, the Irish beef industry, in particular, will take a much harder hit than that in any other country. Although it is hard to believe because of the amount of beef we actually produce, we are the fourth largest exporter of beef internationally.
In terms of fair trade, I speak as a commercial dairy farmer. It is inconceivable to me that there are world dairy shortages. We are coming to the end of the quota year and farmers will be charged for oversupplying quota at a time when there is an international shortage. That makes no sense to me and at some stage the matter will have to be dealt with. Despite an international shortage, Irish farmers will be charged a super levy because of oversupply. That is a little rich.
For the first time in the history of the European Union, we are reaching the point where we will not be capable of supplying our own market with required foodstuffs, let alone export to other markets. Rice has doubled in price, while the cost of wheat is up 80% or 90%. The price of barley is also up. The price of every product on world trade markets has increased by between 50% and 100%. One of the major reasons is bio-fuels. I support all products from the land but to produce bio-fuels, an acre of land is required to produce two tonnes of crop which is processed into three quarters of a tonne of oil. That makes no sense, as the scale that we need to produce oils will not be achieved. In time, the position we have taken internationally on bio-fuels will be seen as a crime against humanity.
Ireland has gained enormously from being a member of the European Union, to the tune of $58 billion in receipts from the EU budget. There have been billions received in Structural Funds which have helped us construct roads and improve the rail network. Farmers have also benefited significantly. However, they are using the Lisbon treaty to influence the World Trade Organisation talks and are not wrong to do so. People in business use every opportunity possible and there is now an opportunity for the Government to act. I was glad to hear the Taoiseach state today that he will use the veto with regard to the talks. We must make it very clear to the European Union, Mr. Peter Mandelson in particular, that we will not accept the sell-out of Irish agriculture. The sector is worth billions of euro annually to the Exchequer.
Membership of the European Union also confers responsibility and we are responsible for being a committed member. If all the political parties in favour of a "Yes" vote played a role and got on with the matter, the treaty will be passed in the referendum. As I stated, the momentum is with the "No" side, from which certain myths have emanated, one of which is that the treaty could possibly lead to the legalisation of abortion within the State. The treaty will do the opposite, as it confers upon the State the right to deal with all of its own health issues. The Irish position is clear. The treaty strengthens it — it will be a matter for the State to deal with the issue internally. Neither the European Commission, the European Court of Justice nor anybody else will be able to make a decision and force Ireland to accept the legalisation of abortion.
There is a suggestion the treaty will lead to the creation of a super state, which many would decry. The treaty will not lead to this; instead it sets out how it will bring democracy to the European Union. The European Union has a responsibility to limit certain areas and a super state will certainly not come about.
There is also a suggestion being peddled that we will be forced into joining a European army. That will certainly not happen. Ireland's position on the matter is quite clear. Its neutral standpoint has always been respected within the European Union. Participation in peacekeeping and crisis intervention missions is optional for each member state, rather than an obligation. This could not be any more clear but, unfortunately, the idea has been mooted that Ireland will be part of a military alliance. It is very difficult to argue that this is not the case. More often than not the word gets out and some organisations advocating a "No" vote will argue against the truth. We can continue to decide to participate in peacekeeping missions on a case by case basis, taking into account what we have agreed within the European Union. This incorporates the triple lock principle, which requires the support of the Government, the Legislature and a United Nations mandate. Ireland has a very proud record of involvement in UN and EU peacekeeping missions during the years in places such as Kosovo and Bosnia. Most recently we had a significant debate on whether we should send our troops to Chad.
Further myths and untruths have been spread with regard to immigration. The treaty adds nothing new in respect of EU emigrants entering Ireland. When we signed the Treaty of Rome in 1973, we agreed to the free movement of workers within the European Union. The Union, which now comprises 27 member states, has been of major benefit to Ireland since the early to mid-1990s. Many people involved in commerce have benefited from the labour that entered our market when it was badly needed.
It has been stated that EU membership will now begin to cost us money. We have received many billions of euro — either in respect of infrastructure or through the CAP — and we must at some stage realise that it is time we stepped up to the mark and signalled our willingness to transfer funds from our country to other member states. The benefit of doing so is that when those states become more flathúileach, they will hopefully become consumers of Irish products.
I agree with the Tánaiste's comment to the effect that we must make this debate relevant to Irish citizens. Due to the fact that the requisite information is not available and also that members of the public are obtaining information and hearing more coherent arguments from those on the "No" side, it is not being made relevant. I appeal to all of the parties in the House to get the campaign moving and reverse the momentum from the "No" side to the "Yes" side.
I wish to share time with Deputy Finian McGrath.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation and the issue to which it relates. I wish to highlight a number of reasons I believe Ireland should vote "Yes" in the referendum on the EU reform treaty.
The Tánaiste dealt briefly with the myth being put about by the parties that Deputies D'Arcy and Burton represent to the effect that Fianna Fáil and its Ministers are not active and organised in respect of the campaign. None of the parties has officially launched their campaigns as yet. Last week I attended open meetings in two different parts of the country which were organised by the Fianna Fáil Party. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss the treaty and explain it to people. Members of the Green Party, the IFA and Fine Gael attended the meetings to which I refer. I also attended a number of meetings in my constituency at which the treaty was discussed and explained. I do not want the myth created by Fine Gael and the Labour Party to gain any credence.
The perception is out there.
I do not accept Deputy D'Arcy's assertion that the momentum is with the "No" side. Nor do I accept his criticism of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, in respect of the WTO negotiations. The criticism he has levelled is unfair, unbalanced and inaccurate. It is well recognised among members of the farming community that whereas a majority of EU member states were inclined towards agreement on the proposals put forward by Peter Mandelson, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has persuaded most of them to change their position and oppose them. The Minister, the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach have built alliances in Europe that are of assistance in ensuring our national interests are protected.
