I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to participate in this discussion. I was Chairman of the committee at the time of the convention and the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, had special responsibility for European affairs. Proinsias De Rossa was a member of the convention, as were the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, and Mr. John Bruton who was also a member of the convention's praesidium. The Dáil was represented at the convention by more Opposition Deputies than Government Deputies. The convention also had more parliamentarians than government members and the applicant states were involved. All of the convention's papers were placed on the Internet and before and after every convention meeting, the Minister, the Deputies concerned and Proinsias De Rossa appeared before the committee and listened to our concerns as representatives of the people. The so-called Chairman's draft provided guidance on our concerns for those attending the convention. Everything we wanted in the negotiations, we got. It is important to point out that 80% of the Members of Dáil Éireann were able to vote in favour because all of our concerns were addressed.
Contrast this with the way in which the Amsterdam treaty was brought about, at which time I was Minister of State with special responsibility for European affairs and negotiated on behalf of Ireland. Some 15 Ministers representing the Governments, two Commissioners and two Members of the European Parliament met behind closed doors in a series of meetings. Eventually, we reported to the European Council. There was more debate, an agreement was reached — since we could not agree on everything, the remainder was left for the Nice treaty — and the treaty was ratified by the member states. Never before has a treaty to be put to the people been prepared in such an open and transparent way. The Oireachtas was kept informed and we gave our opinions and asked on an all-party basis that those attending the convention take our concerns with them, which they did.
We must remember that almost 500 million people live in the European Union, the miracle of which is that their representatives who come from different legal systems — Napoleonic and common law, with monarchs and presidents and different parliamentary traditions — were able to agree a document on how to move forward on behalf of those 500 million people. This leads me to the question of why we must move forward. We must remember the meaning of the project, namely, peace and stability on the Continent. In Europe alone, 60 million died in the first half of the last century in two world wars that started on the Continent. At the end of the Second World War, a small number of people set up the European Coal and Steel Community — the steel with which weapons were fashioned and the coal used to fashion them. If they could control these items in a common market, they would not be able to go to war with one another.
From a union of six states has been built a union of 27, with more wanting to join. Unlike the Americans who had a blank page on which to write a constitution, we decided as we went along how much we wanted to share. The difficulty is that, irrespective of discussions on federalism, confederalism and so on, there is no precedent in political science for what we are doing. This is not a federal system. The Queen of England or the President of Ireland will not disappear. The miracle lies in how we are building the European Union by consent.
Why is the Lisbon treaty phase necessary? The Single European Act gave us the market in which we sell our products and services, making Ireland prosperous. The Maastricht treaty gave us criteria for the euro. We used to spend every penny we collected on servicing the national debt. Before we could qualify to use the euro, we needed to reduce our debt to GNP ratio to below 60% and meet the annual borrowing requirement and inflation rate targets. We were in a vicious circle, but the Maastricht treaty gave us the impetus to enter a virtuous circle.
The Amsterdam and Nice treaties were concerned with enlargement, but with what is the Lisbon treaty concerned? Recently, I asked people from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund what the world would be like between 2030 and 2050. The synopsis was that the world would be different. America may not be as powerful as it is today, just as Europe was once more powerful than it is now. China will be powerful, while India, Brazil and a number of developing countries will have made considerable strides. I hope all developing countries will improve. Russia will also be powerful, while Europe will have 7% of the world's population, which will have increased by 2 billion.
In this context, can a European Union of 27 member states that may grow to 30 or 35 — every democratic European state is entitled to apply for membership and if we desire peace and stability on the Continent, we should include them if they are capable of taking on the responsibilities — be taken seriously if we rotate the Presidency of the European Council every six months? For example, I was privileged to hold the office of Lord Mayor of Dublin, but its greatest weakness is that the holder changes every year. Do we want to change the Presidency of the European Council every six months because it is someone else's turn? The treaty proposes that someone will hold the position for two and a half years, a term that can be renewed once. Currently, four people speak on foreign affairs issues — the Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, the Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy, the high representative and a different Minister every six months. The treaty will put in place one person who will be chairperson of the General Affairs and External Relations Council who will take his or her instructions from Foreign Ministers, including Ireland's. That person will also be a vice president of the Commission and, therefore, accountable to the Parliament, a good aspect. If we continue as we are, there will be 1,100 or 1,200 MEPs. A parliament cannot be run with those numbers. Given events in the Duma, it would be chaotic. A maximum number of 751 MEPs, which should be plenty for anyone, is set. It is a sensible provision.
The last section of the treaty concerns the Commissioners. There has been much debate on a common tax base and tax rate. When we created the position of Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, did we not expect the Commissioner to busy himself or herself making proposals? There was no role for such a Commissioner, but we created a job to give something to the Hungarians. If it was not the Hungarians, they would have been given a decent job on the next occasion and we would have given this job to someone else. If we create commissioners, they will come up with ideas to justify their existence. We do not need that many commissioners. I would like to see one commissioner for each member state up to a certain number. We have agreed that the appropriate number of commissioners will be 18, although that can be revisited. What cannot be revisited is the decision that every member state will have a commissioner for ten out of every 15 years on strict rotation. Until recently, each State had two.
This treaty is a very good deal. No member state got everything it wanted but the representatives of the people of Europe came together to produce a document which governments have agreed to and the people are now being asked to ratify.
People are saying they know nothing about the Lisbon treaty but that is because the campaign has not yet started. However, this committee has been on the road, the forum has published an excellent summary document, a White Paper has been produced, the Referendum Commission has been established, public meetings are being held throughout the country and the media is reporting on the issues, although more could be done in that regard. The full campaign is not due to commence until May and the referendum will not be held until June. Anybody who wants information will be able to access it. As public representatives, we have to show more leadership by taking on the people who claim to know nothing about the Lisbon treaty or who plan to vote "No" because they think the information is not available. We need to remind them of the miracle this is if they want to be selfish or egotistical.
Certain journalists, some of whom are qualified lawyers, are saying they cannot read this basic document. Do they expect the rest of us to pamper them? The role of the media is to communicate issues to the people, yet some its members are complaining the text of the treaty is too complex. They never had so much information available to guide them. When Finance Bills and Social Welfare Bills come before us, they are accompanied by explanatory memoranda. I have never been able to read a Finance Bill on its own because it is a complicated document. We need to be more proactive and courageous by showing leadership and nailing the nay-sayers because this is an important project for the peace, stability and prosperity of Europe. I certainly will vote "Yes".