In accordance with a previous decision of the joint committee, party leaders have been invited to address us on the Lisbon treaty, the importance of it and to outline why people should be led by their views. This morning we are joined by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Enda Kenny, who is accompanied by Deputy Billy Timmins and Mr. Mark Kennelly. I invite Deputy Kenny to address the committee.
Lisbon Treaty: Discussion with Leader of Fine Gael.
Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghlacadh leis an Chathaoirleach as uct an cuireadh a thug sé dom an tseachtain seo mar cheannaire ar Fhíne Gael chun go leagfainn amach go díreach céard atá i gceist againn-ne mar pháirtí ó thaobh chonradh Lisbon.
On the day of the result of the first referendum last June, I said the reasons for the "No" vote should be examined carefully and that the concerns and anxieties expressed by so many people should be comprehensively addressed. In that context, I acknowledge the work done in the period subsequent to the decision by the people on the last occasion and by Senator Donohoe in chairing a special sub-committee of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and teasing out the treaty and the issues that gave rise to public concern during the referendum campaign on the first occasion.
That work was valuable in identifying the core issues that led to the referendum result and enabled the Government to seek solutions based on those concerns and the clear analysis that came from the work of that sub-committee. The resultant legal guarantees given by our European partners in June meet these concerns and allow our people to make informed choices before they cast their votes on 2 October. As members of the committee are aware, the Fine Gael Party has had a long and very consistent record of support for European issues and the European process over many decades. We have campaigned actively and energetically in favour of each and every European treaty, whether in Government or Opposition and we shall do the same on this occasion. I repeat what I have said on so many occasions that this is about ourselves, our people and our country.
We are currently involved in a comprehensive national campaign in favour of the ratification of the treaty because we believe that a "Yes" vote is fundamental and critical if this country is to recover from the current economic crisis. Anybody who says we can rescue the economy, fix the banking system, protect jobs and attract new investment in isolation, without the support and solidarity of Europe, is deluding himself. It would be very easy for me as leader of the main Opposition party to allow this referendum to be dominated by domestic political issues, of which there are many, and in respect of which we have fundamental disagreements with the Government. While I fully understand people's anger and the depth of frustration felt by so many, I do not want and have not allowed this crucial referendum to become a protest against the Government. As in all previous referendums, my party is campaigning vigorously for a "Yes" vote. This we have done in Government and in Opposition, as we regard European Union membership to be a cornerstone for this country's success for the future.
The vote on 2 October gives the people a unique opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to remaining right at the centre and in the central axis of a process that has brought peace and stability to the continent of Europe. I am not sure whether Oireachtas Members generally appreciate the level of interest and concern within the European Union at the responsibility on our people in deciding on this question on 2 October. Other member states see this as something that is fundamentally important for the entire future of the Union and desperately want to continue to be in a position to continue to help Ireland as a member of that Union. While the debates in previous treaties have been about issues such as Structural Funds and allocations of finance for projects as well as other financial issues, or else about the creation of new powers for the European Union, the Lisbon treaty has provided us with an opportunity to have a real debate about ourselves and our views on and place in Europe. That is why this referendum is about our attitude to Europe: do we want to be at the heart of it or do we want to isolate ourselves and become irrelevant?
Many people campaigning against this treaty — and I have met a great many around the country — would have one believe that we can have it both ways. They say we can reject a reformed treaty that has the support of all other EU members while at the same time remaining central to the European process. This is not a credible position. This country's best interests lie in Ireland continuing to be an influential and respected member of an efficient, effective and democratic European Union. That is what the Lisbon treaty will create and that is why it will build on previous referendums and treaties.
Essentially the treaty's purpose is to reform the institutions and decision making processes of the Union to cater for a population of 500 million in 27 member states and prepare Europe for the many phenomenal challenges it faces. These include the growing economic power of countries such as China, Russia and India and the situation that will apply in a global sense in the next ten to 20 years, where the world will be very different to what it is now. It is to make those changes to allow the Union to cope with such challenges and Ireland as an integral part of the EU has an important contribution to make. Other global challenges such as climate change, hunger and disease epidemics require Europe to speak with a coherent voice if this continent is to be effective in contributing to solutions to such problems. The Lisbon treaty will equip Europe to meet these challenges.
EU membership has been pivotal to our success. Membership of the Union ended our economic dependence upon Britain and opened up new and fruitful markets for our products. I recall, as Minister of State with responsibility for trade, many years ago, making deliberate attempts to shift the balance of exports from dependence on the British market to the newly opening European market. This is the largest market in the world, with the most potential for Ireland. I am glad that in the intervening years efforts by many successful Ministers as well as business have brought about a growth in understanding of that potential. That gave us an independence, through the European Union, moving away from our centuries of economic dependence upon Britain.
We were not in a position to afford enormous sections of our infrastructure. It was our European partners and European taxpayers who contributed to that. If they had not done so, the economic progress of the past 15 years simply would not have been possible. There is no doubt that the significant inward investment into Ireland was stimulated by our place in Europe, Ireland being the only English speaking country in the eurozone. One can examine what has happened here as regards foreign direct investment, FDI, particularly from the United States, where there has always been a difficulty or complication in dealing with so many foreign languages. Given the traditional social, economic and political links this country had with the United States, 30 years ago when its investment in the manufacture of hardware began it saw Ireland as an English speaking country with a clear legal system and providing a unique opportunity as a marketing point for entry into Europe. From that has grown so much more inward investment in so many other spheres and we want that message to continue. Once our affairs are in order here, Lisbon opens up massive potential for Ireland's new generations and that message needs to be sent out clearly across the world.
More recently the support and stability of the eurozone has been crucial for the Irish banking system. It should be noted that the ECB has injected €120 billion into Irish lending institutions to prop up the economy. I recall a meeting in Brussels last year when a Norwegian observer said we must realise what is happening. He pointed to the situation that Iceland was in at the time, with the Russians at the door with their offers. He noted that the importance of Europe and its capacity to support countries in difficulty was self evident. At a time when Ireland has difficulties regarding unemployment, the collapse of tax revenues and a record budget deficit, it is more important than ever that we strengthen our place in the European Union.
As the only country holding a referendum on this treaty, we have a special responsibility to ensure that, for its remaining days, this campaign is honest, open, rational and based on the truth rather than on the many false and misleading arguments that have been promoted by anti-European groups in recent months. I have held quite a number of public meetings throughout the country. We invited members of the public to those meetings, which have been attended in many cases by people of the "No" persuasion. While most of the arguments have been very rational and people are entitled to their viewpoint, some of them have been absolutely over the top.