In some ways, this is a good example of the role Ireland plays in Europe and the respect in which it is held by other member states. Ireland, which is a small nation, had major influence in the past and can continue to exert such influence in the future. I attended several Council of Europe meetings in the aftermath of the first referendum on the Nice treaty. Europe was a lonely place for us at that stage, particularly because the people had voted "No" to the treaty. I do not want to see a repeat performance.
At the core of the treaty is the need to ensure the EU institutions are reformed in order that many new initiatives can be implemented to help the European economy grow and prosper. Europe needs to implement the treaty so it can become more competitive and meet the changes that are evident in the political and business arenas.
After 50 years, the European Union must modernise the way it does its business. I accept that it has changed and that various treaties were implemented during the past 50 years. However, it is imperative to reform the Union in order that it can face up to a new set of challenges. Ireland and other EU member states are not the only countries in the world seeking to secure higher levels of inward investment and compete in an increasingly globalised world. We compete for new business in that world against other trading blocs including India, China, Brazil and many other emerging countries in Asia. Europe and Ireland cannot, therefore, afford to stand still. We must be at the top of our game and the EU reform treaty will assist us in this regard.
The treaty contains important new provisions that strengthen the EU's ability to fight cross-border crime, illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings, arms and drugs. Due to the fact that it has a different legal system to most of its EU partners, Ireland will rely on the procedure contained in the treaty which enables it to opt in or out on a case-by-case basis. This, again, is a good example of a community working in partnership and recognising differences within individual member states. It is our intention to work closely with our EU partners in respect of the areas to which I refer. The treaty will allow us to do so without, in any way, compromising our legal systems or procedures.
When it comes to institutional changes, and despite the arguments being peddled by some people, Ireland will have exactly the same right to representation on the European Commission as Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Spain and all the other member states, large and small. Ireland will retain its EU Commissioner until 2014 and thereafter will have a place on the Commission on the basis of a system of strict equality among all member states of the EU.
As in the past, the "No" side has referred to two red herrings. In that context, I reiterate that the treaty will not diminish Ireland's status as a neutral country by one iota nor will it threaten our ability to set our own taxes. On the latter point, there is no ambiguity in respect of the taxation issue. None of the provisions in the reform treaty relating to taxation will affect our status. All aspects of taxation remain within the competence of individual member states. The Government is committed to maintaining its policy in this regard.
I found it startling to hear somebody who had claimed to have read the treaty go on to say he found it difficult to read and could not understand it. He further proved it by saying it would affect our corporation tax status. It was serious enough to have somebody coming out in that manner but that individual was given first place on the news by our national broadcaster. Meanwhile, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment who was able to show the importance of the European Union in job creation — 136,000 because of foreign direct investment — was relegated to second place on the same news bulletin. There is something seriously wrong when that can arise, but I suppose we will be told that this is all done in the interests of balance.
The other red herring I mentioned was our neutrality which has been stated by Deputies on all sides of the House. It is worth reiterating the point because it is a worry. Ireland's neutrality is not in any way compromised or affected by the treaty. That is a fact and remains so.
Leaving aside the red herrings and negative points made, we should vote for the treaty because it is in Ireland's economic interests to stay as an active and central member of the European Union. Companies which wish to use Ireland as a gateway to the EU marketplace of 500 million citizens want Ireland to remain as a committed member state of the Union. That is certainly the way we want to do it also.
The treaty improves democracy within the European Union. It will reform the way in which the Union does its business. It respects the importance of rights and freedoms for each and every one of us. It gives a new role in EU affairs to national parliaments, including the Oireachtas. It will give more influence to the citizens of Europe. It will deal with problems that would be impossible for us to deal with effectively on our own. It is better to be part of the Union to deal with such matters. The treaty will give the European Union, including Ireland, a voice that will be more clearly heard in world affairs in support of human rights and democratic values. That is why it is important for the people to give a resounding "Yes" vote to the treaty.
I thank you, Sir, for affording me the opportunity of contributing to this important debate on the Lisbon treaty. I also thank the Minister for sharing time with me, even though I take an opposing view. It is important to hear the different views in this debate. As an Independent Deputy, I must constantly challenge and test the treaty on behalf of citizens. I accept that it may not be popular to do so but it is essential for everyone to hear all the facts. This debate is about the Lisbon treaty. I accept that it is not about the European Union and the positive aspects of European co-operation. While I may criticise and challenge, I will also present my view on the European Union and the broader international scene. Let us put to bed the isolationist tag mentioned by some previous speakers.
In my broader vision for Europe and Ireland, I seek to extend popular sovereignty and promote democratic values in Irish life. I oppose EU supranational control at all levels of society and seek to counteract its dominance in Irish life. I want to defend and enhance our national democracy and accountability, thus ensuring the maximum amount of power for decision making will be in the hands of the Irish people. My long-term aim is to establish more equal and democratic relations between all the nations and peoples of Europe, from the Urals to the Atlantic.
I am concerned about the progressive transfer of power from the elected representatives of the people to unaccountable supranational institutions. In my vision for Europe I support the development and enhancement of national and local democracy. I want close co-operation with neighbouring EU member states. I believe in moving towards a more socially desirable, environmentally aware and sustainable model of development. I am opposed to proposals that increase the competence of the European Union or reduce the influence of member states. I seek a devolution of powers from the European Union to national level, and from national to local level, in order to increase democratic control and promote a culture of political participation. I am opposed to all measures of liberalisation involving the transfer of services or utilities from public to private ownership.
