Report of Sub-Committee on Ireland’s Future in the EU: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I am pleased, in this important week before the European Council, to have this opportunity to address the House on the recently completed report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the sub-committee: to its Chairman, Senator Pascal Donohue, its Vice Chairman, Deputy Timmy Dooley, the members and the many witnesses, all of whom worked to extremely demanding deadlines to deliver the report that is the subject of our discussion this evening.

The genesis of the report lies in the aftermath of the referendum, when I explained to my European Union colleagues that Ireland would need time to seek to understand the concerns underlying the "No" vote, "to engage in serious and careful analysis of the outcome of the referendum and its implications", as I said at the European Council in June. This analysis took two forms. First, we commissioned independent research into the reasons behind the vote, with which all Members are familiar. We made great efforts to make the results of this research widely available. For the most part, the study confirmed what many of us suspected. Other findings, for example, on conscription, were more surprising.

While the figures emerging from the study are interesting, we were and are determined that the exploration of the reasons underlying the vote would move beyond a mere interrogation of data. We wanted a deeper engagement with the issues that were on the minds of the Irish people when they cast their vote in June. Working with the other political parties represented in this House, we supported the establishment by the Oireachtas of an all-party sub-committee — a sub-committee that reached beyond party allegiance to include Independents — to examine the issues that contributed to the referendum result.

It was agreed that the sub-committee should carry out its work under four broad headings: to analyse the challenges facing Ireland in the European Union following the Lisbon treaty referendum result; to consider Ireland's future in the EU including with regard to economic and financial matters, social policy, defence and foreign policy and our influence within the European institutions; to make recommendations to enhance the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in EU affairs; and to consider measures to improve public understanding of the EU and its fundamental importance for Ireland's future.

The sub-committee's report, which is both well structured and well written, mirrors this mandate in its chapter layout. From the outset, the sub-committee's work was guided by the requirement to be as inclusive as possible. It is galling, therefore, to hear accusations that the sub-committee was in some way skewed or prejudiced in its work. The sub-committee was designed to be inclusive, both in its membership and in its witnesses. All the political parties in the Oireachtas were represented, including those which had campaigned against the treaty, to ensure as broad a range of voices as possible was heard.

In all, over the course of its work, the sub-committee met more than 110 witnesses from more than 40 organisations from inside Ireland and abroad. These organisations represented a wide spectrum in terms of input, viewpoints and concerns. It is a matter of regret that not all members of the sub-committee could agree to its final report. For my part, I am satisfied that the sub-committee's overall analysis of the challenges facing Ireland is fair and comprehensive and represents an important contribution to our search for a way forward in the difficult circumstances in which we now find ourselves.

The sub-committee was not mandated to recommend a solution to the post-referendum situation, nor did it do so. Nevertheless, its work has provided an extremely valuable input for the Government in preparing for this week's European Council meeting. This tight deadline partly was consistent with the Government's desire to have the sub-committee's input before it would take a position at the European Council later this week. That the sub-committee managed to report within such a timeframe is a credit to the commitment and energy of all who were involved in its work.

The report is underpinned by one profoundly encouraging finding, namely, that Ireland's place is at the heart of the European Union, contributing positively and deploying our influence carefully to promote our national interests. That said, the report recognises that Ireland's ability to do this — to contribute positively and defend our interests — has been, at the least, impaired and that real, long-term damage to our interests will arise if we fail to find a way through the present impasse. This is a key point. Some were frustrated during the course of the sub-committee's work at what they perceived was a difficulty in identifying specific instances of damage being done. The important point made by this report is that the damage has been systemic more than specific and that while certain individual cases can be pointed to, much more significant is the wholesale shift in the perception of Ireland.

For right or wrong, our partners abroad — whether they are investment boards of multinational companies deciding on where to invest in Europe or foreign governments assessing where their "friends" lie when they are doing business at EU level — perceive a change in our attitude. Our position has traditionally been enthusiastically European, at the centre of negotiations, working to secure outcomes with the broadest possible appeal and pragmatic and constructive. I fear we may no longer be perceived in that way.

It was reassuring for all who care about Ireland's future in the Union to see the issues identified empirically by the research project being reinforced, again and again, at the sub-committee. This suggests we are on the right track in our search for a solution at the European level. In addition to this reassurance about our EU level approach, the sub-committee's recommendations about our domestic approach make very interesting reading. An Oireachtas sub-committee is uniquely well positioned to comment on domestic practices and procedures and the sub-committee's report does not disappoint in this respect.

A majority of the sub-committee's suggestions relate to domestic practices and procedures for the way we do EU business. Many of them have important consequences for the Houses of the Oireachtas, for example, its recommendations for electoral change, procedural change, an Oireachtas communications strategy and new scrutiny mechanisms. There is a clear sense running through the report that we need to reconsider the manner in which both Houses engage in the business of the EU. It is reassuring for me as Taoiseach to see such a willingness on the part of the Oireachtas to participate in this important aspect of our international relations.

While the decision on whether to proceed with many of the sub-committee's proposals will rest with the Oireachtas, the Government approaches this matter with an open mind and will not be found wanting in its response. In publishing the sub-committee's report, the Oireachtas has completed what the Minister for Foreign Affairs has fairly described as "its most sustained exploration of the issues surrounding our membership of the EU since we first joined". This, in itself, is an extremely healthy undertaking. That this exchange took place against the backdrop of such unprecedented economic events, globally, Union-wide and domestically, serves only to underline the importance of the questions under examination by the sub-committee.

Taken together, the independent research commissioned by the Government and the report of the sub-committee provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of the reasons the Irish people voted as they did. One extremely important consideration affecting people's decisions was their lack of understanding of the content of the treaty. This is something we will need to remedy ourselves, although this does not exclude working closely with the EU institutions or others on this task.

Where our engagement with the Union is concerned, however, it is clear that there are a number of areas where the Irish people will require reassurance. I outlined four of these when I spoke at the European Council in October. They include the future composition of the Commission; issues related to defence and our tradition of neutrality; social-ethical matters; and taxation. The resolution of these matters will not be an easy task. The Lisbon treaty represents the finely balanced conclusion of a protracted negotiation between the member states of the Union. That said, the Government has made clear in all of its dealings with our partners that the Irish people have real concerns which are genuinely held and require responses. There is understanding for our position among partners and a willingness among them to work with us. However, I would be failing in my duty if I suggested to the House that we have an easy task ahead of us.

Some partners have been ready to be accommodating, while others have raised serious concerns. All of the member states of the Union made concessions in order to reach agreement on the language of the treaty. Some went a short distance to reach consensus while others travelled a very long way, making key concessions out of a spirit of compromise. These states remain keenly aware of the sacrifices they made.

Together with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, I have been engaged in intensive consultations with fellow member states and the institutions in recent weeks. In our discussions, we have sought to tread a careful path between ensuring that the concerns of the Irish people can be responded to, while not causing insurmountable difficulties for others. As the House will understand, even at this late stage, mere days before the European Council, I am not in a position to describe in detail the shape of the agreement which may be reached at the end of this week. I would venture to say, no one is in a position to do so. If the Treaty of Lisbon is to enter into force, it requires the agreement of all member states. I have a clear idea of what we want. The Government will need to be able to reassure the people that their genuinely held concerns have been taken on board by the other member states.

When I travel to the European Council this week I will aim to achieve a political agreement that the concerns of the Irish public with regard to the treaty will be responded to in a satisfactory way, both in substance and in a legally robust manner. This week will be a real test of the Union's capacity to accommodate our respective needs. The Union has that capacity.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs was quoted over the weekend as saying talks would go to the wire. I agree with that assessment. It will only emerge later this week whether we have agreed the elements of a solution that we judge to meet our needs. That note of caution aside, I have been encouraged by the strength of commitment shown by others, in particular, the French Presidency, in helping us to find a way forward. There is a genuine wish on all sides to reach a solution and we will do everything possible to build on it.