Committee members have all seen the posters stating the minimum wage will be reduced to €1.84 if we ratify the Lisbon treaty. This is absolutely irresponsible and false, and is designed to frighten and confuse people. It is an example of very negative campaigning but it did have an impact, especially with young people who might not read all the newspapers or tune into all the news broadcasts. That figure stuck in many people's minds but it is false and irresponsible.
The truth is, of course, that the European Union has no function or intention, no hand, act or part, in dealing with the minimum wage in this country or in any other country. In fact, the protection of workers is a core value of the European Union and much of legislation dealing with workers and workers' rights originated in European Union law in the first place. The Lisbon treaty will advance those rights through what is known as the horizontal social clause, where the social consequences must be taken into account if legislation is drafted, and through the new rights such as the collective bargaining established by the Charter of Fundamental Rights which will be given treaty status for the first time. My party has already committed to legislating for collective bargaining and, with Ireland being the only country not having yet done so, it is an issue that was considered carefully by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and by the majority of trade unions which have given their welcome and approval and advise their members to vote "Yes" for the Lisbon treaty. There are clearly a number of unions which disagree with that and they are entitled to their opinion.
Our colleagues in Europe have committed themselves to the protection of workers in the solemn declaration agreed in June. That sets out in clear and simple language the importance of social protection to the European Union project. The former Polish President and champion of workers' rights in Gdansk and throughout his country 30 years ago, Lech Walesa, was in Ireland last weekend. He came here to say that his entire life was built on tearing down the wall, breaking down Communism and building up workers' rights and their protection, allowing workers to have careers and futures and to raise their families in an environment of which we can all be proud. As a result, he wanted to say clearly that the new legal status given by the Lisbon treaty will protect and defend workers' rights. It is fundamental that this be explained to all workers here in Ireland, which is why I have made an issue of explaining to workers in various locations throughout the country that there is nothing to be afraid of in the Lisbon treaty in so far as workers and workers' rights are concerned.
I am concerned at attempts to suggest that the Lisbon treay would impact on Ireland's right to retain control over sensitive and important ethical issues, including the right to life. This is not correct. As a Catholic, I was offended by some of the material I read. Having spoken to a number of senior clergy who actually removed some of the material from their churches on the basis that it was not official documentation of the church, I welcomed the statements by Bishop Treanor to this committee and by the committee of bishops in which they clearly stated it is absolutely proper for Catholics to vote either "Yes" or "No" in the knowledge that the Lisbon treaty does not contain anything that would impact upon their religious beliefs or these ethical issues. In fact, as the members of the committee are aware, the protocol dating back to the Maastricht Treaty almost 20 years ago guarantees our right to make our laws in this area. These guarantees were reaffirmed by our European colleagues in June, when they confirmed that nothing in the Lisbon treaty can in any way affect the protection of the right to life enshrined in Bunreacht na hÉireann at Articles 40.3.1°, 40.3.2° and 40.3.3°.
Others have argued that if we vote "Yes", we will lose voting influence. I take the opposite view. Since we opted to join the European Union 35 years ago, this country, through positive and constructive engagement by all Governments and the Ministers who went to Europe, has achieved a level of influence and respect with our partners far beyond our size. In adopting this approach, successive Governments have worked to build a climate in which the Irish view really does matter and where our voice is both respected and heard. We are and have been for many years a role model for smaller member states who want to attain the same level of respect and influence we have.
I speak not just as a Deputy or the leader of my party but also as an elected vice president of the European People's Party. This, as members will be aware, is the largest voting bloc in the European Parliament and contains 14 prime ministers and 13 who think they should be prime ministers. In any event, it provides the opportunity to meet these people regularly and to understand the range of challenges they face in their individual countries. Through all of that comes the collective understanding that what the Union is about is building on the principles on which it was first formed, namely, peace, democracy and a strong sense of fairness and social justice whereby people can live their lives in their respective countries safe in that knowledge.
On every occasion I attend the meetings held before the heads of government meetings, the same agendas are discussed. These people, who are of considerable influence both in European and world politics, want this country to remain central to the European project. They want us in there. This is our choice. It is about our people and our vote. They would all come here in the morning if they thought it was appropriate, but I have reminded them that this is a matter for the Irish people themselves. It is our decision and we must make up our minds on what it is we intend to do.
This referendum allows people an opportunity to reaffirm their support for Europe and to send out a very clear and positive signal, not just to Europe but around the world, that this small country of 4.2 million people is well able to accept the responsibility of making a decision for the future of 500 million people. In that sense, we have very good friends in Europe whom we should keep. I believe and hope the referendum will be passed and that this will be done with a resounding "Yes". This will strengthen our links with the new Europe as we proceed to meet the challenges of the next 20 years which will come from world leaders such as the United States, China, India, Russia, South Africa, Brazil and other emerging powers.
This is a crucial referendum for the State. I ask people to consider carefully the implications of their vote and the responsibility they are assuming. I ask people to set aside their dissatisfaction with the Government and their domestic political concerns. I ask people to vote for their country and not against the Government. This referendum is about us as a people and the future of our country. I hope the electorate will give a resounding "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty on this occasion. It is clear to me as I have travelled throughout the State that there is a much greater understanding of the treaty's contents this time around. Issues that were of concern last year have been clarified in people's minds. I have had people crossing the street to tell me that while they voted "No" last year, they are now satisfied that there will be no negative implications in terms of taxation, conscription or whatever. I hope that is translated into an approval of the referendum on 2 October.
I welcome Deputies Kenny and Timmins to the meeting.
We hardly knew Deputy Kenny.
I am here all the time.
I compliment Deputy Kenny on his comprehensive contribution. The theme that emerges most strikingly from his well considered words is essentially the reminder that united we stand and divided we fall. It is important that we articulate the positive case for the treaty. We must have common solutions to the common problems facing the European Union, as outlined by Deputy Kenny, including cross-border health threats, cross-border crime, drug trafficking, environmental challenges, energy security, energy costs and so on. The greatest challenge, and the issue that is to the fore of everybody's mind, is to facilitate economic recovery and job creation. All of these are common challenges for the 27 member states of the European Union and we can only face them as part of a united Europe. As Deputy Kenny eloquently articulated, we cannot meet these challenges in isolation.
Deputy Kenny mentioned that he is a vice president of the European People's Party, EPP, the largest grouping in the European Parliament and the one with the largest contingent of prime ministers. I hope Deputy Kenny will be joining the ranks of prime ministerial members of the EPP in the near future. In his informal discussions with his counterparts at EPP meetings, both Opposition leaders and prime ministers, what has he found to be the general view since the defeat of the first referendum and what is the hope and expectation in regard to the outcome of the referendum that will take place on 2 October?