I seek the maintenance of Irish neutrality and oppose membership of any military alliance. The drift towards membership of such an alliance is the issue in this debate. My vision includes the development of an independent foreign policy based on support for human rights, national self-determination and economic solidarity with the exploited peoples and countries of the world. This is my vision for Ireland and Europe and it is one that many in this country understand and support.
I note that most contributors to the debate have not examined the details of the treaty. I am concerned that it will endorse the creation of a centralised and militarised super state. It will also strengthen the European Union internationally through the establishment of a permanent EU President, foreign Minister and a department of foreign affairs. I am also concerned about the incorporation of the European Defence Agency, EDA, into the European treaties. The purpose of the EDA is to promote the European arms industry which accounts for 29% of global arms sales, as well as assisting the development of the European Union's defence capabilities.
Under the terms of the treaty, there is an obligation on member states to increase their military capacity. An expansion of the so-called Petersberg Tasks is to be carried out by the European Union's military and civilian forces, to include combating terrorism and possible pre-emptive military action against perceived threats.
A new innovation called "structured co-operation" allows for mini-military alliances to be established within the structures of the European Union in order to carry out "more demanding missions". Mutual solidarity and mutual defence clauses will oblige all member states to come to the assistance of any member state subjected to armed aggression. It is important to point to these issues.
Article 28.3 of the treaty states:
"Member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen an industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities".
These are the facts.
As regards the broader issue, I have legitimate concerns that Ireland has only 12 members out of 750 in the European Parliament. I am also concerned that two thirds of Irish laws now come from Brussels. I am concerned, too, that some 95% of the Lisbon treaty is from the rejected European Union constitution. That is the hidden agenda in this debate. The European treaty would be far superior.
That is a summary of my concerns and it is essential for the public to hear them. As regards the broader debate, it is important to let the people know that 80% of Members of the House and practically 90% of the media support the "Yes" side. Hence, as an Independent Deputy, I will always raise such concerns. There are serious democratic questions to be raised on the issues of balance and proper information.
Article 9.2 of the Constitution states: "Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens". As an Independent Deputy, all I want to do is achieve the intent of that article. I do not want to pledge my loyalty to any other state.
Let us deal with the economic issue, to which the Minister referred. The recent statement by the French finance Minister, Christine Lagarde, that the common consolidated tax base is "one issue that we are determined to push", has seen people in Brussels and Dublin go into damage limitation mode to try to limit the perception that this would be the first step to a common corporation tax rate. Commissioner McCreevy identified this measure as a long-term hidden agenda for a common corporation tax base. He described it as a sinister idea that refused to die and added that permanent officials in the Commission were seeking to impose deliberately unworkable proposals that amounted to a Trojan horse to enable the Commission to take control of taxation issues.
Let us examine the detail further. Article 93 of the Lisbon treaty proposes an important amendment to Article 113 of the consolidated treaties which makes harmonised company tax laws across the European Union a mandatory requirement, although it must be done by unanimity. The amendment states such harmonisation must take place, if necessary, to avoid distortion of competition, allowing a country or firm to take a case before the European Court of Justice alleging that, for example, lreland's 12.5% rate of company tax constitutes a distortion of competition compared to Germany's 30% rate. It is legitimate to raise these issues.
Article 42(2) states: "The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy." This will lead to a common defence policy. I object to some countries and their foreign policies. It is legitimate for an Irish Deputy to challenge them.
I conclude by quoting the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Jean Claude Juncker, on the issue of sovereignty, a legitimate concern. He stated: "Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of the public to this fact?" The answer must be that any Irish politician of integrity must do so, irrespective of the personal or political cost. Fundamentally, the treaty provides for a massive shift of power from the nations of the European Union to Brussels, effectively making us a province of Europe. These are the concerns I raise.
We need an honest debate, with less name calling, with openness and vision to ensure all people of the world, not just those in the European Union, can live in peace, justice and harmony.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important issue of the Lisbon treaty. I will be voting "Yes" and campaigning for others to do the same. The new treaty is absolutely necessary to streamline and simplify the structures that we need for our 27 member union in the next period.
It is the right of the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to complain about Fine Gael and what some of its people were saying but I draw his attention, while he is in the Chamber, to a well organised meeting of the Forum for Europe in Monaghan. The two main speakers addressing it were Deputy Margaret Conlon who did a good job on behalf of the "Yes" campaign and Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin who did his own thing for the "No" campaign. I was most worried by the fact that, out of a large crowd, two people from the floor spoke in favour of the treaty, Councillor Seán McKiernan from County Cavan and me. A number of farming organisation representatives spoke in the negative but not one of the Minister's colleagues bothered to get involved. The main body of the crowd spoke against it. If we are to win the treaty referendum, as is my wish, it is important that those who believe in the European Union get out and sell it. Those who are against it are the same types, if not the same, of individuals who opposed it in 1973. Those in favour should not be annoyed that we may raise matters which are relevant because if we do not understand what others think, we may lose the referendum. It is vital that, where there is a forum and an opportunity, the Minister's councillors and people stand up and be counted to make sure both sides are heard.
Some may argue that we should not have to do without a Commissioner for a time but it is only sensible to curtail the number of Commissioners who will deal with the relevant issues on behalf of the Union and that we still have the safeguard of the ministerial Councils to actually make the final decisions. The same situation will be relevant to Germany, France and Britain as it is to Ireland or any of the other smaller nations. Each nation will have a Commissioner for ten out of every 15 years regardless of its size. This is reasonably fair in the light of the fact that when we first joined, the bigger countries had two Commissioners and we had one.
There are many other good reasons. I have heard that people genuinely believe we in the main Opposition party should use the opportunity to highlight the failures of the Government. There are many who believe we should vote against the treaty but I believe the future of the European Union and Ireland's place at the centre of it is a vital national interest which must come first.
