JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 13 May 2008

Lisbon Treaty: Discussion with Irish Alliance for Europe.

Chairman

I welcome the delegation from the Irish Alliance for Europe. We have had many submissions over the past three months or so from various people on this subject and it continues to become more interesting as time passes.

We are joined by Mr. Brendan Kiely, director, but Ms Rosaleen Martin is not here. We are also joined by Ms Karen White, head of research, Mr. Gregg O'Neill and Ms Sinéad Fennell. All of the delegates are very welcome.

Before we start I bring to the attention of witnesses that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Witnesses cannot slag off their neighbours because witnesses do not enjoy privilege. Members of the committee should not comment on a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We have met various social partners and groups including the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Irish Farmers Association, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, the Irish Countrywomen's Association and the Union of Students in Ireland.

We have met various groups as part of our outreach meetings around the country. We have already held five of six such meetings that were proposed and we hoped to hold one or two more but that may not be possible because of time constraints. In the course of those meetings there has been a fairly healthy exchange of views with the general public, on both the pro and anti sides. Members of the committee have excelled themselves as have members of the public. As a result of our deliberations, the committee will produce a report before referendum day. It will contain findings, conclusions and recommendations. This is as things should be because we are members of a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas and this is what we do.

Mr. Brendan Kiely

I thank the Chairman and will make a statement on behalf of the delegation from the Irish Alliance for Europe. We will welcome questions afterwards. I thank the Chairman and the committee for the invitation to speak today and particularly thank the secretariat and the clerk for organising this. It is a great honour to be invited to address a plenary session of this committee in Leinster House.

I do not propose to spend a long time extolling the benefits and details of the Lisbon treaty, of which there are many, but I will touch on a number of issues. This treaty is about making the European Union more efficient and effective so it can deal with the challenges of the 21st century. That is the message we are successfully communicating to the Irish people.

Since Ireland joined the EU 35 years ago, it is clear we have come a long way. As a nation we have benefitted from the peace and prosperity the EU has brought. As a country, we have helped to reshape the EU to meet the challenges that face us. As a people we must now decide if we are ready to take the next step to achieve a European Union that will work harder for us as a country. Of the many issues that we will face in the future, climate change will be the major challenge. Scientists now estimate that by 2030, the damage done by climate change will be irreversible. It is the single biggest threat to the future of our children, but we cannot leave it for them to deal with. We must create the tools to fix the problem now.

The Lisbon treaty makes combatting climate change one of the fundamental objectives of the EU, equal in importance to the goals of peace and prosperity in Europe and the free movement of people, goods and services. It backs this objective, extending the Union's areas of action to include energy, transport and the environment. It introduces a whole new energy chapter which requires the Union to move towards sustainable development and renewable energy as well as to step up the fight against pollution. The environmental movement has always said that we need a binding legal requirement to fight climate change that is not subject to the whims of politicians, with the greatest respect to those present. This treaty creates this imperative to deal with the problem and the means with which to do it. Ironically, many of those opposed to the treaty have been calling for this for some time.

In the past ten years, 500,000 women and children were trafficked into the EU. In the past 12 months, €50 billion worth of drugs were imported into Europe by criminal gangs who for years have profited from human misery, the destruction of our communities and the undermining of our social fabric. Europe needs to be capable of dealing with these problems. The Lisbon treaty extends co-operation into areas of border controls, police administration and crime prevention, equipping the Union with the potential to deal with among other things, the scourges of drugs, sex trafficking and cross-border crime. We know that this can work. Using a provision introduced in the Amsterdam treaty, last year police forces working through Europol and Eurojust arrested a paedophile in Spain, seized his computer and, using information on the hard drive, broke up one of the largest child sex offender rings in Europe, making over 500 arrests across the EU. How many children are now safe because of actions that could not have happened without the Amsterdam treaty?

Ireland has the best of both worlds in this area of the treaty. We can opt into any policy initiative we want while at the same time preserving our right to protect our unique legal system. When we talk to people about the treaty, these are the things that we should be talking about — things that affect real everyday lives, saving the planet, securing our prosperity, protecting children and stopping crime. This is what the Lisbon treaty is about — real changes on real issues that affect real people

How does the treaty do this? The Lisbon treaty proposes a series of technical changes to the EU's institutions that, taken together, will make the EU more effective and efficient so that it can work better. The new permanent president of the Council will lead to greater co-ordination and continuity among the governments of member states. The new high representative will be a stronger and louder voice for the EU on the world stage. The new voting system at the Council of Ministers will make it easier for the Council to make decisions that can benefit all the people of Europe. The changes to the make-up of the European Commission will allow it to act with greater efficiency and more effectively. Taken together, the vast number of institutional reforms are intended to deliver an EU that can cope with the challenges that face us today and will confront us tomorrow.