Deputy Kenny referred to some of the social and ethical issues that have cropped up in the course of the debate on the Lisbon treaty. The same issues have been raised in every single European Union referendum campaign since the first debate on joining the European Community in 1973. What is Deputy Kenny's view of some of the extremist groups that are active in this campaign? Cóir is one such but there are many more. At the coffee dock in my local Spar last night I found a bundle of anti-Lisbon leaflets. The pamphlets, which referred to the "Lisbun" treaty, contained preposterous claims to the effect that our children would not be safe and would be taken from us in the streets in the event that the treaty is implemented. Such claims are beyond fantastical and it is truly frightening to realise these people are infiltrating not just the backs of churches but supermarkets and corner shops.
What is Deputy Kenny's view on how our distinctive constitutional values will be protected under the Lisbon treaty? How does he believe our distinctly Irish values in regard to the right to life, euthanasia and all these other issues in respect of which we have heard scare stories will be protected under the Lisbon treaty? How can we best provide reassurance to the public that such protection is there? Deputy Kenny referred to the bishops' conference. Dr. Treanor appeared before the committee more than a week ago and his contribution was obviously a positive from our point of view.
I remain concerned that many farmers and fishermen throughout the State intend to reject the treaty once again in the belief that such a protest vote will strengthen their positions. Both groups have legitimate complaints about the withdrawal of the REP scheme and other broken promises from the Government. However, it is vital that they distinguish between disappointments at a national level and the separate and important role of the European Union. Is Deputy Kenny of the view that farmers and fishermen can in any way have their hands strengthened by a "No" vote? Is it conceivable at any level that it would be in their interests to reject the treaty? What are the potential benefits in accepting the treaty for those particular groups?
I join other members in welcoming Deputy Kenny. It is difficult in an environment where we are all — apart from one member, who is fully entitled to his view — in tune to identify points of discussion. Nevertheless, there are several points I wish to raise.
We would all agree with Deputy Kenny's assertion that everybody is entitled to his or her view, whether in respect of a referendum campaign or in political life in general. However, I find it extremely difficult to cope with some of the outlandish arguments that have been made. If one is in a debate on local radio, one is inevitably struck by what Deputy Creighton described as the preposterous nature of some of the claims put forward by those urging a rejection of the treaty. How does one maintain an objective view and remain sanguine when one is told by the person sitting across the table that he or she does not care what the bishops say? The bishops are wrong, we are told, and a rejection of the treaty is the only way to ensure abortion and euthanasia remain illegal, that our children will be safe and that our young adult sons will not be conscripted to fight in wars not of our making. We know this is absolute nonsense but what I find most difficult in this campaign is to maintain a sense of perspective when seeking to counteract such nonsense. The debate on the referendum has been peppered with outlandish claims which are particularly evident in the posters we have seen throughout the State. It is easy to tell ourselves that posters do not make a difference to people's voting intentions. If we were genuinely convinced of that, why are we on the "Yes" side also investing in thousands of them?
There are gullible people who swallow the claims that the minimum wage will be reduced to €1.84 per hour, that parents will have their children taken from them, that abortion will be introduced and so on. Such claims may be even more persuasive when a person picks up the literature in question in the knave of a church. We discussed all of this with Dr. Treanor, Bishop of Down and Connor, and there is no point in going through it again. Dr. Treanor was enormously supportive and stated emphatically that any Catholic could in good conscience vote to accept the treaty. That was of enormous significance and I conveyed the information to everybody in my organisation in case there were any lingering doubts.
Nevertheless, the myth has not been punctured but is instead gathering force. I would not like Deputy Kenny or any of us to leave this warm and comfortable environment in the belief that everything is okay in the home corral. Everything is not okay. I suppose I am particularly exposed to it in that the lady whom I will refer to as "Mrs. Cóir" and who is also the spokeswoman for the Democratic Alliance for Women lives in Athlone. The title of the latter organisation is surely a misnomer. The real difficulty is that so much of the debate on the Lisbon treaty involves those on the "Yes" side having by necessity to refute the silly arguments of those opposed to it rather than pointing to the positives. It is difficult to achieve a balance. If one allows the myth to persist and fails to do it down, one has done a disservice to the cause. If one does otherwise, people might think one was highly negative towards that woman or whatever.
The second point, which really riles me and which I am sure Deputy Kenny has encountered, is the sense of isolation the "No" campaign seeks to inculcate in us all. They suggest we have no one else on whom to rely and that it is us for ourselves alone. This is not the case in the world in which we live today. It is us as part of Europe, just as important as Germany or France. Deputy Kenny's comment immediately struck a chord. I identify with the fact that we have more, rather than less influence in the voting structures that now have emerged. He should outline how to cope with the downright lies that are being peddled by the "No" campaign.
I welcome Deputy Kenny before the joint committee. Fine Gael always has been highly pro-European and has taken an active role in all the referendum campaigns that have been held in recent years. Deputy Creighton asked about Deputy Kenny's role as vice president of the European People's Party grouping and his dealings with his counterparts in Europe. I seek information about his travels at home because I believe he is the most travelled leader within Ireland.
Deputy Breen is not calling his leader a Traveller.
I make the point that he is not afraid to face the people. I wish to make that quite clear. Deputy Kenny has been out and about meeting people in the past two to three years, especially during the two referendum campaigns on the Lisbon treaty. He should provide the committee with insights into the mood of the people on foot of his dealings with them and particularly on their opinions regarding the two referendum campaigns.
The same opponents have been with us in every referendum. They were present during the campaigns on the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties as well as during the previous Lisbon treaty referendum. They have been engaged in scaremongering and members are familiar with the usual antics on abortion, conscription, etc. The major issue at present is that of the minimum wage. Deputy Kenny should reiterate to members that this matter has nothing to do with the treaty. Even though the President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso, gave us an assurance in this regard last Saturday, this issue is current and needs to be killed off this morning. Another area on which Cóir is beginning to focus in another scaremongering tactic is that of euthanasia. Deputy Kenny should comment on this subject as well.
I welcome Deputy Kenny, the leader of Fine Gael, and thank him for his concise and direct presentation. Deputy Kenny has identified effectively all the current issues and has dealt with them conclusively in his address. Notwithstanding this, the difficulty faced by all fellow travellers on this campaign as they try to get it over the line is that they find themselves up against some upfront groups that one can address and which will engage in public debate and against others which do not. I refer to groups that can only be referred to as being sinister in nature. Deputy O'Rourke alluded to the fact they are from different backgrounds, some of which cannot be identified because they do not adhere to the law regarding putting the necessary information on their posters as to who or what they are and for what they stand.