The Union is a dynamic system, which is in constant flux as it seeks to improve the way it does business. Where it has come across problems, it has always shown itself to be constructive and creative in finding solutions. Where new challenges have been thrown down, it has risen to meet them. It is my deep hope that, come Friday evening, building on the Government's work to date and the strong sense of solidarity between member states, we will have moved one step closer to resolving the dilemma in which Ireland and the European Union find themselves.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I commend Senator Paschal Donohoe and his colleagues on the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union on the work they have done in the past two months. The sub-committee's report is a valuable analysis of the position in which Ireland finds itself as a result of the rejection of the Lisbon treaty in a referendum. It is clear from the hearings of the sub-committee that there is doubt and uncertainty about this country's relationship with the European Union. This doubt is damaging Ireland's international standing at a time when the economy is in crisis.

The Taoiseach's contribution did not deal with the core issues. His statement that the Treaty of Lisbon requires the agreement of all member states to enter into force is correct, everybody knows that is the case. What was his contribution about other than mentioning four specific issues — the future composition of the Commission, issues related to defence and our tradition of neutrality, social-ethical matters and taxation — which the European Council and European Commission will not have difficulty addressing. We know they will not cause any great problem with binding declarations which can come into a protocol in the next accession treaty. The Taoiseach has not dealt with fact the that if this treaty is to come into effect it must be endorsed by every country. It was not endorsed by this country and cannot be endorsed by a circuitous legal mechanism. The people must be asked the question again and nothing in this report states that or when it will happen. That is the problem for Ireland and Europe. President Sarkozy may say "We need you and you need us". From my movement around the country, I have seen little confidence that the Taoiseach or the Government have the capacity to steer this through so we can continue to be a respected and influential member of the decision-making process of the European Union, which I strongly favour.

I am dismayed that since the referendum, apart from the sub-committee that was established, we have had no discussion on this problem. The Government needs the support of the parties in the House if it is to go back and do this. We are prepared to take things from the Government in respect of what it is doing. We were told we would receive information on other analysis being done on this but there has not been one word other than the hearings of the sub-committee.

I make no bones about it; Fine Gael has always supported the European process and has campaigned and worked for every referendum on European issues. Now, two days before the Taoiseach goes to the European Council to deal with the four issues which the Council will respond favourably to, he must give a response on what he will do. It contacts me every second day looking for a road map from the Irish Government. There is no point making mountains out of something on which it will concede. It is not a concession on its behalf; some of these issues have been dealt with by previous treaties such as the Maastricht treaty.

The Taoiseach travelled the Continent talking to Heads of Government and he has had presentations to the diplomatic corps who talk among themselves and to others, but there has been no discussion here, 48 hours before he travels to Brussels. This discussion would not have taken place had we not raised the matter with the Government.

Deputy Micheál Martin

That is not true. It was always understood——

Deputy Billy Timmins

It was a battle to get it and the Minister knows it.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I have raised the matter on a number of occasions, as the Minister knows, and only after persistent questioning of the Whip was it agreed to have the debate.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Fine Gael did not——

Deputy Enda Kenny

Deputy Dooley is the Vice Chairman of the sub-committee. I do not know what will happen when the Government goes to Brussels.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

They never made any——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Kenny to continue without interruption, please.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

They went with their tail between their legs.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I am telling him our point of view and I have laid out clearly what we must do to have endorsement of the Lisbon treaty. The Taoiseach's speech mentioned nothing other than four issues of the European Council in October. I guarantee they will go through at the meeting but I want to know his response. He knows that himself.

The Minister knows there must be meaningful discussion with the people to rebuild understanding of and support for the European process. There is a deep appreciation among people for the pivotal role and meaning of EU membership in the economic and social progress of the country over the last decade. People can see the immediate reduction in mortgage repayments as a result of the ECB reducing its interest rates. These are important elements of everyday life in considering being of the Union.

There is a recognition that this country's future best lies at the heart of a reformed, efficient and effective Europe. The Taoiseach mentioned that the referendum campaign and subsequent voter research revealed a very low level of public understanding of the role and functioning of the Union and a perception that Europe is responsible for excessive bureaucracy and regulation. That is obvious from the meetings the Minister and I attended around the country. This disconnect is a significant challenge for everybody. I have argued, since before the referendum when the Government was involved in other activities internal to it, about the importance of Europe and Ireland's future progress. I pointed out that, for younger people in particular, the initial monumental success of the European project in securing peace and stability is simply an historic fact. Many do not remember, because they were not yet born, a time when we all had our different currencies. For us it happened relatively recently but for them it is a different era.

Those committed to the European process cannot depend on past achievements if we are to build public support in the future, because they are simply historic facts. We must move with the times and change for the future. We must persuade people that a reformed, democratic and efficient Europe is essential to meet economic and political challenges we face with the growth of emerging economies all over the world. Other issues are climate change, energy security and Third World development.

In the past five months, we undertook comprehensive consultations on this matter, within the party with legal advisers and other experts. Arising from these consultations we published a list of initial proposals to improve public support for the European process, with the ultimate aim of creating the conditions whereby this country can ratify the Lisbon treaty. We want a strengthened role for the Oireachtas on European issues. Given the proportion of legislation that originates from European Union directives and regulations, the work of the committee on European scrutiny is a crucial function.

The Minister's predecessor upgraded it to full committee status and I respect this. It is a crucial committee and must be resourced properly to understand the significant directives coming and what they mean for Ireland. This role will be further enhanced should the Lisbon treaty come into force with a provision to strengthen the role of national parliaments in the EU decision-making process.

The current powers of the committee are too narrow. Fine Gael wants the European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002 to be amended to increase the powers of the committee so it can require Ministers to appear before it prior to attending meetings where decisions are made in Brussels and to return and seek reports. We also favour giving the committee the power to invite submissions or accept petitions on EU law or legislative proposal from members of the public.

Fine Gael proposed the establishment of a new constitutional office of a European Union citizens' officer. This appointee would act as an independent advisory officer on all aspects of European Union legislation, including its transposition into Irish law. He or she would work closely with the European committees of the Oireachtas and have the power to make recommendations to Government on all aspects of European Union legislative development.

This watchdog role would be parallel or comparable to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and would also be responsible for providing impartial information on the facts of European issues, including when conflicting arguments arise. People often do not have much faith in the political process. A constitutional officer, as part of the Constitution, would be a form of comfort, protection and absolute objectivity. The creation of this office would require a constitutional referendum which could be held on the day of the local and European elections or with the children's referendum.

Many groups and individuals have complained bitterly about the impact of regulation and red tape, which is a consequence of how the European Union does its business. In some cases, such as the imposition of water charges on schools, the EU is wrongly blamed by Ministers. When the news is bad Brussels is blamed and when it is good they take the credit. There is a perception that the European Union is responsible for excessive regulation of the environment, food safety, business and direct payments to farmers. We have had this all over the country. Have we done anything about it? We have not. There is also a sense that for some of these sectors, there is a more stringent and vigorous approach to implementation in Ireland than in other member states. Some say directives are transposed into law here to the tenth degree on the first day, rather than phased in with flexibility and common sense as happens in other countries.

An independent audit should be commissioned into the transposition and implementation of EU law in Ireland. This audit would prioritise areas that have caused concern and controversy for farmers, sheepmen, bog cutters, small business people and so on. It would include an international comparative analysis in order that it can be established if greater flexibility is being applied in other member states. Such an audit should invite submissions from the public which feels aggrieved at the impact of the implementation of EU legislation on their lives or business activities. There is no clarity on what aspects of international treaties require constitutional approval. Fine Gael proposes a second constitutional change to allow future international treaties — not the Lisbon treaty — to be referred to the Supreme Court when agreed in order that we could establish what exactly was in those international treaties that would require a referendum. Can anybody in the House tell us what aspect of the Lisbon treaty actually requires a referendum? It would make eminent good sense for a future Government to send an agreed international treaty to the Supreme Court to find out what elements of the treaty actually required constitutional endorsement. The Government should also pursue negotiations with our European partners aimed at establishing a transparent vetting procedure for judges nominated for appointment to the European Court of Justice.

It is clear that the referendum result has created doubts about Ireland's position in the European Union. It is also clear, from the evidence of Irish officials before the sub-committee, that the perception of Ireland as a positive and constructive participant in EU decision making is weakened by the current situation. The fact that 25 of the 27 member states have already ratified the treaty — another member is likely to do so — creates a dilemma for Ireland. It is clear that the other member states are opposed to any renegotiation of the treaty, but there is a willingness to help this country in other ways.