I would like to turn my attention to some of the lies that the "No" side has peddled over the past number of months. These are some of the lies we are likely to hear in the coming weeks. We are told by Libertas and Sinn Féin, who seem to have a new concern for our low corporate tax rate, that under Article 113 of the treaty, the European Court of Justice will be empowered to overrule our low tax rates because they are a "distortion of competition". This is manifestly false. The full text of the new Article 113 reads:

The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the economic and social committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

This has been misrepresented at hundred of meetings around the country in the past six months. It is clear that this article requires all the member states to agree to any actions under it, thereby confirming the Irish veto in this area. More importantly it clearly refers to indirect taxation such as VAT and excise and has nothing to do with corporate taxes whatsoever. As taxation is a power reserved to the member states, the European Court of Justice could have no role to rule on a country's tax rates in any area. This is the article that was used to establish the Common Market. We have already largely harmonised these areas of customs duties when the Single European Act came into force in the early 1990s. Would IBEC, the IDA and the 30 other business organisations that we have signed up to the Irish Alliance for Europe — companies such as Microsoft and others — support the alliance and be in favour of the treaty if there was any threat to our tax rate? I do not think so.

We have been told by Cóir, Érin go Bragh and Libertas, depending on which part of the country they are in, that Ireland will be required to introduce abortion under the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and that it would be considered a "service" under the EU's services directive. Both of these claims are completely untrue. Let me be absolutely clear, there is nothing in this treaty or in European law generally that will impact on the right of the people to decide this issue for themselves. A protocol was attached to the Maastricht treaty in 1992 that specifically protects Article 40.3.3° of Bunreacht na hÉireann, the article that protects the right to life of the unborn. There will be no change in this country's stance on abortion. That is a fact. It is shameful that the "No" side has stooped to abusing such a highly emotive issue in order to try to scare people into voting "No". Chairman, the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Lisbon treaty expands the rights of Irish citizens and puts them at the centre of the EU's legal processes.

We are again hearing the old chestnut that the end of neutrality is nigh. We have been told this about every European treaty in every referendum since we joined in 1973. The Lisbon treaty will apparently mean the end of our neutrality. We will be forced to increase military spending and to fight other states' wars. None of these claims is any more true than it was about the other treaties, Nice, Amsterdam, Maastricht or the Single European Act. Article 28 specifically states that a common defence will only come into force "in accordance with [each states'] respective constitutional requirements", which in Ireland means a referendum. Irish neutrality is particularly protected in the treaty's provisions that recognise it cannot "prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States" and, of course, our veto over any European military action is maintained. No Irish troops can be deployed abroad unless both the Government and the Oireachtas agree and there is a UN mandate. That is a triple lock. There is no mechanism in the treaty to force Ireland to increase military spending. It simply talks about improving our military capabilities in term of our commitments to peacekeeping. We have a long and proud tradition of peacekeeping. It has been stated consistently throughout the debate that military spending should not be increased.

I believe it is a national imperative and not a European imperative that our men and women engaged in peacekeeping duties on the front-line in Chad are protected. There are more than 30 different types of engine oil being used in different vehicles. That creates significant problems for the logistics. We must ensure that the French troops in Chad are using the same radios as the Irish troops so that we do not have what the Americans call "friendly fire". This is no different from the same commitment that has been in successive programmes for Government.

The genesis of the Irish Alliance for Europe is from the alliance for Europe that was set up to fight for the ratification of the Nice treaty after its defeat in the first referendum. It was felt then and it is felt now that putting the case for Ireland in Europe should not be left just to the political parties. Civic society must step up to the plate. Europe is important for Ireland and so wide-ranging is its impact on every sector of society that we have come together to put the case for this treaty in a way that transcends politics. The Irish Alliance for Europe is an organisation that spans every section of Irish society. We represent a coming together of organisations of people from every walk of life, business people, farmers, trade unionists, students, academics and environmentalists to name but a few. We seek to offer a view of the treaty from people who have spent their entire working lives seeing the benefits of Ireland's engagement with Europe. These are experts and lay people who passionately believe in this treaty and will bring their passion, knowledge and experience to the "Yes" campaign. We have already launched our nationwide poster campaign, with the slogan we believe encapsulates what the treaty is about: "Let's Make Europe Work Better". We will provide a series of spokespeople for local and national media and we will run a bus tour of the country. The committee members are welcome to join us on that. We have strong regional campaigns in Munster and in the west.

However, we cannot win this campaign by ourselves. We welcome the fact that in the past week and a half the three main political parties have joined us in launching large-scale campaigns to secure a "Yes" vote and, in particular, the strong emphasis that our new Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, has placed on making the positive case for the treaty since his election last week. This is probably responsible for the recent upswing in support for the treaty in the opinion polls. However, it is equally true that when one looks at the full spectrum of polls since January, the only conclusion one can honestly draw is that the result of the referendum is still up for grabs by both sides. Victory is far from certain.

The only way the treaty will be passed is if we engage with the public on the substance of the issues on a one-to-one basis. The alliance does not have the resources to knock on every door in the country, but the political parties do. There is strong evidence that the more people know about the treaty, the basic facts as well as the more complicated arguments, the more they are likely to support it. If that engagement is not done on a substantial level, the chances of this treaty being passed will be significantly reduced. We welcome the fact that every house has received a copy of the Department of Foreign Affairs guide and will receive the guide to the treaty from the Referendum Commission that was launched today. Both of these will help to close the knowledge gap in the public mind which, until now, has allowed the "No" side to perpetuate myths and lies about the content of the treaty and the impact it will have on Europe and Ireland.