One faces the difficulty of being ambushed by colourful material of high quality that seeks to misguide the entire population. I have been taken by the amount of literature coming through the door every day from groups of which I had never heard previously. They seek funding and support and put across a message for which there is no basis in the contents of this treaty or those of any of the treaties that heretofore have been passed and accepted. It comes down to the capacity of Deputy Kenny's organisation, the organisation of which I am a member and all those who seek to support this treaty over the next nine days. They must try to get out and convince their own people of its importance and to canvass as diligently and as hard as they possibly can. The public will react to people they know and it will be necessary to do this to get past the scaremongering that is coming through via colourful literature of a high quality.
I also agree with Deputy Creighton's remarks regarding the agricultural and fishing communities. While we have gone as far as possible with the fishing community, there still is a body within the rural farming community that has a difficult decision to make. I also was taken by the recent survey conducted by Red C and published in the Irish Farmers’ Journal which seems to indicate there is a very strong balance towards the “Yes” side from the farming community but there is work to do in this regard. Deputy Kenny should comment on the agricultural sector, within which his party has good support. He should comment on his perception of the importance of a “Yes” vote towards assisting in the development of the farming community. I refer to trying to reassure them that, despite the difficult times through which they are going at present, there is an opportunity for them in the future and that they will be embraced within the growth, development and evolution of the European project.
Deputy Kenny is welcome and I was pleased to hear both his words and the strength with which he expressed them. Deputy Creighton mentioned a visit to her local supermarket in which she found some literature urging her to vote "No" and which provided information she believed to be untrue. She suggested that perhaps members might have a view as to what each of them should do were they to find such literature in their local supermarket. While my initial instinct would be to take it and throw it in the bin, my second instinct is to suggest that the local supermarket should be the marketplace in which one should allow all sides to debate. Therefore, it could be dangerous for members to take the action one might initially contemplate.
I seek Deputy Kenny's views regarding the distribution of literature in which views are expressed that he considers to be untrue and on what might be done in this regard. I am especially concerned about the leaflet I have to hand. It came through my post box and, to the best of my knowledge, through every post box on my road and perhaps in the country. I believe this may be the leaflet that has been sponsored by the United Kingdom Independence Party. That party declared its intention to put an item of its literature into every home in Ireland to encourage the "No" vote.
The funding for this leaflet is coming from abroad because at its bottom, it states "Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament (DK/FR/UK/FI Delegations)". The initials refer to delegations from Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Finland. If this leaflet has been funded from outside the State, is that acceptable or is it even legal? I believe that in the United States, it is not legal to fund political campaigns or action from outside the state. I am unsure whether the leaflet has been distributed by An Post. However, if this is the case, a State body has been used for a purpose that may not be and should not be legal to influence political decisions. While I do know whether this is the case, I seek Deputy Kenny's view on whether action should be taken in this regard as well.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Teachta Kenny chuig an choiste seo. I listened with interest to what Deputy Kenny had to say. One point that jumped out at me is that he spoke about how this debate on the Lisbon treaty is not merely about the transfer of funds or of competences but that fundamentally it is about our attitude to Europe and whether we wish to be part of it or whether we wish to be isolated and irrelevant. I suggest this constitutes absolute scaremongering. As a legislator, Deputy Kenny, is aware that one considers the text and implications of the wording of any legislation that comes before one. He understands how, if enacted, the treaty will affect Irish or other citizens. This is what the Lisbon treaty is about and we should have a real and honest debate about its content.
I hope that there will be a "No" vote on 2 October. A likely, if not automatic, consequence will be the Government's collapse. Were Deputy Kenny to become Taoiseach, would he give a commitment that he would not put the treaty, if rejected by the people twice, before them again without a single change having been made to its text, as is currently the case?
Deputy Kenny claims that the treaty will not diminish our influence but will have the opposite effect. Without discussing how our vote on the Council of Ministers will halve or how we will confer 30 new competences on the EU, how is it in Ireland's interest to give up our veto in 68 areas? Speaking as leader of Fine Gael, how would this serve the people? Article 48, which would see us giving up the right to a referendum, allows us the infrastructure to move from veto to qualified majority voting on taxation issues.
Deputy Kenny mentioned workers' rights, but he and his party have as much credibility on that issue as Ryanair. Fine Gael has opposed social partnership and attacked the unions regularly.
We have tried to be as courteous as possible to all of the leaders. I remind the Senator that we want to continue in that vein.
I want to conduct an honest debate. Fine Gael is on the record more than once as having attacked public rights.
That is blatantly dishonest.
Let me explain for a moment. We try not to introduce personal animosities and we try to ensure allegations are not made against persons or parties. The Senator should remember that his party leader in the Oireachtas was given a courteous reception.
I appreciate the direction from the Cathaoirleach. What I was pointing out is that it is well known and on the record that Deputy Kenny's party has opposed social partnership and attacked unions several times. My question is on his commitment to enshrine in legislation the rights to representation by a trade union and to engage in collective bargaining. Does he intend to enshrine those rights in the Constitution? That would be the best way to provide them.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights provides a right to collective bargaining. Under Article 16, however, it provides a guarantee to conduct a business. If the treaty is ratified, what will occur when these competing rights clash, as they have done in the Laval, Viking Line, Rüffert and Luxembourg cases?
We have mentioned other campaigners' posters with which Sinn Féin have nothing to do. All of our posters cite the articles to which they refer in their images. Fine Gael's campaign posters state, "Yes to jobs", yet its April pre-budget submission proposed the sacking of 14,000 public sector workers. Is it not contradictory to call for the creation of jobs at one time and the sacking of 14,000 public sector workers at another? Is Fine Gael's poster campaign misleading? These documents are on the record and can be inspected.
Fine Gael has a policy document entitled, "Beyond Neutrality", which was introduced by Gay Mitchell, MEP, a number of years ago. Like many, I am confused by Fine Gael's policy on the State's neutrality. Will Deputy Kenny clarify this matter? Does Fine Gael support a European common defence compatible with NATO that seeks to increase the EU's ability to deploy troops in non-EU countries in what the Lisbon treaty calls "joint disarmament missions", such as that under way in Iraq, or in missions to assist non-EU countries in combating terrorism, as in Afghanistan? This is what is contained in the Lisbon treaty. Having read "Beyond Neutrality", I believe that Fine Gael supports this, but will Deputy Kenny clarify the matter for the committee?
The Senator does not attend committee meetings too often, but we welcome him when he does.