I can understand the serious frustration of the farming community with the failure of the Government to reign in Commissioner Mandelson. When I spoke on the issue of the WTO in the House, I did not specifically criticise the Minister but I criticise without apology the Government, from the Taoiseach down, for the failure to reign in Commissioner Mandelson. We should remember that his activities are not the fault of the Lisbon treaty but of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at European level. Even at this late stage they should use their influence to make sure that no deal happens or, if necessary, use the veto to stop it in its current form.
In the words of my party leader Deputy Enda Kenny:
Essentially this treaty's purpose is to reform the institutions and decision making processes of the Union to cater for a population of 500 million people in 27 member states and to prepare Europe for the many challenges it faces. These include the growing economic power of nations like China, Russia and India. Other global challenges like climate change, hunger and disease epidemics require Europe to speak with a coherent voice if our continent is to be effective in contributing to solutions of these problems.
I cannot help thinking of the state of the country and the economy before we committed ourselves to the European ideal. Before 1973 we were tied to the British cheap food policy as we had no access to the European Union or support from it. We had a very clear and fully manned border with Northern Ireland, where each time one crossed it, a card had to be stamped to allow a vehicle to remain. It was equally important to have it stamped coming back out.
Our entry into the European Union gave us the opportunity to expand our agricultural production under a reasonable guarantee of return for effort. From a farming point of view, it gave us the opportunity to export live cattle to Egypt, Libya and many other areas. Likewise, beef could be exported with the support of export refunds to many of these nations. With all these European structures, we built a vibrant agricultural and food processing industry. I make the point because I come from that background.
On the other side, we received massive investment from the United States and other interested countries wanting to use Ireland as their gateway to the European Union. Ireland became a nation in its own right, was recognised clearly for stability and an ability to negotiate at European level and took its place with all other nations, especially the United States. In more recent times there has been a better relationship with our nearest neighbours, the United Kingdom.
I cannot help referring at this stage to Deputy Finian McGrath's comments on wars and so on. One thinks about the two world wars in the last century to which the European Economic Community was set up in response. I shall come back to this later, but that was some change. Under changes brought about through different EU structures the Border with Northern Ireland, like all other borders, slowly but surely came to an end, and no other group can claim responsibility for that. It came about because of involvement within the EU. We can drive freely from one end of this island to the other with little awareness of being in a different jurisdiction other than that Northern Ireland still uses miles on its signposts and we use kilometres.
It was the EU or, to be totally correct, the old EEC that first broke down the borders and the enmities brought about through two major wars and clearly the EU structures have continued to ensure that peace remains the first objective. This initiative has now been extended to east Germany and eastern European countries and has played no small role in helping to bring about the peace and co-operation that we have on this island.
When I first went to Brussels as chairman of the National Livestock Committee of the IFA in 1979, and subsequently followed in Mr. Joe Bruton's footsteps as Chairman of the European Committee for Beef and Veal, I quickly learned that Brussels and the European ideal was more about co-operation and compromise than trying to win by the benefit of a vote.
The Lisbon treaty has resulted from that type of structure, where we debate the issues and come up with the best possible compromise and solution to serve the needs of 27 states. I have no problem in agreeing with the "No" campaign that from the point of any individual or nation particular issues might be better, but this is not the way negotiations, consultations and comprise works.
The Irish delegation from all sides put a major effort into the treaty. I have no doubt it will streamline the workings of the Commission, the European Parliament and all other sectors. I am not suggesting that I have read every word of the treaty, as others have claimed to do, but I have faith in my party's advisers and personnel who have studied the details in depth and I believe we will be allowed to retain our taxation measures as well as all the other benefits we have derived from the EU in the past.
Remember it was the Fine Gael-led Government with Deputy Ruairí Quinn as Minister for Finance, which negotiated the 12.5% corporation tax which has been so beneficial to our industrial growth. I remember at that time it was clearly said that this benefit would not be allowed to continue. It was used as an issue at the time of the last European referendum to the effect that if we voted "Yes" we would lose our tax status, and some of the same people are crying wolf again. It is interesting to read the comments of some of our people who have studied this matter in depth and confirmed the legal situation. Deputy Billy Timmins specifically referred to two judgments of the European Court of Justice which made it crystal clear that all fiscal provisions must be provided for on a unanimous legal basis. In other words, Ireland can still veto any attempt at tax harmonisation and any argument to the contrary is completely false. Ireland's ability to decide on corporate and income tax rates remains a matter for the Irish authorities alone. That is clearly stated by experts in the legal and political areas. It is farcical for people to try to make out, without any foundation, that they have all the answers and that Ireland will lose that benefit.
As I stated at the outset, it is not difficult to justify voting "No" just to get at the Government. The Minister for Education and Science claimed she had to impose school water charges because of EU law but we in Fine Gael were able to prove otherwise. The EU is interested in curtailing waste but not in imposing charges that are unnecessary. Likewise, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food claimed she could not pay REPS because of the EU. However, through one of her MEPs this story was quickly quashed and farmers received their payments. Too often the Government has used the EU as a scapegoat for the imposition of red tape. Once again, the EU is insisting that every government puts forward plans to reduce red tape by at least 25%.
I have many good friends who for their own strong reasons believe that they should vote "No". They are sick of the arrogance of the Minister for Health and Children and her refusal to take control of the health service, while frontline staff are not being replaced and individual home help and home help packages are being refused — the list goes on. I say to them, as I say to all others, that Europe is not at fault for our health problems. It is not at fault for our transport problems. If funding had been properly used we would no longer have these problems.
