As I was saying before I was interrupted, the view taken by the MEPs across the political spectrum and from all corners of Europe was an authoritative and credible statement from a wide and diverse range of democratically elected public representatives.
I will now set out briefly how the Government is approaching the ratification of the European constitution. I will also focus on six core positive reasons for supporting the constitution. In so doing I will address a few of the negative arguments and new myths which are being advanced.
The Government intends very soon to publish the Bill amending Bunreacht na hÉireann to allow for ratification by the State of the European constitution. As is widely known, we have been consulting with the main Opposition parties with a view to reaching consensus on the exact text of the wording. While that process has inevitably taken some time, I expect it to be completed soon. Some sensational and inaccurate speculation has taken place about endorsement of the constitutional treaty and what that will mean.
One recently promulgated myth is that it will in some way remove the right of the people to vote on future major treaty change. That is a myth and an untruth. However, it will not stop it being perpetuated and pedalled. The situation will remain as now. Major treaty change will have to be negotiated through a convention and then an Intergovernmental Conference. If it were deemed to go outside the scope and objectives of the current treaties, then under the terms of the Crotty judgment, a referendum would be required in Ireland. On the other hand, as is currently the case, if such change does not go outside the scope and objectives of the treaties, no referendum would be required. In other words, the situation will remain precisely as it is now. I mention this as one of the parties represented in the Chamber today, showing breathless disregard for the truth, has recently been pedalling the opposite view. The Government will be prepared to amend the Bill to avoid unnecessary controversy over this point.
Following publication of the Bill, it would be the Government's intention to schedule some of the Oireachtas debate on it before the summer recess and to complete the legislative process later. It remains the case that no decision has been taken on the timing of the referendum — our commitment and requirement is to ratify by November 2006. Publication of the Bill will allow me to make an order establishing the Referendum Commission. The Government is determined that it will have the time and resources it needs, as it did for the second referendum on the Nice treaty. In June the Government will publish a White Paper to complement the earlier explanatory guide it published last year. We will send a short information booklet to every household — probably in the autumn. Copies of the constitution are available on the special Department of Foreign Affairs website, and are also available free of charge from the European Commission office in Dublin and from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I now turn to the substance of the constitution. We should support the constitutional treaty for many reasons. The first reason for supporting the European constitution is that it introduces much greater legal and political clarity than exists at present. Up to now, the European Union has been based on a series of treaties, dating back to the 1950s, which have been amended piecemeal over the years. The constitution will replace that tangle of treaties with a single document. Moreover, the Union's basic values, objectives, principles and powers are set out much more clearly than before. The relationship between the European Union and its member states is described more clearly than ever before, as is who does what in the European Union. In an all-important area, the number of legal instruments is cut from 15 to six.
I will not claim that the European constitution will win any awards for its prose style. It was legally necessary to carry forward a great mass of detail into Part III of the treaty. However, the first part of the constitution, which sets out the basic values and principles underpinning the Union's activities, is much more lucid and coherent than any previous treaty in describing what the Union is and does. I honestly believe that any interested citizen who takes the trouble to read Part I, the first 60 articles, covering a mere 29 well-spaced pages of large type, will have a far greater understanding of the Union than has ever before been possible.
While the constitution makes some important changes, it does not substantially alter the current nature of the European Union or how it relates to the member states. It is absolutely untrue to state that it creates some kind of federal super-state. The word "federal" got some excited debate during the course of the convention and those who bothered to pay attention to it will realise the word was consigned to the bin. It is made crystal clear that the Union only has the competences which its member states unanimously have chosen to give it. The list of those powers is basically the same as in the current treaties, under which Ireland has thrived.
It is important to recall those powers, which remain exclusively or overwhelmingly with the member states. They include the powers to create war and peace; law and order; taxation; pensions and social welfare; infrastructural development; education; health; culture and the arts. The Union's total budget remains at approximately 1% of our gross national income. An ongoing debate is taking place as to whether this should be 1% or 1.02%. Anybody who believes it would be possible to create a super-state on that basis is not remotely connected with reality. There is not much hope of a super-state on a budgetary contribution of 1% or less of gross national income.
The document is a constitution inasmuch as it sets down in one place the basic law of the European Union, just as national constitutions set down the basic law of the member states. However, the legal form of the constitution remains a treaty between sovereign independent states. I emphasise this point as a few nights ago I listened to a councillor argue that the opposite was the case. The principle of the primacy of Union law, which is now treated as a somewhat sinister principle, has been in place since well before Ireland entered the Union and, by definition, it only operates in those areas where the member states have decided to pool their sovereignty and give the Union its competence.