I welcome Deputy Kenny as leader of the Fine Gael Party to the committee and thank him for his interesting overview of his party's position on the Lisbon treaty. He is campaigning hard in favour of it.
He mentioned the false and misleading claims made on the well known Cóir poster about the minimum wage being likely to decrease to €1.84 were the treaty to be ratified. In his experience, have many people raised this issue with him? As a campaigner on the treaty, many young people have expressed concern to me. They have taken the poster's message at face value. The issue of the minimum wage is pertinent to younger people in particular who might find themselves working at that rate during holiday periods and so on. The 18-25 year old age group did not vote in favour of the treaty the last time. Is Deputy Kenny concerned that young people might be misled by the poster's message and be equally inclined to vote against the treaty again? What can be done in the time remaining to try to correct this false impression which is being disseminated by certain quarters?
Concerning the upcoming negotiations on a new international climate change agreement in Copenhagen in December, the EU was a global leader where the Kyoto Protocol was concerned and has indicated that it is equally prepared to sign up to impressive emissions reduction targets, depending on the positions taken by other major international powers. Is Deputy Kenny concerned that were the Lisbon treaty rejected again, the EU would go into those negotiations in a weakened position? It would not serve the citizens of the EU or the international community because the latter will look to Europe to provide strong leadership in this area.
I also welcome Deputy Kenny, Leader of the Opposition and my constituency colleague, to the meeting and thank him for his considered paper. I do not want to repeat what many others have stated but he has highlighted a number of areas of concern.
What are the treaty's three main selling features to try to convince people to vote "Yes"? We recognise that it is a technical treaty. I was a member of a sub-committee chaired by Senator Donohoe on analysing why people voted "No" at the last referendum. Senator de Búrca referred to young people, but women were particularly negative. In the course of my campaigning this time, I have encountered some of that negativity but I am happy to say nowhere near as much as last time. What is in the Lisbon treaty that would encourage women to vote "Yes"? Some of the fears raised at the last referendum related to conscription into a European army, cross-Border crime and the trafficking of women. Is there anything in the treaty that would be positive for women specifically? The treaty affects all citizens equally. Women for Europe, a group that has been active throughout the debate, is holding a meeting in our constituency. This is an issue on the ground and I would be interested in learning Deputy Kenny's opinions, especially given that his party's European spokesperson is a woman.
Many people have referred to the minimum wage and young people have been taken in by the poster. The document to which Senator Quinn referred was distributed throughout the country. A door-to-door canvas was carried out in our constituency and people were told that a local industry would be at risk specifically because foreign workers with a lower minimum wage would be drafted into Ireland. What is Deputy Kenny's opinion on the Laval judgment and how it impacts on the minimum wage? Ireland sets its minimum wage but I refer to other EU workers coming into Ireland and working on a lower minimum wage that might apply in their country.
I note that Mr. Peter Sutherland is reported in the newspaper this morning as saying that politicians can be parochial. In the Mayo constituency, with five Deputies campaigning for a "Yes" vote on the last occasion, the county voted "No". I hope the situation will be reversed on this occasion. Does Deputy Kenny feel it will be and is there anything that rural counties can do to bring about a changed result?
I warmly welcome Deputy Kenny and thank him for his focussed and concise contribution on the treaty and the Union. I endorse everything he said and I assure him this committee has always operated on the basis of fact and opportunity for our people. We do not allow scaremongering and I am disappointed reference was made to this today. I am shocked at the level of negativity and the depths to which the "No" campaign has gone. This was illustrated this week in what I call double negative pamphlets created by the "No" campaign placed in churches around the country. They use the name of an organisation in this city, telling people to vote "Yes" for the treaty and say this will guarantee a massive invasion of foreign workers, not just from all parts of the Union but from outside it into the Union and Ireland, thus forcing down the minimum wage in Ireland. These documents have been placed in churches particularly in the west of Ireland and in Dublin. When that organisation, whose name was on the pamphlet, was contacted it had not been consulted about the document. It was obvious that the type of document and the type of printing done would not come from any professional, competent body, voluntary or otherwise. This is the level they have reached to create confusion and misguide people to lead them to think that if they vote "Yes" they will destroy the country, with the idea being to encourage them to vote "No". This is very sad.
Does Deputy Kenny accept that the strength of the Union has been solidarity and security? I refer to solidarity in respect of the crises and challenges the Union has faced over the years, whether in financial matters, economic matters or natural disasters. I refer to security of citizens at all levels, irrespective of the member state the citizen is in. Does Deputy Kenny accept that there is no threat at any time to the rule of the sovereign Government of the Republic of Ireland in managing education, health and taxation in the interest our country, in contrast to the "No" campaign which suggests that we are we are handing over these responsibilities in the Lisbon treaty?
Deputy Kenny finished up on an optimistic note that the treaty would be passed and I hope it will be but I agree with Deputies Creighton and Flynn that a residue of negativity exists in the rural vote. This worries me and we need a major effort in the final nine days to ensure we can transfer that to positive action. Deputy Flynn alluded to Mayo, Deputy Kenny's home county, which had the highest "No" in Ireland on the last occasion. Is Deputy Kenny optimistic that Mayo and the west can give the lead and give the right result this time?
I welcome Deputy Kenny and Deputy Timmins, who has changed seat. I got a bit of a shock when I came in and thought he was a Minister. I was inadvertently late for the meeting because the Order Paper of the Seanad refers to a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs being held in committee room 3 at 11.30 a.m. I apologise to Deputy Kenny. I went to the end of Deputy Kenny's meeting on Monday to welcome him to Roscommon town. The meeting was well attended on Monday, when it is usually difficult to get people to attend. Deputy Kenny made a good impression and a great contribution. Deputies Kenny and Gilmore put the national interest ahead of their party political interests in the sense that this is about Ireland rather than any individual party. The Lisbon reform treaty is bigger than any political party. It concerns the future of this country and we need a positive result on it on 2 October in the interests of the country.
I refer to issues that arise such as conservation of bogs. I asked the people involved in this what influence we will have after 2 October if we vote "No". What influence will we have on the Common Agricultural Policy if we vote "No" on 2 October? How could we go to the Council of Ministers or the Commission having rejected this treaty? We will have a Commissioner for a guaranteed ten out of 15 years, missing five years, and it could be unfortunate if we do not have a Commissioner during a particularly crucial period.
Some 26 countries have ratified the treaty. New applicant countries joined under our approval, after approving the Nice treaty, and we are in a strong economic position in respect of trade with those countries. As a former Minister of State with responsibility for trade, like me, Deputy Kenny knows the importance of trade, which is crucial at the moment.