We have gained a great deal in funding from Europe. That may not be the case in the future because our economy is in much better shape than those of other counties who have just joined. However, there is still significant funding coming through the CAP arrangements to farmers and through social funding, but more importantly being at the heart of Europe has much more benefits for Ireland than money can ever buy. One has to be involved in the process at some level to be able to realise this.
When I was a young man travel was not an option because of cost. Through competition introduced by the EC — Commissioner Peter Sutherland had a good deal to do with it — people can now fly for as little as €5 plus taxes. This means that our school children can travel and get the opportunities that we never had.
Deputy Finian McGrath had much to say about the transfer of powers to the EU. Through the Cathaoirleach, I say to the Minister that the transfer of powers that worry me most is not within Europe but rather within this Government — for instance, the transfer of powers to the HSE, the NRA and all the other bodies that are no longer answerable to the Dáil. We can compare this to what the Lisbon treaty is doing. The Lisbon treaty is insisting that before decisions are made they should come to the Dáil, where the House will have the opportunity to discuss them and if necessary amend them, with the support of other countries. Far be it from the Lisbon treaty to take powers from this House. It will give powers back to it which I believe is long overdue.
I welcome the fact that Deputy McGrath said he was very much inclined to ask questions about the treaty, and he asserts his right to do so. I cannot help wondering why he did not ask many more questions before he insisted on joining up with the Government. That is something Deputy McGrath must question himself on and he will get far more interesting answers to this than from questions about the integrity of the Lisbon treaty.
I refer to some of the problems the Government has, especially with the WTO. The Government has a few more weeks to get its act together. I do not believe that the farmer organisations will tell members to vote "No", but they are extremely worried and not without good cause. If the present proposals are put in place the IFA figures show that 50,000 jobs will be lost in farming and 50,000 in agri-industry. There is no Minister, or anyone else, who can say that the IFA figures are not correct. It is important that this be dealt with as quickly as possible and that Commissioner Mandelson return to the previous agreement negotiated by the Government as the bottom line for the WTO talks. If this does not happen, the Lisbon treaty will not really matter and there will be extremely serious consequences for the country. I urge the Minster and his colleagues to ensure the treaty's ratification will not be affected by the WTO talks. The only way he can do this is by dealing with the talks in a positive, structured way. He should ensure European farmers, Irish farmers included, learn that Commissioner Mandelson is not the only person in charge of the European structures and that the Government is prepared to stand up to him to ensure the country does not suffer.
It is Fine Gael policy to promote the treaty publicly. My colleague, Deputy Creighton, has done tremendous work promoting it and has attended meetings in this regard. She attended a well structured meeting in Ballybay, County Monaghan. There was another in Cavan on Friday night. We intend to hold meetings in all constituencies to ensure Fine Gael's support for the treaty is made known.
Without fear of contradiction, I say to the Minister that unless his people are committed to promoting the treaty, it will not be ratified. As I said to his colleague, not one member of his party spoke from the floor at a meeting in Monaghan town. This is not the key to success in the referendum. I am not sure whether Deputy Ó Caoláin was at the meeting I attended. His supporters were present, as was Deputy Conlon and her supporters, to back up their case. The Minister's supporters were not; if he wants to win the referendum on the treaty and remain at the centre of Europe, as I do, it is essential that his troops be on the ground. It will be difficult for the Opposition to maintain its troops on the ground if it does not see the Government taking action.
Táim ag iarraidh mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Tomás Ó Broin as Contae na Mí.
Tá áthas orm deis a bheith agam labhairt ar an ábhar seo sa Dáil. Tá súil agam go nglacfar leis an gconradh um athchóiriú mar go gcreidim gurb é leas phobail na hÉireann é. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address this subject in the Dáil. It is my hope the EU reform treaty will be passed because it is in the best interests of the people.
Let me outline briefly some of the reasons the reform treaty should be accepted. My reasoning will not be comprehensive due to time constraints. A fundamental reason is that the treaty deals with the issue of informing national parliaments of proposed legislation. This does away with the problem that arose when there was a sense that regulations were being passed in the European Union without national parliaments or the public being aware of their details.
The provision for the equality of representation in the Commission is being preserved. This protects our vital interests and ensures the parity of all nation states in the European Union. Under the early treaties, the larger states had greater representation in the Commission but this will not be the case in the future.
The pivotal role of the Council of Ministers is also consolidated by the reform treaty. Again, this is in our vital national interest. In Article 1.3, the treaty clearly sets out for the first time the aims of the European Union:
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. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women prevail.
It is very important that the Union set out its stall in this way. Article 1.3 plainly demonstrates its objective of advancing the well-being of the peoples of Europe.
One provision in the reform treaty is of particular relevance to my work as Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and the work of my Department. I have seen very little comment on this matter to date. As the White Paper states, the treaty provides special recognition for areas that suffer from particular challenges, "Among the regions concerned, particular attention should be paid to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and areas which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, such as the northernmost regions with very low population density, and island, cross-border, and mountain regions." This very much mirrors the work of my Department in respect of urban areas experiencing industrial transition, rural areas, the islands and those areas facing physical or demographic handicaps. I am delighted the treaty recognises there should be special treatment for these areas. What is in the treaty very much mirrors all the Department's programmes such as RAPID and CLÁR and the commitment to the islands.
The European Union is totally committed to rural development in its wider sense, in addition to being committed to agriculture. The Union takes a wide view of rural development as total community development. Within pillar 2 alone of the European rural development programme, €2.4 billion is set aside for a range of rural development measures over the period 2007 to 2013. My Department's new rural development programme will see an investment of almost €1 billion, three times what it was previously, in measures to develop rural enterprise and quality of life through a combination of EU and State funding, matched by private sector resources, in the period to 2013. Commissioner Fischer Boel has been particularly committed to preserving and developing rural populations across Europe. Everybody recognises this is a core policy of the Government.