We should not be afraid of the details of the treaty in the debate that will be held in the next four weeks. The answers to all the questions of the Irish people can be found among its pages. We owe the people a vigorous campaign, a great debate and, above all, the truth. On 12 June, the citizens will decide whether we are to continue to be at the centre of Europe. It is up to all of us to help ensure they make the correct and informed choice.

Chairman

A number of members of the committee wish to speak. I call Deputy Billy Timmins first.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I apologise in advance because I must leave the meeting early. I welcome Mr. Kiely and the other representatives of the Irish Alliance for Europe. I have heard Mr. Kiely's contributions to the Forum on Europe and they are always telling and timely. I congratulate him on those and on his submission today. I wish to raise one issue with Mr. Kiely. I detected a certain amount of frustration in his voice when he was discussing the myths and lies from the "No" side. Does he find it difficult or frustrating trying to get his message across through the media? If I, for example, rang the media and said Deputy Mary O'Rourke was putting down a no confidence motion in the new Taoiseach, I would immediately be challenged and quizzed about it.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

The Deputy definitely would.

Deputy Billy Timmins

It would not be accepted as a fait accompli.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Let alone how Deputy O'Rourke might quiz Deputy Timmins.

Deputy Billy Timmins

Yes. It is not my intention to attack the media because they are an easy target, but the only way we can get our message across is through the media. In fact, much of the material appearing each day in the media, some of it from reputed commentators, is clearly inaccurate, whether by design or otherwise. However, it goes unchallenged. When the "Yes" campaign seeks to challenge the material, there is a certain amount of coverage. I read an article by Mr. Bruce Arnold in the Irish Independent that was completely inaccurate. He referred to a section of the referendum Bill which has actually been in the Constitution since 1973. Any international treaty signed by Ireland supersedes what is in the Constitution under another provision of the Constitution, yet he portrayed that as something new in the Constitution. Clearly, it is not, as it has been in the Constitution for the past 35 years.

He also mentioned the tax issue, on which the Referendum Commission has already adjudicated. Mr. Kiely referred to that in his speech in the context of the totality of Article 113. Mr. Arnold's reference went unchallenged. I wrote a letter to my local newspaper to point out that there were some shortcomings and that perhaps it should seek an independent adjudicator, but it was hardly going to prosecute one of its own. There is a responsibility on the media when dealing with something that is factually incorrect. We will all have different opinions and there is no difficulty with people arguing on the basis of certain political philosophies or otherwise but matters of fact can be easily ascertained and that should be done.

I have often wondered how some of these inaccuracies can appear time after time but as I drove to the Dáil today I found a possible solution. I saw a poster featuring three monkeys. Perhaps these are behind the "No" campaign and now that they have chosen to show their faces, we might have a name for them.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

What are the monkeys about?

Deputy Billy Timmins

There were three monkeys on a poster with the words: "Hear no evil", "See no evil" and "Vote No". I am aware the monkey is an intelligent animal but I doubt that it has the ability to ascertain whether the Lisbon treaty——

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

He is not on the register.

Deputy Billy Timmins

There are many monkeys on the register, approximately 39% of it.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

The Deputy should get the figures right.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I wish to make a serious point about that poster. The poster epitomises the approach of some of the "No" side — put three monkeys on a poster. It tells me far more about some of the people who are campaigning for a "No" vote and some of the literature I have seen than anything about the Lisbon treaty. They should have the courage to come forward. Let us put a name on these three monkeys.

Senator John Hanafin

I commend Mr. Kiely on his report. The committee receives many reports but I found his the most readable. It is concise, properly formatted and deals with the questions that are currently being asked. It is well done.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I join my colleagues in complimenting Mr. Kiely and his colleagues not only for the presentation today but for their ongoing, selfless approach to the campaign for the future evolution of Europe. They are selfless in terms of attending meetings throughout the country and keeping people informed from a civil society perspective. As Senator Hanafin said, their documentation is factual and accurate and devoid of euro-speak. It is worthy of further distribution, and I hope the media will distribute the arguments it puts forward.

I was canvassing for the treaty at the weekend. At two houses I was surprised to be told that if the Lisbon treaty is passed, it would be possible to put a cap on the size of families, as has happened in China. Apparently, this emanated from a radio programme and was said by one of what others refer to as the "loolahs" who have decided to oppose this treaty. Again, they used a media organisation to peddle a falsehood. I did my best to try to explain this to the people concerned, but I would welcome Mr. Kiely's views on dealing with this and putting the case against it. It is most bizarre and an example of scraping the bottom of the barrel. The abortion debate is one issue, and it is clearly not part of the treaty. However, to suggest that Europe would become like China, with a cap imposed on the size of families, is an appalling proposition. I am taking this opportunity to drive a coach and four through it. Perhaps Mr. Kiely would also deal with it.