Some experts have suggested it may be legally possible for the Lisbon treaty to be ratified in whole or in part through the Oireachtas. I do not agree with that approach because it is very uncertain and open to the perception that it is bypassing the will of the people. The eventual solution to this question must be based on a referendum. On the day the referendum votes were counted I said the same question could not be put to the people a second time in the same way. There must be a tangible difference in the proposition in order that we propose that each member state retain the right to nominate a Commissioner. This cannot be achieved without ratification of the Lisbon treaty, as the current treaties require a reduction in size at the end of next year. The Government should seek a formal, binding, European Council decision to the effect that, should the Lisbon treaty be ratified, it will use the reverse clause in the treaty for the appointment of a Commissioner in every country. I campaigned differently before the referendum, but if that is what the people in Europe need, that is fair enough.

We should opt in on co-operation on justice and home affairs issues. We have seen €700 million worth drugs seized off the Cork coast and €100 million worth of drugs seized beyond Mizen Head. We should face up to this issue and support the efforts to combat international crime across countries. The results of crime are there for everybody to see, with tragic consequences such as the expansion of anti-social behaviour in Dublin. The Government should abandon the opt-out in this area, which would make eminent sense.

There are a couple of other clarifications to be made. During the referendum campaign concerns were expressed that the Lisbon treaty could lead to changes in the powers of national governments on direct taxation, military neutrality, conscription and abortion. All of these issues can be dealt with and some of them have been dealt with in other treaties. Given the doubts generated, Fine Gael believes the Government should seek clarification from our EU partners, confirming that the Lisbon treaty will not change the current legal position on these issues. We favour these clarifications in the form of directives and decisions, similar to the form taken by Denmark following its rejection of the Maastricht treaty. Such decisions can be deemed to be legally binding when registered with the United Nations as international agreements and subsequently incorporated into protocols attached to the next treaty.

These initiatives would make a real difference to public attitudes towards the European Union. Ireland can be restored to a central role in the Union in a way that will be both understood and supported by the people. These proposals, put forward constructively by Fine Gael, would add greatly to dealing with the concerns of the people about the Lisbon treaty and the future of the European Union. The Taoiseach should not take for granted the support we have always given in European referenda. I want to see this endorsed fully, but the Taoiseach should not get locked into some half-hearted, woolly strategy that could put the future of this country's participation in the European Union at risk. I regret that there has been no real consultation by the Government parties with the Opposition parties about something that is so fundamental to the future of every person living on this island.

Deputy Joe Costello

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the report on Ireland's future in the European Union, which I commend to the House. It is the culmination of seven weeks of intensive work by the 12 Oireachtas Members who sat on the sub-committee. I pay tribute to its Chairman, Senator Paschal Donohoe, who was excellent throughout, and the Vice Chairman, Deputy Timmy Dooley, who stepped in when the occasion arose, as well as to my colleagues on the sub-committee who made great contributions over the seven weeks. I also pay tribute to the secretariat for the dedication shown which was way above the call of duty. They had to work long hours to ensure various drafts and amendments were put together on time, especially towards the end of the deliberations.

In this age of tribunals, consultants, public relations schools, expensive lawyers and quangos, it is refreshing that Members of the Oireachtas, assisted by public servants, can complete an important job on time and at virtually no cost to the taxpayer. It is a model for carrying out similar work in the future. It is time that controversial issues of public concern were dealt with directly by a parliamentary committee, rather than being farmed out to external bodies, which take forever and often cost the Earth. The legal and administrative changes that may be required to facilitate such Oireachtas examination and investigation should be made as quickly as possible in the public interest. This type of analysis could be undertaken on any future treaties that come before us and we could bring in expert witnesses, stakeholders and invite the general public to contribute in order that we would be in a better position when holding a referendum.

Membership of the European Union has been a voyage of discovery for Ireland since we joined in 1973. It broadened the horizons of an island nation which had been obsessed with and dominated by its larger neighbour. The European Economic Community was based on principles of equality and solidarity between member states, whether great or small. This was an entirely new factor in the Irish political and economic experience and it was very welcome. The European Union also provided the political and economic context for the peaceful resolution of the Northern Ireland conflict and brought peace to the entire island for the first time in centuries. Now, 35 years on, Ireland's relationship with the European Union is in something of a crisis. There are new concerns about Ireland's future engagement with the Union. The Lisbon treaty referendum highlighted the problem. Some 53% of the electorate voted "No" in the referendum. In subsequent polls, particularly the Millward Brown survey, a clear majority of people wanted Ireland to remain firmly at the heart of the European Union. The challenge facing the Government is to resolve this apparent conundrum — to square the circle of rejection, on the one hand, and the desire for engagement, on the other hand. The Government's response should not deteriorate into an exercise in navel-gazing or national introspection.

The economic recession, the demise of the Celtic tiger and the failings of the political establishment could easily create a negativity and distrust that would cause the people to use the European Union as an easy scapegoat once more. Unscrupulous Governments and uncaring stakeholders have repeatedly taken credit for the benefits conferred during the years by Ireland's membership of the European Union. At the same time, they have blamed many of their own shortcomings on the Union. Such interests have made the EU a scapegoat and damaged its credibility among many Irish people. Some of the real culprits are in this House. They are, in no small measure, responsible for the rejection of the Lisbon treaty. The Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union heard again and again from people who have suspicions, fears, doubts, concerns and misgivings about Ireland's relationship with the EU.

Ireland can no longer take the EU for granted as a cash cow to be milked at will and blamed for the ills of the nation as the cash dries up. As a member of the Party of European Socialists, the Labour Party has a long history of internationalism dating back to its origins and the origins of the trade union movement. Solidarity between working men and women, regardless of national boundaries, is at the heart of the labour movement. The EU has been a positive force in vindicating workers' rights during the decades. A fairly comprehensive statement made by Mr. Blair Horan, which is included in the sub-committee's report, set out the role of the EU in this regard. He said he could not "conceive of any significant item of worker's rights legislation in the last 35 years that has not emanated from the Union, starting with the equal pay legislation". The provisions of the Lisbon treaty, such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the social clause and the restatement of the Union's values and principles, further enhance and strengthen protections for working men and women.

I have a couple of important things to say before the Taoiseach leaves. I consider it somewhat alarming that neither the Taoiseach nor the Minister for Foreign Affairs has articulated publicly any interest in dealing with the issues the Labour Party sees as central to this debate. The Taoiseach referred to issues like the size of the European Commission, taxation, conscription, neutrality and sensitive social and ethical matters. The issues in question have been discussed during the Taoiseach's whistle-stop tour of the various EU capital cities. The issues affecting workers and the trade union movement do not appear to be of major concern to the Taoiseach, however. In the statement he made at the start of this debate, he referred to four critical issues — the future composition of the Commission, issues related to defence and our tradition of neutrality, social-ethical matters and taxation.

Deputy Micheál Martin

Reference was made to "social" matters.

Deputy Joe Costello

The reference is to "social-ethical matters".

Deputy Micheál Martin

The issues referred to by the Deputy are covered by the word "social".

Deputy Joe Costello

I am concerned about sensitive social issues. I want to make it clear that the support of the Labour Party cannot be taken for granted by the Government. In our submission to the sub-committee, we stated categorically that our interest lies where the interests of workers lie. That is included in the report, which strongly reflects our views on the way forward. Some 40% of the electorate stated that the validation of workers' rights is an important issue for them.

When the Taoiseach travels to the meeting of EU Heads of State in Brussels on 11 and 12 December, he will present the elements of the solution as he sees it. The Labour Party considers that it is absolutely essential that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is included in the treaty. It should not be possible to opt out from that. The charter must be at the heart of any new solution. There must be no question of an opt-out. Member states need to be able to provide public services for their citizens without any fear of competition or privatisation. The posting of workers directive must be amended to the satisfaction of the European trade union movement and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The fundamental rights of workers to engage in collective bargaining and industrial action must take precedence when the four freedoms of the Single Market come into conflict in the workplace. Various proposals have been made in this area. The European Trade Union Confederation proposed that a protocol could be appended to a future treaty to clarify the situation.