People in Ireland are justly proud of the role this country has played in peacekeeping since the early 1960s. The proposed treaty clearly allows us to continue with our traditional international peacekeeping role. This is further cemented by the provision in the Bill which specifically provides, as did the referendum Bill on the second Nice referendum, that Ireland cannot become involved in a common defence arrangement without further reference to the people by way of a referendum.
The treaty is unique in one other way. Thanks to the universal support of all Members and parties in the Dáil — I include Fine Gael, represented today by Deputy Creighton, and also Sinn Féin, represented by Deputy Ó Caoláin — and due to the efforts of the Taoiseach since the last treaty was passed, the Irish language has become an official and working language of the European Union since 1 January 2007. It has the full support of all other member states. The reform treaty reflects this fact and is the first European Union treaty that recognises our national language on a par with all of the other official languages of the Union. I am slightly disappointed that Sinn Féin cannot join us in supporting this momentous step forward where our language, in the immortal words of Robert Emmet, takes its place among the nations of the world.
Unfortunately, ní fheiceann siad an bealach sin. Is maith agus is ceart an rud é go mbeadh díospóireacht ar an gconradh seo. Má scrúdaítear é agus má thógtar san áireamh gur conradh é a n-aontófar idir 27 tíortha, is soiléir nach féidir a bheith ag súil go mbeidh gach rud ann ar an mbealach ar mhaith le chuile dhuine é. San iomlán, tá i bhfad níos mó ann atá chun tairbhe na hÉireann thar mar atá sa chonradh atá ann i láthair na huaire. Mar a dúirt mé i mBéarla, sílim go bhfuil na foráileacha ann a bhaineann le dul i gcomhairle leis na parlaimintí náisiúnta roimh a thugtar isteach rialacháin agus moltaí eile san Eoraip thar a bheith tábhachtach. Ba easnamh é sin sna conarthaí éagsúla a bhí againn roimhe seo.
Chomh maith leis sin, tá soláthar speisialta ann do na ceantair is mó agus is boichte san Eoraip. Is rud an-dearfach é sin, chomh maith leis an tacaíocht atá á thabhairt d'fhorbairt na tuaithe. Bhí buairt ann cheana maidir le cúrsaí cogaidh agus míleata. Ar nós an Bhille a cuireadh faoi bhráid an Tí seo nuair a bhí an dara reifreann ar bun faoi chonradh Nice, tá soláthar sa Bhille seo a dhéanann cosaint ar an gceist sin agus a dhéanann cinnte nach féidir muide a bheith páirteach i gcosaint comónta san Eoraip gan reifreann eile a ghlacadh.
Tá an conradh seo difriúil ar bhealach bhunúsach ó aon chonradh eile a chuireadh os comhair an Tí seo ón bhliain 1973. Don chéad uair, sa chonradh seo de bharr obair an Rialtais agus obair an Taoisigh agus tacaíochta chuile pháirtí sa Teach, tá an Ghaeilge aitheanta mar theanga oifigiúil oibre san Eoraip. Is rud thar a bheith dearfach é sin. Cinnte, cuidíonn sé go mór leis an teanga. Tabharfaidh sé seasamh fé leith di agus fáiltím roimhe sin. Cuireann sé gliondar i mo chroí a fheiceáil sa chonradh seo go bhfuil an seasamh seo á thabhairt don Ghaeilge agus nach mbeidh muid as seo amach in áit na leathphingne.
Ar na cúiseanna sin ar fad agus ar go leor cúiseanna nach bhfuil am agam a lua, molaim an Bille seo don Teach. Tá súil agam, ní amháin go nglacfar anseo sa Dáil leis, ach go nglacfaidh muintir na hÉireann leis ar 12 Meitheamh.
Tá áthas orm labhairt ar son chonradh Liospóin. Níl aon amhras faoi ach gur conradh maith é d'Éirinn. Bhí an-bhaint ag an Rialtas le dréachtáil an chonartha. Saolaíodh an conradh mar bhunreacht an Aontais Eorpaigh i 2004 agus roimhe sin i gCoinbhinsin na hEorpa. Chríochnaíodh na hidirbheartaíochtaí i mBaile Átha Cliath i 2004 faoi uachtaránacht an Taoisigh agus le cabhair mhór óna chomhghleacaithe sa Rialtas. Theip ar reifrinn sa Fhrainc agus san Ollainn ina dhiaidh sin agus rinneadh roinnt athruithe ar ghnéithe éagsúla bunreachtúla, mar a déarfá, agus cuireadh conradh i ndréacht in ionad bhunreachta.
Tá an Bille seo os ár gcomhair chun reifreann a chur i gcríoch. Is dócha gur thug an Ard-Aighne comhairle don Rialtas go bhfuil reifreann riachtanach. Mar sin féin, léigh mé alt spéisiúil sa nuachtán ar maidin ina ndearna an t-údar, léachtóir ó Choláiste na hOllscoile Baile Átha Cliath, an argóint nach raibh reifreann riachtanach de réir an Bhunreachta. Níl a fhios agam an bhfuil sin fíor ach is cinnte, más rud é go ndiúltófar don reifreann, go mbeidh muid sa Chúirt Uachtarach amach anseo. Mar sin, measaim go bhfuil riachtanas polaitiúil ann do reifreann.
Tá conradh Liospóin ag iarraidh ról níos tábhachtaí a thabhairt dúinn anseo sa Dáil, agus sa Seanad agus do pharlaimintí ar fud na hEorpa. Tiocfaidh gach togra maidir le reachtaíocht an Aontais Eorpaigh chugainn anseo sa Dáil. Is féidir a rá go dtagann siad cheana féin, ach gan éifeacht. Má thagann conradh Liospóin i bhfeidhm, agus tá súil agam go dtiocfaidh, beidh dhá chóras ann dúinn — an cárta buí agus an cárta dearg — le cinntiú nach dtéann an tAontas thar a údarás, thar cad atá scríofa sna conarthaí.