Mr. Kiely dealt adequately with the abortion issue. He might also deal with the argument peddled by a former Member of the Dáil and leader of the Socialist Party that health and education could ultimately be privatised. I understand there is no indication that competences in health and education will ever be passed to Europe and certainly this will not happen as a result of the Lisbon treaty. This morning, a person from a county to the west of the midlands recommended a "No" vote on the basis of a local issue.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Roscommon.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

How important is it that people desist from getting involved in local political issues or that we identify the significant damage that a "No" vote would inflict on our capacity to pay for the services being advocated? Our health and social welfare services are predicated on a strong economy and our economy is strong by virtue of our membership of the European Union. If we vote "No", is it not the case that we will be in a more difficult position economically and, therefore, less able to fund the expansion of services we recognise as needed?

Deputy Joe Costello

I, too, welcome the Alliance for Europe. Mr. Kiely spoke at our meeting in DCU and contributed to the National Forum on Europe. It is welcome that civil society is involved in this campaign, even though we do not like to hear references to the whims of politicians or political parties. I advise Mr. Kiely that politicians do not have whims.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Nor do we have unlimited resources.

Deputy Joe Costello

We have to take life more seriously than that. I welcome the major contribution Mr. Kiely made over several months in terms of providing accurate and objective information. Who is represented in the alliance?

A great deal of inaccurate information has been disseminated but we have failed to persuade the media to analyse what has been said. The assertions being made in literature, at public meetings and in the media are not being questioned. In a normal campaign, the respective claims made by opposing forces are questioned for accuracy. In this referendum, anybody on the "No" side can make an assertion which is accepted as gospel. The media have not being playing their role adequately and, unless they do, inaccurate and misleading assertions will continue to be accepted in the absence of scrutiny.

We referred last week to the appearance in churches of literature opposing the Lisbon treaty.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Alive, alive-o.

Deputy Joe Costello

Alive has some connection in that it is published by a religious order, the Dominicans in Tallaght, although I am not sure of the extent to which it has that order's imprimatur. The literature is entirely politicised and one-sided. It is not religious. As I remarked at our last meeting, I picked up copies of Libertas literature in the Pro-Cathedral. Church leaders need to examine the literature being distributed within churches. The danger arises that ordinary church-goers will accept without question that the information is accurate and has the support of the church leadership.

The media, and RTE in particular, are providing imbalanced coverage. The Labour Party launched its campaign on Sunday, subsequent to which Sinn Féin spokesperson, Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP, was interviewed and countered every argument put by the Labour Party. Yesterday Fianna Fáil launched its campaign and, again, Ms McDonald was allowed to make her criticisms. That is not balance, it is imbalance. A party with four Deputies is allowed to speak every time coverage is given to parties representing 180 Members. Surely it is time RTE considered the way in which it provides balanced coverage.

As a civil society group, the Irish Alliance for Europe has a role in approaching church and media organisations to argue that balance does not mean a disproportionate attempt to do the right thing and get the wrong result. That issue needs to be addressed now because we are entering the phase of intensive campaigning.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I welcome the Irish Alliance for Europe. I have known Mr. Kiely for several years and was not surprised when a member spoke about his strongly constructed arguments, given that he received his third level education in Athlone, the seat of learning. I thank the alliance for the posters I noticed at intervals along my journey to Dublin today. They are very effective and worthwhile.

I do not know what to make of the opponents to the Lisbon treaty because it seems they are following several lines of retreat. They started by being logical but because that has not sufficed, they are entering a desperate phase of their campaign and are throwing out all sorts of canards in the hope that somebody will swallow them. Claims about abortion and the cap on family sizes are frequently made. In Athlone last Saturday and Sunday, I heard them being made on four occasions and people are credulous enough to believe them. As a woman, I am disgusted that the abortion issue is being raised again. We have sweated over that issue and we do not intend to have it raised at this stage. It is ridiculous. Equally, try speaking about a cap on family sizes to a lusty young man.

Chairman

Or a young woman.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I do not think that would wash. Opponents are stooping to that kind of technique to appeal to credulous people. Last night I attended a funeral in Athlone, where I noted that Alive magazine has launched an attack on Fianna Fáil, those present will be glad to know, although it is accompanied by a photograph of Deputy O’Keeffe of Fine Gael. It mentions that Fianna Fáil is against Alive, although it is not. It is very silly. A high-level source has told it that our committee is out to get it. I will shut up about it now.

I wonder about the church's attitude. Last week I received a telephone call from the office of the Taoiseach asking me whether I was into prayer. I said I was not really. It seemed the Taoiseach had agreed to attend a prayer meeting in Clonmacnoise but had since found he could not go and wanted me to go instead. When the boss asks one to go, even if it is to prayer, one goes. Away I went to Clonmacnoise, where there were about 1,000 people on a hillside. It was a beautiful day and one could do a lot worse with oneself on a Sunday. They prayed for the success of the Lisbon treaty. It was a charismatic meeting, which included representatives of all churches, and there was singing. They prayed for success in the referendum and that the Taoiseach and the Opposition would be infused by the Holy Spirit. Mr. Gargan should not look so pained; I am just telling the committee that at least some churches are in favour of the treaty. I dropped a note to the Taoiseach saying he would be glad to know the outfit he sent me to meet was in favour of the treaty. However, the traditional churches claim they are not, or have decided to keep their counsel. I do not know how we will get around this.