The loose transposition of the posting of workers directive by a number of countries, including Ireland, has allowed the European Court of Justice to interpret the Monti clause, which was added to the services directive, in a way that disadvantages workers in terms of industrial action and pay and conditions in a number of cases. I refer to cases in which there is an apparent conflict between the four freedoms, such as the Lavalle, Rüffert, Luxembourg and Viking cases. There are serious concerns about the fundamental right of each worker to carry out his or her business in a way that is normal in his or her host country. The posting of workers from other countries to work on a temporary basis has caused a huge amount of grief in the trade union movement. It was largely responsible for such a large percentage of workers stating that they are unhappy with the direction the European Union is taking in the area of workers' rights. If this issue is not addressed, it will be impossible for the Labour Party and the labour movement to support any resolution the Government might negotiate with our European partners. At no stage have I heard the Taoiseach articulate in public that he intends to agree a defined position on these matters with his counterparts in the other 26 EU member states.

The Government needs to engage in consultation with the Opposition parties. Before this debate, I hoped the Taoiseach would mention some of the matters which the Government intends to negotiate with its partners. I refer to matters in respect of which the Government thought it had made progress, and positive work has taken place, over recent days and weeks. Unfortunately, we are as much in the dark following the Taoiseach's speech as we were before he entered the Chamber this afternoon. It seems that when the Taoiseach leaves the country on Thursday, we will be none the wiser on what is his bargaining position. Therefore, we do not know whether he will enjoy the support of this House in that respect. Unless we are consulted further before Thursday, the Taoiseach will be unable to say to his European counterparts that he has the support of this House. Almost all Members of the House supported his position in the referendum earlier this year. We have to make it clear where we are going in the future, however. We cannot go together if the Taoiseach does not say where he stands on these issues. He has not yet indicated his position at this time. Before this debate finishes, perhaps he will give us some indication of how he proposes to proceed between now and Thursday. The Minister, Deputy Martin, might highlight some of the elements of the roadmap the Taoiseach will present to his colleagues. We will then be in a position to decide whether we are willing to participate in that road map. I ask the Taoiseach to make that clear. I thank him for staying to listen to what I have to say.

Deputy Micheál Martin

Can he go now?

Deputy Joe Costello

I have mentioned the main points that essentially need to be addressed. Other issues, such as the enhanced role of the Oireachtas, are extremely important. If we do not conduct our domestic business properly and are not involved at the beginning in drafting of services directives and legislation coming through from the European Union, and if we do not monitor it the whole way through and do not transpose it into law in a proper fashion, we are not doing our work properly. Much of that has been loosely addressed in the past. We must put in place a better mechanism to ensure all of that becomes a coherent whole from the start of the work programme that is presented at the beginning of the year by the Commission right through to its transposition and implementation here.

The question of engagement with the public is a matter for another day, but must be addressed. We must find mechanisms whereby first, this House is relevant in terms of the European Union and second, the public is also invited in to participate and engage in matters European. While we have not done that, modern technology allows us to do so and we should ensure it is done. Unless we are engaging in Europe on the floor of this House as regularly as possible, communicating with the public and inviting the public to communicate with us, I cannot see us making much progress in this arena.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an deis labhairt ar an ábhar seo. Tá sé tábhachtach déileáil le tuairisc an fhochoiste agus leis an chaoi ar éirigh leis an obair a cuireadh roimhe a dhéanamh. Tá sé tábhachtach chomh maith labhairt ag an am seo, cé nach bhfuil níos lú ná 48 uair romhainn sula mbuaileann Comhairle Aontas na hEorpa le chéile arís. Cruinniú tábhachtach maidir le daonlathas agus le treo na hEorpa amach anseo atá i gceist leis an gcruinniú sin.

It has been obvious since as early as June that the Government had absolutely no intention of addressing the concerns of the electorate on the Lisbon treaty and instead set itself on a course to rerun the referendum. At no point in the past six months did the Taoiseach ask any EU leader to renegotiate the treaty, nor did the Government even consider for one minute the option of using the mandate it had been given for the good of this country. It is clear that later this week the Taoiseach will announce his intention to ignore the democratically expressed views of the electorate and will announce the holding of a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty. It is clear that in doing so he will be supported in this by the Green Party, the Labour Party and Fine Gael. Shame on them all for ignoring the democratic wishes of the people.

There is deep anger at the arrogance of the Government and its mishandling of the current economic crisis. This will be worsened if it pursues such a high-handed, undemocratic course as to put the Lisbon treaty to a referendum again. The people voted for a better deal and that deal should have been delivered by the Government. I believe that the almost 1 million people who rejected the Lisbon treaty and those who voted for it but respect the democratic outcome will make their views known in next year's European Parliament elections.

Maidir leis an fochoiste agus an deis a cailleadh nuair a bunaíodh é agus le linn a chuid oibre, nílim ag fáil lochta ar na státseirbhísigh ná fiú baill an choiste a rinne a lán oibre. Rinne siad sár obair ó thaobh an mhéid cruinnuithe a bhí acu, an méid finnéithe a tháinig os a chomhair agus, sa deireadh thiar, sa tslí a chur sé an tuairisc le chéile in achar an-ghairid. In ainneoin nach n-aontaím le sin, rinneadh obair mhór agus is cóir go n-aithneofaí go bhfuil státseirbhísigh den scoth ag obair sna Tithe seo agus go bhfuil siad sásta obair dhian a dhéanamh gan stad, agus go minic gan aitheantas.

The sub-committee provided the opportunity for a deep and meaningful engagement with the public on the direction of the European Union. Instead it was a missed opportunity. Its report was always going to mirror the views of the Government given the limited terms of reference and refusal to engage with wider public to understand their views. The Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union started its work on 8 October. Its terms of reference were to:

analyse the challenges facing Ireland in the European Union (EU) following the Lisbon Treaty Referendum result;

consider Ireland's future in the EU including in relation to economic and financial matters, social policy, defence and foreign policy and our influence within the European Institutions;

make recommendations to enhance the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in EU affairs;

[and] consider measures to improve public understanding of the EU and its fundamental importance for Ireland's future.

While that was a laudable remit in some terms, it was a duplication of the work of the National Forum on Europe, which still exists to my knowledge. Speaking at the inaugural meeting of the Oireachtas sub-committee, my party colleague, Senator Doherty, warned against the Government's attempt to reshape the public debate on Lisbon away from the treaty itself to one of Ireland's membership of the EU. He also emphasised that the debate must be led by the general public and not politicians who clearly from the referendum result are out of sync with ordinary people. He went on to say that critically we must use the outcome of the debate to inform and change Government policy on the EU in order that it reflects the Irish people's views on its future.

Sinn Féin took a constructive and positive role in the work the committee. However, we made it clear that we would not take part in any choreography to set aside the democratic wishes of the electorate. Sinn Féin was concerned that it was the Government's intention, with the support of Labour, Fine Gael and the Green Party, to use the committee as a space to prepare the groundwork for a rerun of the Lisbon treaty referendum. We argued that the terms of reference for the sub-committee were too restrictive and that the focus of the debate should be the future of the EU and Ireland's role in shaping that future. The Government and other parties rejected our proposals for more inclusive terms of reference.

The founding principles of EU were and must continue to be peace and prosperity. We want to see Ireland continue to play a central role in shaping the future of the EU in the interests of all citizens. We are ambitious for what we, as a small member state, can achieve in the interest of all the people of the EU. It is important to emphasise Sinn Féin's view that Ireland's place is at the heart of the EU. We want the Government and people to play a central role in shaping the future of the EU. Our policy of critical engagement means supporting those aspects of EU policy and development that are good for Ireland and the EU while opposing and working to change those policies and developments that are not in our collective interests. For Sinn Féin this means changing the present course of the European Union.

Ba mhaith linn bogadh ón treo atá á ghlacadh faoi láthair agus ar a bhfuil an AE ag díriú — an lárnú, an príobháidiú agus an míleatú atá i lár an agenda faoi láthair. Ba mhaith linn bogadh i dtreo AE níos daonlathhaí, níos sóisialaí agus níos síochánta a cuireann rathúnas agus cothromaíocht do chách chun cinn. Chomh maith leis na téarmaí tagartha níos leithne a bhí á lorg ag Sinn Féin, bhíomar ag iarraidh go mbeadh plé níos gníomhaí agus díospóireacht níos leithne leis an bpobal a léireodh an réimse tuairimí difriúla ag an Aontas Eorpach a bhí soiléir le linn fheachtas an reifrinn.