Tá an tAontas, de réir an chonartha, bunaithe ar an daonlathas. Feiceann muid sin i bParlaimint na hEorpa. Ní stát nó ollstát é an tAontas, ach grúpa stáit agus náisiúin daonlathacha ón Eoraip. Mar sin, tá sé tábhachtach go mbeidh daonlathas san Eoraip agus measaim go bhfuil dóthain daonlathais curtha ar fáil sa chonradh. Níl an sórt daonlathais atá againn in Éirinn de dhíth orainn san Eoraip, mar ní stát ná ollstát í, ach grúpa de stáit í. Is daonlathas difriúil atá i gceist. Tá sin tábhachtach. Mar sin, má tá daoine ag lorg tuilleadh daonlathais, caithfear an cheist a chur orthu an bhfuil ollstát uathu.
Gné daonlathach ámhain atá sa chonradh ná an rud ar a dtugtar an achainí ar thionscnamh saoránach. Chun úsáid a bhaint as seo, caithfear milliún sínithe a fháil ó shaoránaigh Eorpacha. Níl dabht ann, ach is figiúr ard é seo. Mar sin féin, nuair a smaoinítear ar donra na hEorpa faoi láthair, is figiúr réasúnta é, go háirithe nuair a glactar go mbaineann sé le gníomhartha an Aontais. An mbeadh an Rialtas sásta an ceart seo a thabhairt dár saoránaigh féin?
Tá a lán díospóireachtaí ar siúl faoi láthair maidir le ról Chomhairle na nAirí, ról Chomhairle na hEorpa agus ár gcumhacht mar thír neamhspleách ar na comhairlí sin. Tá athruithe ag teacht sa chóras vótála atá ag na comhairlí seo. Tá gá leis na hathruithe seo. Tá an tAontas nó an Comhphobal imithe ó sé bhall go 27. Cuid de na nithe is tábhachtaí dúinne ná cúrsaí cánacha, go háirithe an cháin chorporáideach, agus polasaí cosanta an Chomhbheartais Cosanta agus Slándála. Caithfidh gach tír as na 27 tíortha bheith ar aon intinn faoi chúrsaí cosanta. De bharr sin, níl aon bhaol ann dár neodracht. Bíonn an argóint céanna againn le gach reifreann, ach tá cosaint mhaith againn i dtaobh cúrsaí cosanta. Tá veto againn chomh maith agus soláthar an trí ghlas. Má tá an Rialtas ag iarraidh bheith páirteach i bpolasaí cosantach comónta, caithfear reifreann a bheith againn. Caithfidh muintir na hÉireann an cead sin a thabhairt don Rialtas.
Is iad na hargóintí céanna a úsáidtear ag chuile reifreann, an cháin, cúrsaí cosanta agus, arís an uair seo, an ginmhilleadh. Cheap mé nach mbeadh an argóint sin i gceist an uair seo, ach tá sé. Is íoróineach an rud é gur daoine atá sásta ginmhilleadh a bheith ar fáil sa tír seo iad na daoine atá ag úsáid na hargóinte seo chun eagla a chur ar an phobal nach bhfuil sásta ginmhilleadh a bheith ar fáil. Ar nós na rudaí eile a luaigh mé, ní mór dúinn téacs an chonartha a léamh faoi chúrsaí cánacha, cosanta agus an ghinmhillte. Tá an téacs an-shoiléir ina dtaobh.
Déantar an argóint go bhfuil an conradh ró-fhada. Déantar comparáid idir é agus bunreachtaí ar nós ár mBunreacht fhéin agus Bunreacht Mheiriceá. Caithfear an argóint seo a scrios. Ní bunreacht tíre é chonradh Liospóin, ach conradh idir 27 tíortha éagsúla Eorpacha. Deirtear go bhfuil Bunreacht Mheiriceá an-shimplí agus éasca a léamh. Tá argóintí pholaitiúla ar siúl le 200 bhlian anuas maidir le míniú an bhunreachta sin. Fiú sa toghchán uachtaránachta atá ar siúl i Meiriceá faoi láthair, beidh argóintí ar siúl maidir le cé a bhéas mar bhreitheamh ar an gCúirt Uachtarach ann agus faoi na polasaithe a bheidh ag na breithiúna agus iad ag iarraidh míniú a chur ar an mbunreacht sin, de bharr go bhfuil an bunreacht chomh gearr sin. Tarlaíonn an rud céanna anseo. Tá ár mBunreacht an-ghearr agus bíonn ar na breithiúna é a mhíniú go minic.
Mar shampla, tá go leor argóintí ar siúl i Meiriceá i dtaobh an ginmhillte, ach níl ceart ina dtaobh scríofa i mbunreacht Mheiriceá. Thug breithiúna áirithe a míniú féin ar an mbunreacht chun an ceart sin a nochtadh. Sa gcaoi céanna, léigh breithiúna na hÉireann go leor rudaí éagsúla isteach in ár mBunreacht, rudaí maithe don b'hformhór.
Is conradh é seo idir 27 tíortha agus dá bhrí sin, caithfear gach rud a bheith scríofa síos ann. Ní bheidh an European Court of Justice in ann a mhíniú féin a chur ar an gconradh, mar go mbeidh gach rud scríofa ann cheana féin. Beidh na rialacháin ann. Má léann daoine na doiciméid atá curtha ar fáil ag an Rialtas, ag an coimisiún reifrinn, agus ag na páirtí polaitíochta, beidh siad in ann go leor eolais a fháil.