The people who voted "No" on the last occasion did us some service in respect of the concessions we received. One such concession was the Commissioner, another was the clarification and confirmation on issues about which we were certain and about which there is now no doubt due to the protocols. This is due to negotiations of the Government and the support of the Opposition. Those issues have been put to bed. Deputy Kenny referred to those who voted "No" on the last occasion but are now satisfied and will vote "Yes". That is positive and we must be broad-minded about this.
It is not the first referendum held on two occasions. I remember campaigning against divorce when Fine Gael proposed the first referendum and within a certain period there was a second referendum. Divorce came in, for better or for worse, and that is life and politics. It is not barred in the Constitution but I do not think there would be a third effort at this subject. If there is a "No" vote on 2 October that is the end of the Lisbon reform treaty. It will also be the end of any reform of the European Union because if the British Conservative party, with the support of the UKIP, is in power it will veto any reform of the European Union. An effort would be made to leave the European Union. The influence of such parties should be totally rejected by the Irish parties. Senator Quinn referred to the document circulated. The advertising is racist, having the Turkish flag implanted with the European Union flag and giving it a prominence that suggests the party is anti-immigration. The party is so anti-immigration that it comes over to Ireland to try to influence voters to vote "No" on 2 October. Sinn Féin is particularly embarrassed by this intrusion and it does not help the "No" campaign in this regard.
I have tremendous respect for Mr. Peter Sutherland but he stated that Irish politicians are too parochial to understand the EU or the Lisbon treaty benefits. He is a former EU Commissioner and former head of the World Trade Organisation and said this to Mark Hennessy, London editor of The Irish Times on Thursday, 24 September 2009. Mr. Peter Sutherland is a fine fellow but some of us have been at the Council of Ministers. He under estimates the ability of the Irish people to decide on 2 October in this regard. His heart is in the right place and he made a major impact when he was a terrific Commissioner. Perhaps he has been misquoted but this appears in The Irish Times today.
We must keep up the momentum and Deputy Kenny has influence as leader of the second largest party in the country. It is important in this regard. The next seven days are crucial to ensuring a "Yes" vote on 2 October.
I am convinced there will be a blitz by the "No" campaign to muddy the waters. This morning we have already seen an example of this. What are Fine Gael's plans for maintaining the momentum for a "Yes" vote in the final week of the campaign?
I thank the Chairman for allowing me to raise a major concern, namely, the 400,000 unemployed people. This number includes highly qualified graduates and engineers. They are trying to decide how to vote. I ask Deputy Kenny to expand on how we can appeal to these people.
I recently heard a story about IDA officials who brought American investors on a tour of Ireland. They visited three sites, including one in my constituency, and were extremely happy with the workforce available to them. However, on the issue of where Ireland stands in Europe they felt it was a negative development that we were going against the EU despite the benefits we had received. They were deciding whether to invest here or in another European country. That is a serious matter and it needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Members have expressed views which are similar to those they expressed on previous occasions. They are particularly concerned about the origin of certain material which is on prominent display throughout the country. Yesterday I noticed a newsletter called The Sovereign Independent, which states that it is published in southern Ireland but does not identify its publisher or origins. It is similar to the scare mongering described by other members. This propaganda confuses people and creates doubts in their minds.
I thank members for their contributions, comments and questions. There is no doubt that the campaign on the last Lisbon referendum was held in complete confusion. There were so many posters and untruths that people were confused by the arguments being made. What is striking about this campaign is that people have a clearer understanding of the issues pertaining to the Lisbon treaty. Our position has been clarified by the legal guarantees given to the Government by the other 26 member states. People are happier in their minds about that. However, I agree that a significant number of people hold entrenched views or concerns about elements of the arguments for and against the treaty.
Deputy Creighton made several important observations. Other leaders of EPP group in Brussels expect the Irish people to adopt the Lisbon treaty. They want us to be part of the European Union family irrespective of the differences of political opinion that may arise. They appreciate what Ireland has done, the way our cases have been made over the years and our attendance and contribution to the European Union. As an island nation, we come from a different background to the continent's experience of the wars between France and Germany which caused 60 million deaths and led to the establishment of the European project.
The social and ethical issues have been dealt with on numerous occasions. Irresponsible claims have frightened people, although not to the same extent as in the last campaign. I find from speaking with various groups that they are much clearer than heretofore. I welcome the bishops' comments in that regard. The Most Reverend Dr. Noel Treaner made a very clear contribution to this committee and the Catholic hierarchy issued an assurance that Catholics could vote "Yes" or "No" in the knowledge that the treaty does not impact on these issues. The Maastricht protocol is also clear from an Irish point of view. The Lisbon treaty will have no impact on the issue of abortion or euthanasia. Since Maastricht, we have been protected by a specific protocol on these issues and the Irish people would have to be consulted by referendum before any change is made. The Referendum Commission has confirmed this issue does not impact on the Lisbon referendum and it is false and mischievous to claim otherwise.
I am glad that the IFO, the IFA, the ICSA and the ICMSA offered their considered views of the Lisbon treaty and advised their members to vote "Yes". All the leaders of the EPP were invited to Dublin in advance of the last referendum to meet farming organisations. It is fair to say that farmers were upset at the way the former Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, handled agriculture and at his attitude towards the pending WTO negotiations. They felt our cards had been revealed before the negotiations had even started. While the WTO had no material connection to the referendum, people connected the two in their minds. On this occasion, it is true to say the agricultural economy faces serious problems. The cereal crop has been a disaster and production costs for liquid milk are far higher than the price being paid. However, as the most practical of people, farmers understand these matters go in cycles like nature. They are aware of the prospective reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and that it is preferable to be central to the decision making process if we are to secure funds in future negotiations in the face of arguments to shift funding to newer member states. All the farming organisations appreciate we can maintain our influence by endorsing Europe in the sense that a reform of CAP can still bring great benefits to Ireland. This has been recognised in a jobs context, where over 200,000 people are directly employed in the food industry. I chaired the section within our own grouping which wrote the agriculture piece for the recent European elections and there is very strong support for Ireland and Irish agriculture within our connections in Europe. That will be continued in the new Commission and European Council.
I have met with fishermen on a number of occasions up and down the country. There was a very serious issue regarding the transposition of the directive into law and the way it made an impact on fishermen. We produced a Private Members' Bill on that issue and I was glad to see the Tánaiste indicate on Tuesday that the committee dealing with European scrutiny should be able to examine a number of directives to consider the flexibility and common sense we have applied in transposing those directives into law without losing the impact of the directive through red tape and administrative bureaucracy. That was a cause for concern with different sectors, whether they were involved in agriculture, fishing, etc.