Bíodh sin mar atá, níor tharla ceachtar den dá rud sin. Ghlac an fochoiste le formad righin agus é ag tabhairt cuiridh do na finnéithe teacht os a chomhair le ceisteanna a fhreagairt nó bheith "interrogated". Bhí na cruinnithe ar fad i dTeach Laighean, áit le fíorbheagán deis don phobal bheith bainteach leo nó bheith gafa leis an bplé agus gan bhealach ar bith ann le díospóireacht nó plé níos ciallmhaire ná níos poiblí a bheith acu.

Dhéan Sinn Féin argóint chomh maith gur cóir don fhochoiste taisteal timpeall na tíre chun buaileadh le dreamanna difriúla in ionaid difriúla ar nós leabharlanna poiblí, scoileanna, ollscoileanna, ionaid pobail agus suímh oibre. Níor tharla sin ach an oiread agus is mór an trua sin. Mar a dúirt mé ag an tús, is deis caillte í sin.

We argued that rather than the adversarial, witness approach the sessions should take the form of an ongoing dialogue. Unfortunately, all of these proposals were rejected. As a consequence, the sessions were, on most occasions, simply a re-run of the debates of the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign, involving many of the same well known public faces, with little new content. Worse still was the inevitable imbalance in the witnesses who attended the sub-committee. Of the more than 100 individuals who addressed the sub-committee, only a handful were critical of the Lisbon treaty. While some speakers or organisations did not adopt a formal position either way, the overwhelming majority of those who spoke at the sub-committee were clearly in support of the treaty, despite the fact that the majority of the public voted against it.

Having excluded the general public and selected a panel of speakers that held the Government's view, it is hardly surprising that the sub-committee's official report merely confirmed the Government's position. The report could have been written by any of the pro-Lisbon treaty parties represented on the sub-committee without having to go through the charade of dozens of sessions over eight weeks. Sinn Féin did not support the sub-committee's report and instead produced its own report entitled, Majority View, Minority Report — The Future of the EU and Ireland's role in Shaping that Future. This report sets out in detail the challenges facing Ireland and the European Union and the mechanism we believe could have been used to address the concerns of the electorate on key issues such as maintaining our political strength, protecting neutrality, workers' rights, public services and tax sovereignty. It is clear that these issues can be addressed only in a new treaty which would include legally binding protocols, not declarations or clarifications which are not worth the paper on which they are written.

In Sinn Féin's view, the Government and Opposition parties have abused the Oireachtas, cynically manipulating the sub-committee to set the ground for a re-run of the Lisbon treaty referendum. In so doing they have done a great disservice to the people and the European Union. The sub-committee could have been an invaluable opportunity to open up a meaningful and wide ranging debate about the future of the European Union and Ireland's place in it. We could have extended the debate beyond the narrow confines of the Lisbon treaty, a treaty democratically rejected by the electorate, and created a vibrant and forward looking dialogue on the broad range of policy issues involved. Instead, the Government closed down the debate. As a result, the sub-committee's official report will add nothing to our understanding of the European Union, the Lisbon treaty or the various options for the future of the Union. It was a missed opportunity and loaded in a particular direction. If Members wish, I can supply every Member of the House with our report which was based on the very limited opportunities the sub-committee presented. Even at this late stage I urge people not to go to the European Council and set themselves against the democratic views of the people and the mandate given in June.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin)

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. It is a very important debate at a critical moment of Ireland's engagement with the European Union. I am somewhat disappointed with some of the contributions so far. I was particularly facilitative in helping to establish the sub-committee in the summer when I spoke to members of the Opposition parties. I worked particularly hard to facilitate the inclusion of Sinn Féin which made great strides to have a member on the sub-committee. We were anxious to make it inclusive and included independent Members of the Seanad. It is a pity that is not even acknowledged. Sinn Féin states other parties abused the Oireachtas. People are entitled to their positions, perspectives and opinions, but using that kind of language is inappropriate and wrong.

To suggest, as Deputy Kenny did, that we were forced to have this plenary debate, is wrong.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

We know. We found it very difficult to get time. Big issue, little time.

Deputy Micheál Martin

A plenary debate in the House was always to be part of the process and for one party to suggest it egged others into having it does a disservice to the issue. The issue is too big for that; we can all nitpick.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

This is not nitpicking. This is serious.

Deputy Micheál Martin

If the view is to try to chart a way forward for the European Union, we should work towards a unified approach instead of just turning up for debates and finding reasons for having a go at the Government or other parties. That is all I will say.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I hope I will have an opportunity to answer the Minister. I will tell him.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I have been reasonable all along in trying to engage with other political parties. We have been criticised for not engaging. The whole purpose of the Oireachtas sub-committee was for the political parties in the House to engage. Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Green Party, Sinn Féin and the Independents had representatives. I take it that they were not acting unilaterally from their parties' perspectives or positions. They engaged with each other to try to put forward a perspective on Ireland in the European Union. To suggest there has been no engagement since the referendum between the political parties is wrong. The purpose of the Oireachtas sub-committee was to facilitate active engagement between the political parties with civil society and a variety of interest groups to try to identify key issues for Ireland and the European Union. It is wrong and unfair to suggest there has been no engagement between political parties. There has been more engagement between political parties on the European Union in recent months in the House than ever before.

The leadership of all parties picked the members of the sub-committee. I presume discussions took place between the members of the sub-committee and the members and leaders of their parties on the positions adopted and perspectives on the European Union. I am mystified by Deputy Kenny's suggestion that there has been no contact. The whole Oireachtas sub-committee was about contact. It was about the political parties collectively trying to work through a process and formulate ideas and perspectives on the European Union for the future based on the submissions made and the hearings the sub-committee held.

The report will help us all to find a way forward in a way that respects the will of the people and addresses concerns that arose during the Lisbon treaty referendum debate. I thank the Chairman, Senator Donohoe; the Vice Chairman, Deputy Dooley, and members of the sub-committee for the effort, commitment and vision they have demonstrated in carrying out this vital work. They worked very hard in a very tight timeframe. It is an excellent report. It is the product of extensive consultations with leading voices in the national and international debate on the future of the European Union. To the sub-committee's credit, its insights have been developed in a very short timeframe and they command the support of the largest political parties in the State. It has situated its findings in the political reality that other member states continue to have a strong desire to see the Lisbon treaty enter into force at the earliest possible date. This desire has intensified in the wake of recent political and economic developments, most notably the unprecedented global financial crisis. These troubling events will serve again to bring home the centrality of the European Union in enabling Europeans to cope satisfactorily with the many challenges that confront today's world.

The report is written in clear, accessible language. This is important because it is high time the debate on European Union matters in Ireland and across the Union took place in a language with which people can relate. This is not a question of removing technical jargon. It is a far more fundamental issue of building understanding, awareness and trust. The report correctly recognises that Ireland's ability to defend our interests at European Union level has been affected by the result of the referendum in June and that serious long-term damage will be done if we fail to find a way forward. We have a continuing need to be part of a successful and effective Union that can promote peace and prosperity across Europe in the years and decades ahead, just as it has so very successfully done for Ireland in the past 35 years.

I am delighted there was a focus on solutions in the report's findings. I agree that at national level we have work to do to improve how we handle European Union decisions and laws. While greater accountability for EU affairs in the Dáil and Seanad should increase public engagement, in the longer term we need to make a better effort to provide information on the European Union for our children in schools and the public. What was evident from the research we carried out after the referendum was not just that many knew very little about the content of the Treaty of Lisbon, but that they also knew very little about the operation of the Union. Tackling this deficit is more than a question of providing information; it is about enhancing the acceptability and the democratic legitimacy of what is done at Union level.