A point was made on meetings and many have been held in the Meath East constituency. It was suggested that Fianna Fáil activists are not promoting the treaty but it is important to put on the record of the House that in my constituency and that of the Acting Chairman we are actively promoting it. We have had a number of meetings and I will hold more public information meetings on the treaty. We have started canvassing for a "Yes" vote and I would say we are one of the first parties to do so. We were knocking on doors this weekend and it is not true to say that Fianna Fáil activists are not working on the ground. The party machine and our activists are more than happy to promote the treaty and give the information that is required.
It is right that the Dáil is spending considerable time debating this Bill, which seeks to amend the Constitution to give effect to the Lisbon treaty. No doubt the Government and its allies in this House will cite the succession of TDs who have stood up to advocate a "Yes" vote but it is important we recognise that the arguments of those of us who take the opposite view are no less important.
Successive referenda have shown that people have been ill-served by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour, who have unquestioningly and uncritically supported every proposed development of the European Union that has been put to referendum in this State. Yet consistently over one third of the electorate has opposed the further loss of sovereignty and the undermining of neutrality. That section of opinion grew to defeat the first Nice referendum in 2001.
Now the number of voters who find themselves unrepresented or not properly represented in this House has increased. Very many of those who voted for the Green Party, on the basis that they would oppose further erosion of Irish sovereignty and neutrality, find that their party has swung around to support the Lisbon treaty, not on its merits but so the party can remain in government with Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats.
Government speakers have repeatedly cited the positions we have taken in previous referenda and say that we are not to be trusted when we state that we are for continued EU membership, that co-operation with our EU partners is valuable and must continue and that we have supported EU measures that have benefited this country. However, these are the positions of Sinn Féin. We are positive about Europe, we are for critical engagement with the European Union and too many in this House are for unquestioning loyalty to EU institutions.
It is interesting to hear them refer to previous referenda. There was no referendum between the referendum on EU accession in 1972 and the referendum on the Singe European Act in 1987. The gap was a full 15 years and if successive Governments, involving Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour, had had their way there would have been no referenda at all after accession. The people were only given the right to decide on these issues after a private citizen, the late Mr. Raymond Crotty, took court action on constitutional grounds. It is interesting to consider how far the political elite in this State would have taken us if they had not been held to account in this way. For one thing, I very much doubt that we would have remained outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO.
In his speech introducing this Bill the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, said:
There is currently no proposal for a common EU defence. In any case, a change in Ireland's position can only come about if the Irish people decide so in a referendum.
Again we have the touching reference to a referendum. The Minister's party, Fianna Fáil, in its 1997 election manifesto, opposed membership of NATO's so-called Partnership for Peace. That was the first general election that saw Deputy Bertie Ahern elected Taoiseach. Deputy Bertie Ahern said that to join it without a referendum would be a "serious breach of faith and fundamentally undemocratic". In government he joined it and there was no referendum.
This State has come to play an increasingly significant role in both NATO and EU military structures. Irish troops serve at NATO headquarters in Brussels under the so-called Partnership for Peace. Irish troops have served in NATO-led missions, including in Afghanistan. There is a full-time EU military staff, EUMS, headquartered in Brussels that is responsible for command and control of EU military capabilities. This reports to an EU military committee which, in turn, reports to the EU Political and Security Committee and from thence upwards to the EU Council of Ministers. Irish Army officers serve with the EUMS and Ireland is represented at all other levels of this network. This Lisbon treaty will deepen involvement with NATO, ensuring that all such activities are compatible with NATO, while increasing Irish taxpayers' contributions to Irish and EU military capabilities.
Government speaker after Government speaker, as well as others on the "Yes" side, have repeatedly tried to promote the scare story that a rejection of Lisbon will see us turned into the dunces of the EU class who will be put standing in the corner or, worse still, expelled altogether. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dick Roche, have specialised in this line. Deputy Martin Mansergh tried to recruit every Irish patriot from Eoghan Rua Ó Neill to Thomas Davis and the men and women of 1916 to the "Yes" campaign. All this was to show that by voting "No" we would be turning our backs on Europe and the world. It is patent and patronising nonsense and it convinces no one.
France and the Netherlands rejected the EU constitution in 2005. They did not lose influence or standing in the European Union and nor would this State if it did likewise. The purpose of a referendum is for the citizens of a member state to freely and democratically decide on the matter at hand. As democrats we must all, including our EU partners, respect the outcome of the referendum. Attempts to bully or bribe us into voting a particular way are undemocratic. There is no doubt that, if rejected, this treaty will reopen the debate about the future of Europe.
The attempts by the political elite in Ireland and in Brussels to deceive the people have gone well beyond rhetoric here in the Dáil and I want to detail some of it. In October 2007 the European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs was due to produce a report on a common consolidated corporate tax base. There were many in the Parliament who wanted the Commission to bring forward its proposal. At the co-ordinators' meeting Mr. Eoin Ryan, MEP, of Fianna Fáil intervened to request that it be postponed until after the referendum here in Ireland. Representatives of the political blocs to which Labour, Fine Gael and Marian Harkin are affiliated all agreed to postpone it. Again, this report will not now be discussed until after the Irish referendum.
In December 2007, European Commission President, Mr. José Manuel Barroso, removed tax harmonisation from the strategic objectives of the Commission for 2008. It was widely reported in both the Irish and European media that Irish Commissioner, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, campaigned for this change as he believed that the plans for the tax base would become an issue in the debate on the treaty referendum. Following this decision, László Kovács, Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, told MEPs that same month that a legislative proposal for a common tax base would still be published but not until after the 2008 summer break — after the Irish referendum.
Cuireadh an díospóireacht ar athló.
Debate adjourned.