Today I saw a poster about 1916. Do those present know what the people of 1916 fought for? The poster stated we should vote "No" in order that we would not lose the legacy of 1916. We may laugh at such posters and we do. However, there are credulous people who might think that if they vote "Yes", the efforts made by the brave people who fought in 1916 will be for naught. Equally, it has been stated women's rights and family life will suffer if we vote for the treaty. The "No" campaign is now entering a phase in which it will throw out anything to see what happens. There is no intellectual questioning of this strategy. Nobody is saying, "What are you at?" I was struck by how Mary Lou McDonald, MEP, to whom I wish no harm, had been trotted out to attempt to discredit the Labour Party campaign in three sentences. She was also brought out after the launch of the Fianna Fáil campaign to denigrate it, again, in three soundbites. She might get tired of being trotted out in this fashion, although I do not think so. I do not know how we can deal with this plan of attack. It is ephemeral and hard to know what to do about it, yet we must tackle this issue, or else the "No" campaign will continue to become more desperate and ridiculous. However, I know that to the members of the campaign it is not ridiculous.

I suppose we will hear no more of Mr. Ulick McEvaddy who was hauled out for a photograph. I have stated several times on local radio that it is hard to imagine him being mixed up with Sinn Féin and Mr. Joe Higgins. I hope he has retreated. I do not know, but I assume he has. It would be unusual for a good guy who attended Garbally College, as Deputy Treacy will know——

Deputy Noel Treacy

Yes; he spent four years there.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

——to go on with that nonsense.

I would like to hear the comments of the Irish Alliance for Europe on this issue. We should not be here giving out about the other side but talking positively. However, we must mention aspects of the "No" campaign, as I am afraid there are credulous people who are willing to swallow the latest red herring, no matter how indigestible. I do not know how we will tackle it, although we must do so.

By the way, I must ask the Chairman whether we advertise our meetings around the country. Nobody in Athlone knew the committee was meeting there last week. It did get a good crowd, but that was fortuitous. Did the committee place notices in the local newspapers?

Chairman

We did.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

There was nothing in the local newspaper.

Chairman

That week there was not, but there was beforehand. Actually, I am now being informed there were also advertisements placed that week.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

No; there was nothing about it pre-meeting.

Chairman

We paid for the advertisements.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

The committee had better get its money back, as they were not carried in the newspaper.

Chairman

Absolutely. We must find out what happened. We cannot have that. I agree with the points made by the Deputy.

Deputy Chris Andrews

I compliment Mr. Kiely and his team who have conducted an enthusiastic, effective and energetic campaign. I also compliment Deputy Quinn on his advocacy on behalf of the Lisbon treaty. He has been a great ambassador for the alliance. On a lighter note, the posters are very effective and have certainly made an impression. That is positive.

There is some concern in the small business sector about the treaty. The Irish Alliance for Europe might reassure it that this is a good treaty and that it is in the interests of the sector and those of all of us to support it.

A number of people spoke about getting the message across. The best way to do this is door-to-door. We do this all year round. Deputy Dooley mentioned that he had been out canvassing. When one asks people who have entrusted one with their support less than 12 months ago to vote "Yes", they are willing to do so. It almost closes the deal. They are very open-minded about it, as recent polls have shown. When one goes up to them and they recognise one's face, they have a link between the treaty and the person who represents them on other day-to-day issues, which is helpful. This is an effective way of obtaining support. It is what we must do as public representatives.

I have some concerns about RTE's coverage of the campaign. This is obviously anecdotal and based on my own perception, but the coverage given to the "No" campaign, as alluded to by Deputy O'Rourke, is considerably greater than that given to the "Yes" campaign. I would be interested to see whether, if the Irish Alliance for Europe has contacted RTE in this regard, any response was received. How does one contact RTE and how can one measure the coverage given to the "No" campaign as opposed to the "Yes" campaign? It appears RTE is currently erring on the "No" side and I would be interested to see how the committee could consider contacting RTE about this.

Again, I ask the alliance to reassure small businesses which are an important part of the community that this is a good treaty for them. I congratulate the alliance on its campaign so far.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I warmly welcome the Irish Alliance for Europe and heartily and publicly congratulate Mr. Kiely and all his colleagues, whom I regard as young Irish Europeans. They are leaders with a commitment who have gone the extra mile to ensure the modern nation remains at the forefront of the European project. This is critically important. We salute the members of the alliance for the huge effort they are making and their professional approach. In the last month they have kept the profile of the project and the referendum in the public eye and tried to bring balance to the debate.