The European Union has a proud history of bringing its member states together in a shared venture designed to serve the interests of the people of Europe. It is in this spirit that the partners are approaching the Lisbon treaty. It has faced problems of this nature before and always overcome them. That must be our determined aim again on this occasion. No Irish interest would be served by our becoming detached and isolated from our European partners. As the sub-committee has made clear, our future is best served by retaining a strong commitment to the ideals and objectives of the European Union which have served us so well these past 35 years. We have a real interest in pursuing reform of the European Union's institutions in order that Ireland can continue to harness the enormous potential of the Union throughout the 21st century. It is important to realise that the Lisbon treaty is viewed across the Union as an essential component of its capacity to deal with current and future challenges.

I have held meetings with a great many of my European counterparts in the last few weeks and found a great appreciation and understanding of Ireland and a real wish to respect the democratic choice made by the people last June. The Government is working on the basis of this goodwill to find a solution which will enable us to move forward with our EU partners in an agreed manner. Contrary to what Deputy Kenny said, all of the issues are not agreed. I was surprised by his mentioning this. For example, there are diverging views on the composition of the Commission. There were diverging views leading into the Lisbon treaty and there still are. What we are seeking is something that is not automatic, as has been suggested. As I said publicly yesterday, these are issues that will go to the wire at the end of the week.

To return to the point made by Deputy Costello, I said at the Joint Committee on European Affairs that the Government was in a negotiating position with 26 other member states. The idea of talking out the negotiating process here, two days in advance, when we have to seek agreement with 26 other countries is a little unrealistic. The Oireachtas has never tied the hands of any democratically elected Government in its negotiating positions with other states. We know the broad parameters and the sub-committee has identified them also. We are in a negotiating position and nothing has yet been agreed. The negotiations will take place on Thursday and Friday and we must have due respect for the positions of the other 26 member states. I mean no disrespect to any person or party in the House; it is realpolitik, which we should acknowledge. We are seeking an agreement that will accommodate both the democratically expressed will of the people and the deeply held wish of our fellow member states to implement the reforms incorporated in the Lisbon treaty.

I have followed with great interest the public and media reaction to the work of the sub-committee and the publication of its report. Its conclusions and recommendations represent an important input into our national approach to the challenges posed by the June referendum result. Since the results of the Millward Brown research were made available last September, I have been considering ways in which we can improve on how we communicate European Union affairs. This includes working with the European Commission and the European Parliament on a joint memorandum of understanding which will enable us to work together on this important area. I have also been considering how the Government can use its resources to deliver more effective and strategic communications on European issues. It is clear from our research that Irish people remain very positive towards the European Union, but that poor communication and a difficulty in accessing clear, accurate information can create barriers to understanding how it actually works and what it does to advance our interests and collective well-being.

With regard to the findings of the report on the role of the Oireachtas in European Union affairs and the Oireachtas scrutiny system, I welcome the renewed attention being paid to accountability in EU decision making. The 13 recommendations contained in the report are imaginative and wide-ranging, particularly with regard to the introduction of a formal scrutiny reserve system. There are constitutional, legal and resource implications to many of the recommendations which will require careful consideration by the Government. Nevertheless, I indicate our openness to the report's recommendations which deserve very serious attention.

The Taoiseach has given a clear overview——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will have a further five minutes at the end.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I do and will respond at that stage.

The Government attaches great importance to this crucial report, the findings of which dovetail so well with our ongoing work at European level. I am thinking, in particular, of the issues it highlights as being of most concern to the people: taxation, socio-ethical issues, foreign and defence policy, and Ireland's influence in the European Union. It will help us to position the nation's perspective in the coming days and the weeks and months ahead.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I wish to share my time with Deputy Perry.

I do not ever like to speak with certainty in politics, but having listened to the members of Sinn Féin, I can say with certainty that it was never their intention to assist or engage with the sub-committee when they sought to be represented on it. One of the regrets I have is that we in Fine Gael agreed to their joining the sub-committee because we would have been better off without them. Sinn Féin spent a political generation trying to sabotage the State and judging by the behaviour of its members on the sub-committee, it is no different now. They had no interesting in finding a solution; their only interest was in self-promotion. People bent over backwards for them. Sinn Féin was facilitated on the sub-committee, as it was at the National Forum on Europe, yet it was the only political party which disowned both the report of the National Forum on Europe and the report of the sub-committee. There was another Independent member of the sub-committee who did seek to engage with it but also disagreed with the report. Any fair reading of the report will show that the sub-committee bent over backwards to recognise the views and concerns of the Sinn Féin and Independent members.

The Minister mentioned Deputy Kenny. There may be a misinterpretation of where Fine Gael is coming from with respect to the sub-committee. We saw it as a means to engage with the expert witnesses based on the Millward Brown research. We never saw it as a forum in which to put forward our party view or put our stamp on the findings of the sub-committee. The Chairman, Deputy Creighton and I never had internal discussions in the party on how we might approach the sub-committee and the expert witnesses. That was one of the reasons we could, with a clear conscience, launch our own policy suggestions. I realise it was a sensitive time, and my good friend Deputy Dooley took umbrage, as did Deputy Costello.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The Deputy has the makings of a fine diplomat.

Deputy Joe Costello

The timing was impeccable.

Deputy Billy Timmins

In the fullness of time I have no doubt the members will see where we were coming from.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

We are still waiting.

Deputy Micheál Martin

We do not need to wait.

Deputy Billy Timmins

Deputy Dooley may not see as quickly as Deputy Costello.

Deputy Joe Costello

From here to eternity.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I compliment Senator Donohoe on his excellent work and all the Members who attended the sub-committee — Deputies Costello, Dooley and Creighton are present — who put in many long hours and did much hard work. I acknowledge, in particular, the commitment shown by Deputy Costello. Many attended the sub-committee, including representatives of the Institute of European Affairs who put in a tremendous amount of work and made very good submissions. I am sure people will not mind if I single out Dr. Gavin Barrett who attended two or three times. They made a major commitment which went beyond the call of duty.

A couple of clear messages came through from the sub-committee, one of which was that our interests actually had been damaged in the European Union. There was an overwhelming view that we should remain at the heart of the Union and the covert message coming through was that to do so we should ratify the Lisbon treaty. We heard all the evidence and if we were a jury, there would be no contest. There would be no doubt as to the direction we should take, notwithstanding the fact that such a recommendation was not part of the sub-committee's terms of reference. However, it is important not to lull ourselves into a false sense of security. That is the danger we face. The evidence is overwhelming. One could say to oneself that there is only one possible course of action. One could think that surely it is what the people want and that is what they will do. We have thought that in the past and been wrong; we could be wrong in the future.

I have doubts about the research. A total of 800,000 people voted "No". Traditionally, in European referendums in Ireland around 500,000 people have voted "No" and always for the same reasons. Some of them are against the concept of the European Union, while a certain percentage base their "No" vote on concerns about abortion, neutrality and so on. I do not think we will ever reassure the people concerned. However, I am concerned about the 300,000 additional "No" voters and those who did not come out to vote. They are the people to whom we need to address our message. What were the reasons they voted "No"?

That is the reason Fine Gael made separate proposals from those made in the report and Deputy Kenny has outlined them to the House. They were not intended as a means of raising the bar or to create difficulties; rather Fine Gael believes wider concerns other than those issues dealt with in the Lisbon treaty must be addressed. I refer to the issues outlined by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. With the exception of the Commissioner issue, taxation, neutrality and ethical issues are all catered for in the treaty. We understand this to be the case. We are looking for confirmation, to be sure to be sure. The only matter at issue is that of Commissioner. We believe other issues can be addressed on the domestic front. It is not satisfactory just to try to put in place a measure to jump the Lisbon treaty fence, ratify the treaty and move on. That would be a grave error.

There is widespread concern that the Constitution is being slowly eaten away. People are suspicious of the European Union. I do not share this sentiment but reasonable people are suspicious. They are of the view that there is no one there to look after their interests. Fine Gael proposes the taking of a constitutional position which would be the equivalent of a watchdog, an ombudsman or information officer. We do not believe the resources required for such a post would be significant, particularly as Fine Gael is advocating public sector reform. We believe it could be done, irrespective of the Lisbon treaty. I urge the Government to consider this proposal with some others. I am confident that if it does not do this, it will be part of Fine Gael policy for the European elections and the next general election.

The other issues concern enhanced powers for the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny which would cost virtually nothing. The Oireachtas committee system has to be revamped. We need to slash the number of committees in half. There are 25 Oireachtas committees, which is crazy. I will send the Government a brief on this proposal if it wishes. The resulting secretariat resources could be given to the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny which has a very important role.