The fishermen's association, the IFA, the ICMSA and other farming groups have all considered this very carefully and on balance, they advise their members to vote "Yes" and that it would hold massive potential for us if we can weather these cyclical storms and get our own affairs in order.
I agree with Deputy O'Rourke in that it is very difficult to deal with lies when some people believe wild and inaccurate statements to be correct. Even by sticking to the facts with a treaty such as this, people can sometimes form the wrong view. That has been an issue for everybody who has been involved with this.
Deputy Pat Breen described his own campaign in Clare. The Eurobarometer findings make it clear that people in this country are well able to distinguish between European issues and those in the national domestic political domain. That is being done in this case and I have tried to reinforce the matter by saying that although there may be many differences between me and the Taoiseach and the Government regarding how the country is being run, we will not have a row with the Government on this issue. This is about ourselves and our country.
The minimum wage was mentioned and it has been cleared beyond yea or nay that the Lisbon treaty cannot have an impact on taxation matters. These are entirely within our own competence and will remain so. For people to put out the view that if they vote "Yes" for Lisbon, Ireland's minimum wage will be reduced to €1.84 per hour is a complete fallacy and a downright lie. It just does not apply.
It is a case of us repeating the truth here on so many occasions. As other members of the committee have mentioned, young people in particular, who may not take the time to read all the material, may have seen that poster and an element of it may have stuck with them. I believe that effect is wearing down and I hope it is. The statement is not true.
The mood of the public has reflected how the economic crisis has hit our country to a worse degree than most other countries. People appreciate the extent of the support from the European Central Bank and understand that interest rates are being kept down by the bank. They also appreciate the fact that the European Union is the biggest market in the world and if we get our own affairs in order as a small, nimble and flexible country with massive potential, we can ride many of those waves and we will be there for future changes. We can then avail of the new structure making a Union for 500 million people and 27 countries while working effectively. As a small, nimble and flexible country we can avail of brilliant opportunities in that context.
Deputy Dooley mentioned the mood of the public; he and I have met many farmers. By and large, many people at the National Ploughing Championships indicated to me that however things are in this country, we should stick with Europe, and I hope that is reflected in the vote. Deputy Flynn knows many people in our county felt Europe was to blame for everything but problems arose from the way we transposed directives into law. I hope that has been cleared up for different sectors. Although I cannot predict the outcome, I will ask all the people in our county — which voted "No" the last time — to vote "Yes" on this occasion.
Senator Quinn mentioned support from outside the country for different groups. I do not have any objection to outside groups stating their views, as the Lisbon treaty has implications for all EU member states. Their views should be honest, although this is not the case with what UKIP is putting out. That group's extreme views, which are untrue, are not accepted by the Irish people and we should continue to say this in the next nine days. Leaflets are being posted in the door which are grossly incorrect but we must deal with that in our own way.
As Deputy Flynn noted, conscription was an issue with mothers but from my tours around the country, I do not believe it to be an issue now. People understand that by voting for the Lisbon treaty, they will not have their sons or daughters conscripted to a European army, which is not even mentioned in this treaty. That has been cleared up for a great number of people.
Deputy Treacy mentioned the importance of solidarity and security, which is essential and understood. He mentioned three issues which stand out for people. These issues are as follows: that every country gets a commissioner; the importance of co-decision making between the European Parliament and the European Council, where elected members from Ireland share the responsibility of voting on issues; and in the area of agriculture, which is important for everybody, the Council will meet in open and public session so people will know what members say, what they do and how they vote. If that happened with the Government, there would be a Cabinet meeting in Castlebar or Athenry and it would be broadcast on Galway Bay radio. Europe is so much more open and less secretive than what goes on here. Those are three big selling points.
Senator Leyden mentioned that we would have no influence if we voted "No". To put it a different way, we are in a central axis of decision making and if we vote "Yes" we will stay there; if we vote "No" they will not kick us out of the Union, although we could leave if we want, but by our own hand we would be consigned to the back room. In that case we would be removed from the central axis and would not be able to see, hear or have the same influence on what is going on.
Deputy Tom Hayes mentioned the 400,000 people unemployed here. Our posters say "Yes to jobs" but the European Union is not going to arrive in here on 5 October and say now that we have voted "Yes", we can have 500,000 jobs. It has, however, put together a multi-billion euro stimulus package for major projects and Ireland can share in that. Over and above that, this is the biggest market in the world and we know we can avail of that. Considering the 1,000 firms based here which are exporting to Europe, I know as a former Minister dealing with trade, we tried to shift the balance from Britain into Europe.
Young entrepreneurs around the country can see real opportunities. We must act domestically as well but by passing the Lisbon treaty, the opportunities will be increased for exporting quality goods and services under competitive regulations. We have always been good at this and the opportunity still exists. Jobs at home will come both from foreign direct investment and even moreso from our own entrepreneurs and people of initiative who see ideas and opportunities. The best way to deal with the social welfare problem is to create jobs. We can do some of this through our own taxation systems such as PRSI and VAT and the way we structure our initiatives both for the protection of employment and the creation of jobs. When we get that right, the opportunity will exist for serious job creation in the times ahead as the world changes.
Senator Cummins mentioned the remainder of the campaign. The Dáil does not sit next week. All our members — MEPs, Senators, TDs and councillors — are mandated to make direct connection with people — that is, to canvass — for all of next week. We have a national canvass day on Saturday and I am sure in Waterford people will be doing the same thing. Every Member of the Oireachtas, from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m and 3 p.m. until 6 p.m., has a plan laid out for this work.
I reject what Senator Doherty said. This referendum is about our place in Europe. I do not envisage a "No" vote. He asked me what I would do if the Government were to change and I were to be in a different position. I do not contemplate a defeat; I expect that the weight of public opinion will be on the "Yes" side and people will vote with their heads for their future.
The Senator referred to vetos. There will clearly be a number of areas in which we move to qualified majority voting. That is the same for states whether they be large or small. As the Senator is well aware, an absolute veto is not necessary and is never used in practice. The new system will facilitate decision making, which will benefit all countries, and we retain the veto with regard to serious matters and big decisions such as treaty changes or major trade agreements. That is clear.
With regard to workers' rights, the Laval case, which occurred in Sweden where there is no minimum wage, has no impact on the Lisbon treaty, nor do the other cases mentioned. We retain competence to do our business in our own way in respect of taxation matters and the minimum wage. I have already said that my party would be opposed to any reduction in the minimum wage, for very good reasons, but the Government will make its views known in due course. As I said, we will legislate for collective bargaining, which is part of the issue of workers' rights, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have legal status when the treaty is approved, it is to be hoped, on 2 October.