I endorse the comments of my colleagues, particularly Deputies Timmins and O'Rourke. Coming up to Dublin today I noticed the red "No" poster referred to. It is outrageous and a disgrace that the 1916 Proclamation is being desecrated by the people concerned and utilised to purvey a negative view without any identification of those responsible or those who printed the document. As people involved in politics, none of us can produce documentation without identifying ourselves, those on whose behalf we are acting, and the printer. That is the law of the land. The people concerned have such posters up all over the country. It is outrageous that this should prevail.

We launched our campaign yesterday in Galway on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, led by our MEP, Seán Ó Neachtain, with all of our Ministers, Ministers of State, Deputies, Senators and councillors present. However, many representatives of the media did not turn up. I later listened to a media report featuring a person who had not been present at the launch. The person being interviewed put a negative spin on the treaty. One is sometimes invited onto a radio programme to discuss a particular topic only to find that a sleeper, whom one has not been told about in advance, is also on the programme. Four or five minutes into the interview the sleeper is woken up and asked to comment on what one has said. Politicians are able to deal with such situations but it is not balanced, fair or equitable reporting. As legislators, we must ensure the law is observed, with regard to postering, for example. Facts are being distorted and a negative mindset is being embedded in the population. Innocent, decent but gullible people will respond to some of these stupid negative posters and statements. As Deputy Costello said, when a national political party such as the Labour Party, Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael launches a campaign, it is entitled to put its message across. A small party with a minimal mandate and a recent visitor to constitutional politics should not be able to negate the consensual conclusion arrived at by political parties which have served the country for many years. That is very unfair.

I admire the sponsoring organisations and bodies which have assisted the Irish Alliance for Europe in putting its structure together to assist the people at this vital time in this very important project. We commend the alliance for this. We must take the message to the people. The alliance is bringing a bright, warm, youthful and enthusiastic message to the electorate on behalf of the young generation of Irish Europeans. It is up to political parties to do their duty. I am confident that our combined efforts will ensure the people will maintain the Irish nation at the heart of the European Union, which is critically important to future generations. I salute the members of the alliance and thank them for their work.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I also welcome the delegation. I am sorry I missed the presentation but will read it. It is important that the Irish Alliance for Europe is being given an opportunity to address the committee. It was at my suggestion that the invitation was issued. We have heard a series of speakers from the "No" side and it is important, in the interests of equity and balance, that the alliance give its side of the story. The alliance played a crucial role in securing a "Yes" vote in 2002. I know Mr. Brendan Kiely was involved in that campaign. Many involved in the current campaign were also involved in 2002 when we saw an impressive mobilisation, particularly of young people. I remember wearing the yellow t-shirts and campaigning with the alliance, as well as canvassing with Fine Gael.

Success in the referendum will depend entirely on voter turnout. We must inspire and enthuse people to get out and vote. If they do, the majority will vote "Yes". That is what both the research and history tell us. This is the task, particularly for civil society groups such as the alliance.

I have concerns regarding the role of church leaders in the referendum campaign. It is interesting that the Pope has expressed his full support for the Lisbon treaty. Nevertheless, we are subjected to propaganda in churches and, in particular, newspapers and magazines which deliberately mislead and misinform and do not portray the views of the church. I am a Catholic and would not regard myself as a mad liberal. I share the concerns of many of the people who write for these magazines. However, the facts speak for themselves. We have a huge task in communicating them. There are widespread misconceptions about issues such as abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia. The task will not be easy but we have four weeks in which to complete it. I hope the alliance will have an opportunity to play its part in the campaign, whether by mobilising church leaders of various religious leanings or prevailing on the Catholic church establishment to get out and make strong statements on the treaty. If the alliance achieved this, it would be very helpful.

Members have referred to "No" posters. I saw some of them as I drove through Deputy O'Rourke's constituency on Friday evening last on my way to speak at a meeting in Longford. I noticed, on the roundabouts in Edgeworthstown, the propaganda from unnamed and unknown sources. I also saw the poster referring to 1916. We may talk about sovereignty, nationalism and republicanism, but before we joined the European Union, there was no sovereignty in Ireland. We were completely dependent — economically, socially and every other way — on the United Kingdom. We have all heard the expression, "If England sneezes, Ireland catches a cold". We really came into our own as an independent sovereign nation when we joined the European Union. It was then that we gave ourselves the opportunity to become truly independent and participate and compete in the global market. As a result, we are now a confident, wealthy and successful nation. That point needs to be made very strongly.

I share some members' views on the media and media bias. I was very depressed last weekend and decided that the Lisbon treaty campaign had been lost. Every newspaper seemed to contain a tiny reference to the "Yes" campaign and huge articles about the "No" campaign. Who are these people and what mandate do they have? At least, some of the Sinn Féin people have a mandate. The rest do not represent anyone and their funding is particularly dubious. It is interesting that the Irish Alliance for Europe which is supported by a vast spectrum of individuals and organisations is struggling for funding to pay for its posters. I know of its difficulties. On the other hand, organisations with a maximum of four members can pay for 48 sheet billboards. We are told they are launching a pitchfork campaign targeting farmers next week.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Who are?

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

The Libertas campaign. How are they paying for it? No one is asking this question. Where are the media questioning the people concerned and demanding to know where their money is coming from? The Libertas website names one member, the director, Mr. Declan Ganly, and three staff members who are paid by him. How are they funding their campaign?