It would require a constitutional referendum for the Government to refer a treaty to the Supreme Court which is always the final arbiter on whether a constitutional referendum is required. This would apply to future treaties in order that we would know with certainty whether a section might require a constitutional referendum. In our view the full treaty should be put to a referendum but we need clarity. At the moment we have people starting with Article 48 and ending up on workers' rights. They will jump 1,000 places in between to try to create confusion.

With regard to engagement, Deputy Kenny proposed that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs sit down with him to brief him on the Government's plans. Fine Gael would be very supportive of any positive measure to ensure we stay at the heart of the European Union.

Deputy John Perry

I congratulate the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union on its work and the report produced under the chairmanship of Senator Paschal Donohoe. I congratulate all members of the sub-committee and the secretariat on their accomplishment. I support the broad thrust of the sub-committee's report that Ireland's policy of being a constructive member at the heart of the European Union is the best way to advance its vital interests. I welcome each and every one of the proposals made on European scrutiny, particularly the proposal that there be a formal scrutiny reserve mechanism. This mechanism would make the Oireachtas more influential in the negotiating position adopted by Irish Ministers. The report also proposes a package of measures to improve public and media awareness of the joint committee's important watchdog role regarding new EU legislation.

The core of the current economic crisis lies in the failure of the banks and financial system to anticipate and manage risk. This failure to manage risk has brought some of the world's biggest corporations to their knees and caused some of them to fail and disappear. It has been catastrophic for some countries which are now in an appalling position. Effectively, they bet on a risk they did not understand. They took a major risk with the economy and the bet failed. Now they are in a deep crisis from which it may take decades to recover. It is most important, from the point of view of Ireland, that they must recover from the disaster largely on their own. I do not think we should bet our economy and the future well-being of the country on the promise that we can muddle our way on our own in some form of a semi-detached or distant relationship with the European Union. Let us not bet on some unwise form of isolationism.

The report of the sub-committee provides a road map as to where we should direct our attention and energies to ensure the Lisbon treaty, with new reassurances for Ireland, can be ratified. Our membership of the European Union has been very good for us. Being at the heart of the Union is where we should be to protect our future. I commend the report to the House.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh)

I join in congratulating the sub-committee on its report on Ireland's future in the European Union, outlining the challenges and issues faced and opinions expressed. I also congratulate it on the quality of its hearings which included some appropriately robust exchanges.

The Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs have been exploring sensitively, both internally and with our European partners, ways of identifying and addressing the core concerns of voters which contributed to a rejection of the ratification of the Lisbon treaty last June in order to break the impasse in the European Union which this has created. At the same time, the swift passage of events and major international problems that have arisen since serve to highlight the value of belonging at the heart of the European Union, without which, as a small sovereign state, we would be even more vulnerable than we are, and also the urgency, from the point of view of our EU partners, of completing the current reform process.

One point that needs to be better explained is that a treaty ratification process involving 27 member states and requiring unanimity is implicitly a two-stage process. If the Lisbon treaty were ratified, this would become more explicit. In the first round, every country's opinion is canvassed, either through its parliament or electorate. It is not the case that at the first "No" the treaty is dead and that other countries which have not yet done so can or should be stopped from expressing their opinion on the grounds that it is now redundant. The process is not about brandishing irrevocable vetoes but about trying to find a united way forward which involves accommodating the reservations, concerns and interests of others as well as our own. If it is obvious from the first round that there is and will be no consensus, which would be surprising, obviously it cannot proceed. If, on the other hand, there are only two or three countries which have a difficulty, it is sensible to see if the matter can be resolved. That is what happened in the case of France and the Netherlands when they rejected in referendums the constitutional treaty. Their concerns were accommodated without unduly upsetting others and they, with the rest, except ourselves, have or will have ratified a modified Lisbon treaty. Something similar should happen in the case of Ireland, particularly if, as I said, it appears likely that this will be the only country withholding ratification.

This is an issue we should approach in a spirit of friendship, partnership and co-operation, particularly since we have had, by and large, such a good experience of membership of the European Union in the past 35 years. We chose not to proceed to vote on the constitutional treaty after the French and Dutch "No" votes and after seven years there is no appetite among our partners to embark on a second renegotiation followed by a third round of ratification. If any one of us as an individual was a member of a club of 27 that required unanimity to effect a change in the rules, how many of us, if we found ourselves in a minority of one, would insist that our view must prevail and that the other 26 members simply would have to drop their planned rule changes? If we behaved like that, not merely would we be unpopular but fellow members would not feel inclined to go out of their way to oblige us if we ever found ourselves in difficulty and needed the help and understanding that we had denied them. There are many voices, some of them shrill, urging us to play hardball or be uncompromisingly rejectionist. Few, if any of them, have ever sat round the Council table. It is easy to make unrealistic demands from the outside.

I believe our European partners are prepared to go a long way to meet our concerns. If that is the case, we ought to reciprocate and it is in our interests to do so. If there is one theme that permeates the entire report, it is the loss of influence, goodwill and self-confidence, both real and feared, as a result of our Lisbon treaty vote. It is not so serious yet because our partners hope and believe the situation can be retrieved. If that belief were to prove ill-founded, both we and our partners would be forced to conclude that Ireland's attitude and long-standing policy towards the European Union had fundamentally changed. We would be overturning, at the behest of few Members in the Oireachtas, 35 years of positive and constructive membership of the European Union and retreating to the outer edge, no doubt self-righteously nursing our various wounds and grievances, of which every country has some. We would simply be treated as not really wanting to be part of the European project anymore. This would be a tragedy with profound consequences for our political standing in the world, our economic well-being, our national morale and self-confidence and, perhaps, even our long-term viability as a nation state in what is now an ultra-globalised world. While we should look for whatever guarantees, reassurances and comforts that we can obtain, nothing is a substitute for ensuring we stay at the heart of European Union decision-making, particularly in order that we can shape the response to new situations that cannot always be predicted in advance and protect our interests. We have to see the wood from the trees. We have and always will have legitimate interests, preoccupations and concerns. The issue is whether we can best look after them from within or whether we should listen to siren voices calling on us to step outside. Do we want to act as a proxy for interests hostile to European integration? Are we not likely to find ourselves diplomatically marooned without a paddle with all the hopes and confidence of four decades — perhaps they were illusions — cut short?

Different sectional grasps and interests in this society used the process to advance their agendas at our peril. Conditionality lost the Lisbon treaty vote and could finally lose us our hard won position at the heart of the European Union, even when that might not have been the intention. Not one of our concerns, objectively analysed for their substance, or all of them together, are worth paying that price. The European Union and the United Nations are the fora in which Ireland has taken its place among the nations of the earth. Countries, like people, need good friends, partners and neighbours. A relative self-inflicted diplomatic isolation will not make for happiness. We should make it clear inside and outside the House that we want with our partners to break the impasse in order that all of us in the European Union can move ahead in harmony together.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I wish to share time with Deputy Durkan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I too join others in complimenting the work of all the participants in the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. Its chairman, Senator Paschal Donohoe, in particular, did an outstanding job in steering the sub-committee's work in what was an intensive and, sometimes, gruelling endeavour. Trojan work was put done by my sub-committee colleagues, on which I compliment them. I agree, however, with Deputy Timmins that Sinn Féin, in particular, had reservations from the start. It made it clear from day one that it had no intention of subscribing to whatever report was agreed by the sub-committee. That is unfortunate because it was a constructive exercise into which everyone went with an open mind.

The report contains a series of worthwhile recommendations. I hope there will be more of a commitment from the Government benches in implementing some of them, particularly those that involve changes to the EU scrutiny system and how the Oireachtas deals with European affairs. It is imperative the Government takes them on board, not just considers them, leaving them on a shelf to gather dust.