Job creation, as I said to Deputy Hayes, is central to what we must do. We cannot go on as we are. The future of this country depends on our capacity to get things right at home and avail of our own capacity to export, as we have done for many years. That potential is of enormous significance and we can benefit from it.
What text or article in the Lisbon would hamper our ability to export if we reject it?
When Fine Gael says "Yes for jobs", I am making it perfectly clear I do not think the EU will arrive here with a plateful of jobs. This is about creating a structure. If we use our initiative and ability, we can avail of massive opportunities for job creation here at home. The European Union, and this treaty, are not about the number of jobs created but the potential we have as one country of 27 in the biggest market in the world.
Senator Doherty also mentioned neutrality. At least Sinn Féin is consistent in that it has opposed every treaty I can recall for the past 30 years. That is one point on which I can agree with Senator Doherty. It has been consistent in that regard. However, it wishes to increase corporation tax, which would destroy much employment in this country. I was a member of the Government that introduced that. If one asked any foreign direct investor in here, he or she would say that Ireland's rate of corporation tax was a significant element of the company's decision to come here, in addition to our English language capabilities, our strong legal base and our proven capacity to deal with Europe.
The Senator's comments on neutrality are nonsense. The Fine Gael Party produced a document, "Beyond Neutrality," drafted by Gay Mitchell, MEP, who has a serious interest in the progress of Europe for very good reasons, and has made his case on the committees on which he has served with great distinction. The Senator should bear in mind that the document was approved by the Fine Gael Party. I do not agree at all with the posters Sinn Féin has throughout the country depicting tanks running around our country. What has that to do with the Lisbon treaty?
The question is whether Fine Gael supports a European common defence. Deputy Kenny has clarified the fact that his party has——
Hold on, Senator——
There is no——
The question was about the European common defence policy, which involves tanks, as we know. The European armaments agency——
The Senator got his chance and was allowed to speak without interruption, so he must allow the response.
The Fine Gael document was clear. If Europe were to move to a common defence, we should be able to articulate our views on its architecture and structure. However, there is no intention in the Lisbon treaty that any such thing will be done. It is clear that if that were the situation, the people of this country would have to vote on it by referendum, and I support that.
Sinn Féin also has misleading posters about our voting strength. If the Senator had read the documentation, the treaty and the supporting arguments, he would understand the system is carefully balanced in a way that benefits a country such as ours. If he wants the detail of that I can give it to him.
I fundamentally reject what the Deputy is saying, which is misleading and untrue.
It is based on population.
Ireland's voting strength at the Council of Ministers——
Senator, do you believe in democracy?
I do.
Well, then——
But I believe in truth and honesty as well.
The Senator said what he had to say. I ask him not to interrupt.
The Deputy needs to read the document. It is important.
The Senator has already had his say. If he does not believe in parliamentary democracy, he should leave.
Of course I believe in democracy.
I am sorry——
I am the one trying to uphold the rights——
The Senator is out of order. He will await his chance to respond just as everyone else does.
People voted against the Lisbon treaty in the first referendum and now they are being asked to vote a second time. Democracy is being thrown out the window.
You will wait to respond; that is democracy.
The Senator can explain this to me afterwards if he wishes. I do not understand the relevance of the Union flag on the Sinn Féin posters. He might explain that to me afterwards because I do not see it.
I will deal with his point about Ireland's voting strength. There will be an entirely new voting system, as the Senator is aware. A total of 55% of the member states and 65% of the population must back a proposal. Each country's strength depends on which side of the equation — either the number of member states or the population — they are on. The influence of the large countries will come from the population side of the equation, while for smaller countries their strength lies in the requirement to have 55% of countries approve something. On the country side, that is, from the point of view of the smaller countries, each country has one vote in 27, which equates to 3.7%. For Ireland, this means its key vote will be 3.7%. That is the relevant number for people in this country. It marks an increase in our vote from what it was under the old system, which was seven out of 345, or 2.02%. Thus, it is a fallacy that our voting strength is being reduced. It is wrong, and Sinn Féin should correct it. Senator Doherty should have the courage and openness to admit that what I am telling him is correct. If he reads the documentation he will see that is the case.
The Deputy will have to read it again himself.
I am glad to know the Senator is up to speed with the documentation we have here. My party set out on this campaign without any intention of campaigning negatively. I see nothing but benefits if the Irish people vote "Yes." I see major opportunities for our young people of the future to avail of the co-operation and friendship of Europe to build career opportunities. I was in Sligo Institute of Technology the other day and, as I do in every university I go to, talked to young people who say, "I have done my three or four years for my degree. What opportunities are available for me?" The European Union will open many doors, both in the creation of jobs at home and in movement to and from our continental friends.
I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to speak to the committee and thank members for their attendance and contributions. For our part, I reiterate that in the remaining nine days of the campaign the Fine Gael Party will not fight with the Government on the Lisbon treaty issue but will campaign vigorously and energetically right up to the close of polling stations on 2 October. I hope that on 3 October the 1,000 journalists from other countries who have already booked accommodation in Dublin waiting for the result will understand the Irish are very capable of accepting this responsibility and understanding just how important this vote is for the future of the European Union. I hope, with whatever assistance all my colleagues and I can give, the outcome will be a resounding "Yes". It is about ourselves as a people and a country. I hope we endorse this solidly as we face the future with the same sense of courage.
Deputy Costello did not have an opportunity to speak and wishes to make some concluding remarks.
I apologise for having had to leave the meeting to attend a press conference.
I thank Deputy Kenny for a very fine contribution which I had the opportunity to read and also for his statement. He has emphasised on a number of occasions that his party will not avail of cheap opportunism to use the economic crisis in this matter. I also thank him and his party for their commitment to introduce collective bargaining. The contribution I heard in his response to queries was excellent. We will all work together to ensure a "Yes" vote on 2 October.
I thank Deputies Kenny and Timmins and Mr. Kennelly for attending. I have no doubt today's debate will contribute greatly to the clarification of issues raised in the public domain and that it will be beneficial to the general public in making an objective decision when the time comes.
Our next debate on the matter will take place next Tuesday when the Minister for the Environoment, Heritage and Local Government and leader of the Green Party, Deputy Gormley, will speak to the committee. I ask members to attend this important debate. As Deputy Kenny said, the peoples of Europe are looking towards Ireland which has a major role to play, as a republic and an independent country. The people can make up their own minds and the country can decide for itself. It is very capable of doing so and it is what I have no doubt the people will do.
The joint committee went into private session at 12.45 p.m and adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 29 September 2009.