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

The McEvaddys, perhaps. They are very well off.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

That is a question the media should be asking. It is bizarre that an organisation with such widespread support as the Irish Alliance for Europe is struggling for funding while these organisations seem to have no problem in that regard. I look forward to the report of the Standards in Public Office Commission after this campaign. It is a pity it will not be seen until afterwards.

I commend The Irish Times for its balanced coverage. It has shown a sincere interest in promoting a proper balanced debate. It is publishing spurious arguments from the “No” side but if that is all that is forthcoming from that side, they must be covered.

I am disappointed with RTE and have said so on several occasions. It would be a great service if the alliance could take RTE to task. I agree with Deputy Costello in that regard. RTE stayed for only ten minutes at the Fine Gael campaign launch last week. We had Dr. Garret FitzGerald, a former Taoiseach; Mr. Peter Sutherland, a former Attorney General and EU Commissioner, and Deputy Enda Kenny, Leader of the Opposition. The item appeared on the "Six One" news at 6.50 p.m. That is not acceptable. It is not balanced coverage. The coverage of the Labour Party launch was also distorted. It was overshadowed in the print media by the "No" campaign and the coverage on RTE, the national broadcaster, was appalling. This matter needs to be addressed. The alliance would do the campaign some service by addressing this issue.

Those of us on the "Yes" side have a duty to ensure anyone speaking on our behalf is informed. I am grateful the delegation has provided briefings on the treaty for politicians, a welcome service. There is a need for spokespersons to know their facts on the treaty. Last weekend, there were cases of senior Ministers simply not knowing their facts on the treaty and being unable to refute spurious arguments. I appeal to Fianna Fáil to ensure its Ministers know what they are talking about on the treaty. Otherwise, we will lose this campaign because of spurious arguments gaining strength.

I thank the alliance for its work and wish it the best. I am looking forward to the launch of its women's campaign which Deputy O'Rourke and I shall be attending. I also hope the youth vote will be targeted as it swung the second Nice treaty referendum.

Chairman

There are some aspects of this campaign that are different from previous campaigns. There is a large amount of not so much misinformation or disinformation but mischievous information in circulation. It is accepted as truth, is peddled around and becomes more frightening.

What further concerns me is intelligent people coming up with spurious arguments against the treaty. For example, an accountant informed me that the treaty would force abortion on the Irish people. Where did he get that information? No matter how one reads the treaty, there is no way anyone could glean that from it. Another person asked if I knew about the European army. I do not know where he was for the past 15 years but when everyone watched the Bosnian war on their television sets, they bemoaned the lack of action from any quarter. A mechanism has to be put in place whereby the EU can defend itself and ensure it is not as vulnerable as it was in the past.

Sinn Féin is calling for a better deal from the treaty. At some of our public deliberations, members of the party spoke from the platform and the floor. In some instances they were not too anxious to allow other people to speak. Around Christmas in a television interview, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, president of Republican Sinn Féin, claimed the Good Friday Agreement was not a great deal and it could have been better. This argument about better deals amuses me. The Good Friday Agreement was a very good deal and much better than the deal in operation for the previous 30 years. I am concerned about this notion being peddled that there is somehow, somewhere a panacea and by voting "No" we will get a better deal. What better deal, from whom and who will negotiate it?

The argument about a self-amending treaty is constantly raised and the notion that this will be the last time the Irish people will be able to vote in a referendum on a treaty. Another argument asks why we cannot be like the French and the Dutch who voted "No". I thought we were an independent sovereign State which makes up its own minds without influence or coercion.

Last night I heard the Chinese conspiracy about the treaty. According to it, the EU Commission President, Mr. Barroso, discussed future trade deals with the Chinese Government. I would have presumed that is normal practice between trading partners.

There is an argument that our sovereignty will disappear with this treaty. The "No" poster using the 1916 Proclamation is sick. It does nothing for anyone. It is cynical, sneering and shows disrespect for those involved in the 1916 Rising. The poster was not attributed to any party or group so I do not know who produced it or paid for it.

The media is concerned about giving equal time to the "Yes" and "No" side. There is no obligation to do so. That is a misreading of the McKenna judgment. Ten members of this committee who sit at the public deliberations are on the "Yes" side. However, the "No" side expects ten members opposed to the treaty to also be accommodated at the meeting. There is no obligation to do this as the committee reflects the membership of the Dáil. One cannot go off on a tangent and promote the notions of a minority group which claims it is right because some judgment stated 50:50 coverage must be given in referendums. It is a crazy and dangerous notion. It would be a grand thought to have such an arrangement during political elections.

When intelligent people, with reasonably high positions in society, claim they do not understand a document and it is unreadable, they should try reading the Good Friday Agreement for all its contradictions. The Bible and the Koran also contain contradictions. While not being alarmist, I am concerned there is some major power bloc or group funding the "No" side.

Mr. Brendan Kiely

It is important we focus on the positive messages. The alliance will launch its Galway campaign on Friday. So far, we have noted there is a hunger among the electorate for accurate information.