Despite the positive work and input into the work of the sub-committee, the Government has been somewhat lacklustre in its response to the referendum result in June. I did not need a sub-committee report to tell me that the consequences of the result for our national interests were devastating. We face an extremely serious situation but there has been no adequate response from the Government benches. The response has been more akin to a rabbit caught in headlights. The Taoiseach, in particular, and certain Ministers have had no response to the crisis. There has been no reality check or attempt to highlight how grave the implications of the "No" vote are for our national interests. There has been no reference to the European Union or the aftermath of the Lisbon treaty referendum result for several months, which is alarming. The only response has been the Minister for Finance blaming the European Central Bank for high interest rates which is unfortunate and symptomatic of the Government's approach to the European Union in the past decade. The positives are claimed by the Government as successes at a national level; when things go wrong, the buck is passed to the European Union. That attitude needs to change.

We need a clear statement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, preferably, or the Taoiseach setting out how the Government wants to change the context and conditions to ensure the Lisbon treaty is ratified. We all accept this is in the national interest. It is not about simply shuttling around Europe trying to get agreement on certain issues. As Deputy Timmins pointed out, we already have clarity on various issues such as taxation and neutrality. The Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties and the Seville Declaration after the first Nice treaty referendum result have stated the EU position on Ireland's neutrality. We need a more radical and fundamental approach. The Minister should take on board on some of Deputy Kenny's points. It is not just about reaching agreement at EU level about our neutrality but examining the incorporation of safeguards in the Constitution. We must also examine safeguarding the personal rights enshrined in Articles 40 to 44, inclusive. The sub-committee's report referred to this and it merits further consideration. Declarations — window-dressing — are not adequate in their own right. If the Government is delusional enough to think so, I am fearful, as a committed and passionate European, that a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty will go the same way as the first.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this important subject. However, I must point out to Members on all sides of the House that a five-minute speech is hardly sufficient in dealing with Ireland's future in the European Union. It is appalling that we are reduced to this time allocation. Some Members will not even get to speak.

As Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, I compliment Senator Paschal Donohoe and the members of the sub-committee on the work they did in difficult circumstances within tight time constraints. I hope its report will resonate with the Minister and the Government and that there will be a significant response which will lift the debate on Ireland's participation in the European Union back to the level it once held. Every leader of the country since 1973 has been steadfastly in favour and thoroughly supportive of Ireland's membership of the European Union and full participation in it. In more recent years we have adopted the policy of seeking possible opt-outs, declarations and clauses. It is no harm to remind the House that every time one seeks an opt-out one moves further from the centre. Denmark did it a few years ago, having previously been at the centre of the European Union. It was much feared by its competitors, especially in the food producing sector. No longer is it such; now it is having second thoughts and is trying to come back into the circle again.

We must ask ourselves where it went wrong. Irreparable damage has already been done. If the treaty is not passed before the European elections, further, more serious damage will be done. There are those who say it cannot happen before then. If not, it will be too late for the country. Many recognise that the damage done by the failure to ratify the treaty has significance for the country, socially, politically and economically. The conspiracy theorists have been running around the country for the past six months, with the abortion, lack of sovereignty and erosion of neutrality theorists. This is rubbish and nonsense that has been discussed hundreds of times in the House and at European level. On the participation of the Defence Forces in European battle groups which suddenly are so reprehensible to some, the Defence Forces have been pariticipating and serving outside the country with distinction for the past 50 years. Only now there is the triple lock mechanism proposal to ensure we do the right thing.

It would have been helpful if senior members of the Government had at least read the Lisbon treaty before the referendum and publicly pronounced that they had done so. It would have been a help to those in favour of it. This has been mentioned to me at several meetings I have attended all over Europe.

I have been a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs for 24 or 25 years. In all my time I have never seen Ireland in a more precarious position. The Minister and the Government have a serious task. If we think the economic difficulties we face are the biggest we ever will face, let us see what will happen if we are pushed further to the outskirts of the European Union. The European Union ship will continue to sail whether the Irish shout "Stop". The ship has moved and we have been left standing on the shore. Unless we find a punt to get back on board before the European elections in June, it will be too late.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I thank the Minister for affording me some of his time. I wish both him and the Taoiseach well in their endeavours during the week. I recognise the work done in recent months in dealing with other administrations and member states. There is an understanding emerging that this is an easy effort and that the two lads only need to show up to get what they want. In particular, there is the notion that all member states will have a Commissioner. My understanding is that that is far from the case and that anything that will be achieved in any areas in which we have sought to try to find a compromise will be hard fought for and may not be achieved in the short term. We must bear this in mind in view of the consensus emerging.

I recognise the tremendous efforts made by the Chairman, Senator Donohoe, the secretariat and members to produce the report on time. I was delighted to be a member of the sub-committee. It was important for us to understand that the decision of the people on 12 June had to be accepted and respected. It was right for the Oireachtas to assess the impact of that decision and try to understand why the majority of people had voted "No". It was necessary to delve deeper into the reasons for the "No" vote, particularly because the Eurobarometer and Millward Brown research suggested Irish people wanted to remain at the heart of the European Union or, as I see it, the inside track. It was necessary to understand why they had made their decision.

The report sought to establish if the wish of the people to have Ireland remain to the fore in the European Union was compatible with the rejection of the reform process the Lisbon treaty had sought to deliver. At the end of our deliberations over a period of seven weeks, the answer was an emphatic no, that it was not compatible and that it would not be possible to remain at the heart of the European Union if we refused to accept the reform process as set out. It was well established that the result of our rejection of the Lisbon treaty had affected our influence in the Union. The "No" vote inhibits Ireland's ability to promote and defend its national interests and affects its ability to influence key upcoming decisions on climate change.

We recognise the difficulties we will have in setting up a farm package through reform of the agri-budget beyond 2013. In the past couple of days I was heartened to hear the comment of Dr. Patrick Wall, chairman of the management board of the European Food Safety Authority, that the "No" vote in the Lisbon treaty referendum had had an impact on the work being done, particularly when German colleagues had questioned him on the reasons the Irish people would want to be congratulated by the neo-Nazis on the way they had voted.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Micheál Martin)

I thank all Deputies for their contributions. The Government has been working extremely hard since the decision was made on the Lisbon treaty. We commissioned quantitative and qualitative research. We facilitated and worked with other parties to establish the Oireachtas sub-committee. To suggest nothing was done, as Deputy Creighton has done, is wrong. The Fine Gael Party has an honourable tradition of being pro-European Union and has always had the Union as part of its core policy platform. I have a sense that in recent times during the Lisbon treaty campaign and now it is a greater priority to criticise the Government rather than advance a unified approach to the European Union.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

When the Government is doing it wrong, we have an obligation to criticise.

Deputy Micheál Martin

Criticising the Government seems to be a greater priority rather than advancing the core issues about the European Union. Some of the criticisms are not well founded. We have worked hard.

Deputies should not be dismissive of the "No" vote. People are saying the tax issue has been sorted, as has neutrality, but the bottom line is that we did not convince the people.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

They do not trust the Government.

Deputy Micheál Martin

Fine Gael did not do so; neither did the Government. There are still doubts. We are trying to reflect the will of the people. It is clear from the research that issues of neutrality and defence, with workers' rights, are high on people's list of priorities. We must listen to the people. We must create solutions with our European colleagues that reflect the will of the people, as articulated at the ballot box. We must not take things for granted. Whether we like it, we must take messages from the way the people voted. As legislators and politicians, it is our challenge to reflect these views in a new road map. That is what we are endeavouring to do with our colleagues in the European Union.

The points made by the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, in an eloquent and good contribution to this debate are worth bearing in mind. We are 35 years in the European Union. Other member states have clear views on the Lisbon treaty, its value and the purpose of the reform programme. If we can deal with the issues raised in a satisfactory solution, can we work with our colleagues to advance the reform programme to make the European Union more effective on the global stage on issues such as climate change and the banking and financial crisis? The Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, was loud in his praise of the ECB in terms of its role in supporting the Irish banking system in the past 12 months.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

He publicly criticised it; perhaps the Minister missed it.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I have made the comment that we are a member of the eurozone. I have also commented on the role of the ECB. We have made other points about the role of the European Union and Irish troops in Chad. We have been clearly pointing out the positives of our membership of the European Union and working in a constructive way, both internally and externally with our colleagues in the European Union, to find the proper way forward.

Deputy Joe Costello

Not as regards workers' rights.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 9 Dec 2008

Report of Sub-Committee on Ireland’s Future in the EU: Statements.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 2008