The constant focussing on what the "No" side is claiming is a key issue. We must focus on the message that the treaty will make the EU more efficient, effective, help it deal with the challenges of the 21st century and end the years of navel-gazing when it comes to EU institutional reform. The "Yes" side is not shaping the agenda. The "No" side is controlling the debate. Those who control the debate, win referenda. We need to go on the offensive with a positive message.

Most of the people working in our office are giving their time for free. As well as working many hours every day, they have been subjected to my rants on the media. I agree with Deputy Timmins that the media coverage is inordinately frustrating. For example, when we launched the business pillar of our campaign we had the support of the equivalent of eight Ulick McEvaddys. Mr. Martin Naughton of the Glen Dimplex group gave only the sixth interview in his career at the launch which was attended by the chief executive officers of Microsoft and the C&C group. We got a short piece on the six o'clock news after I made a call when we were not on the "News at One". We were bumped for the nine o'clock news. At three o'clock that afternoon the "No" side put out a press release. It was top of the news from 3 p.m. onwards, while our press releases were completed ignored. I could cite many more examples. Having said that there are others who have been good. Newstalk 106 has been excellent and has been covering this issue for the past seven months. I have beaten a path to it as do all our speakers. There are some bodies that are dealing with the issue but there are others who are not.

I sent a request to RTE and spoke to the head of programming yesterday. I have requested a meeting with the referendum steering committee, with the head of news, Mr. Mulhall and with Mr. Finnegan. I am still waiting for a date for that meeting. I request the joint committee to put its examples in writing to the board of RTE because we do not believe that we have been getting fair coverage. That is a fact.

In regard to posters that have no names or addresses, all our posters are in compliance with the law and all of the funding we are securing is within the guidelines and rules set down by the Standards in Public Office Commission. This is an issue that the joint committee should take up after the referendum. The Standards in Public Office Commission is not an investigative body. Somebody has to lodge a complaint and provide evidence to back it up. Nothing will be done. We are operating within the rules but many on the "No" side are not doing so. When we see posters without a name and address, who do we call? Are they in breach of the Litter Act? They are certainly in breach of the electoral Act. I ask the joint committee to take up this issue and the breach of the law with county councils. It is not up to us to take down these posters and we would not engage in such activities. We know how much it costs to put up these posters.

Of the myths being peddled, my favourite is that our children will be microchipped. There are stickers on lampposts all over the city with a picture of a child crying and there is a microchip and a barcode on this child's arm. I raised this on Newstalk 106 two weeks ago and not only was I laughed at by the "No" side but was accused of hanging the posters myself. I disabused them of that in very swift terms. A cap on children is another example of the type of nonsense we are dealing with. We must point to the treaty and challenge those facts. I impress upon the committee that there is nothing better than having Deputies, Senators and councillors out knocking on doors and explaining the issues. The politicians have been there before and they have the trust of the people

We had some communications from the churches earlier in the campaign. There is nothing more powerful than a call from the local T.D. to the parish priest. I know of one parish priest who banned the magazine Alive from his church for two years. We have had reports also of priests calling for a “No” vote from the pulpit, which I thought was from an Ireland we had left behind. I certainly believe in the separation of church and State.

Mr. McEvaddy has not gone away. Our spokesperson Mr. Pat Cox is debating against him in the IIEA this evening. There are two messages. When Mr. McEvaddy came out against the Lisbon treaty, it made the top of the six o'clock and nine o'clock news. We launched eight or nine Mr. McEvaddys. There is a clear duplicity in Mr. McEvaddy's argument. He states that he cannot read the treaty and yet at the same time he can quote articles as to why we should all vote "No".

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

American influence?

Mr. Brendan Kiely

There was a question on the economic position. It is my personal belief that it is absolutely imperative for our economic position and for jobs that we get a "Yes" vote. So many people have asked what will happen if there is a "No" vote. I do not know the answer, but I know that our ability to punch above our weight in Europe will be affected. Rather than focusing on that as the primary message, we are focusing on the positive messages of what the treaty brings. I have been told there is no emotion in this treaty, but this treaty will affect people's lives.

I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for affording us this time. I thank the delegates who accompanied me today.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Kiely for appearing and let me reassure him that we will continue to conduct our meetings. From the beginning we invited Libertas to appear before the joint committee and to our regional meetings. We invited Mr. Ganley and Mr. McEvaddy but our invitations were declined. I beg your pardon, we have not yet invited Mr. McEvaddy, but we will ask him as and from now. I thought he was included in the other invitation.

The joint committee is not fearsome. The committee will ask questions so that when Libertas and others come before us, they can expect to be asked questions. We have extended an opportunity to Sinn Féin as of right, to participate on the platform in each case but it has declined to so. Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP, has attended a number of committee meetings in Leinster House, but Sinn Féin representatives have spoken from the audience at regional meetings.

We congratulate the Irish Alliance for Europe for taking the initiative. Its positive approach to the Lisbon treaty which is of national importance, and of major significance to the young, old and middle aged, is to be welcomed and supported.