A second reason for supporting the European constitution is the unique approach to preparing it. In the past, European Union treaties were largely negotiated by diplomats and officials behind closed doors. The European constitution was totally different. The draft text was prepared by a European Convention in which representatives of governments, national parliaments, the European Parliament and the EU Commission all played a part. I was proud to be a member of the Irish team, which included John Bruton, Proinsias de Rossa MEP and Deputies Gormley and Carey. It had more Opposition than Government representatives, and I believe that was an inspired decision made collectively across the political parties in this State. It meant that we were unique in that we were representative of the political parties in the Houses of the Oireachtas and, more importantly, that Ireland was very well represented on each of the groups within Europe. John Bruton was a member of the Presidium.
The Convention met for a year and a half. All 49 days of its plenary sessions were in public. It held a series of fundamental debates on key aspects of the Union. All its working papers and contributions from members were published immediately on the web, as were all the successive drafts of constitutional articles and any amendments proposed to them. It was an absolute model of openness and transparency, and those who say otherwise are simply attempting to mislead. There have been attempts, particularly by Ms McDonald, MEP, who is in this House, to suggest that this was a sham and that the Presidium ran the entire show. I do not recall seeing her much in and around the Convention, but I was there for its entirety, and I can advise her absolutely that in this, as in so much else, she is deluded.
There was, of course, a steering group. What body of any size would not have a central organ? It is possible that Sinn Féin has one too, as do bodies closely associated with that party. However, the point is that there was a real and genuine openness to debate and amendment. For instance, to take an area I worked on intensively, the Convention's final drafts on institutional matters, such as the Commission and the Council, were dramatically different from those put before the Convention by Mr. Giscard d'Estaing. They were changed on the floor of the Convention by a combination of small and medium-sized member states.
The outcome of the Convention was widely welcomed. It is ultimately the prerogative of governments to change the EU treaties, subject to national ratification. However, the governments were very supportive of the draft prepared by the Convention. Some 90% still stood after the Intergovernmental Conference, or IGC, which followed. That was clear evidence of the strength of the unique working method.
Was it perfect? Of course not, but it comes as close to perfection as we are ever likely to get. It was open, transparent and all-inclusive. Not only were the 15 member states fully represented; the ten accession states were represented too, as were the three to follow them, and all the national parliaments. NGOs had a say. The Commission had only two members present, and member governments were also represented. For anyone to say that this was anything other than an open and transparent method is myth-peddling.
Of course, it was the Irish Presidency of the EU that brokered the final agreement, though many thought it would be impossible in the timeframe. It was an immense achievement for the country, Irish democracy and diplomacy and, most importantly, for the Taoiseach personally, something that has been internationally recognised and applauded. I do not want to blow the Government's trumpet, but one point should be made. The key role that Ireland played shows how effectively small member states can contribute in a Union of 450 million people.
A third reason for supporting the constitution is that it will help make the European Union more democratic and open in a range of ways. For instance, the role of national parliaments is considerably enhanced. They will now have the power to intervene directly in the legislative process where they believe that the Commission is proposing something that might better be done at a national level — the subsidiarity principle.
As I said earlier, the rights of the European Parliament will also be increased in several policy areas. Clearly, in a unique and complex system such as Europe's, it will never be straightforward to ensure that the link between citizens and institutions is as direct and responsive as it can be at national level. However, taken together, the changes that I have mentioned are very welcome and a tremendous step in the right direction. It is entirely clear that, once again, they represent a major advance on current institutional arrangements.
A fourth reason for supporting the constitution is that it strengthens the rights of individual citizens. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is an integral and legally binding part of the constitution. It lists the rights and principles to be respected and observed, from classical civil and political rights to social and economic rights. It should be clear that the charter will apply to EU institutions, and to member states when they are implementing Union law. As an Irish citizen, I will have my rights regarding the Irish State protected by Bunreacht na hÉireann and those regarding Europe protected by the constitutional treaty. That is a great step forward. When Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, was here, he rightly described it as one of the most significant developments that we have seen. Moreover, the EU as a whole is to become party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Strasbourg-based European Court will be an external monitor of the Union's own adherence to human rights, playing the same oversight role as it does for national governments.
A fifth reason for supporting the constitutional treaty is that it makes several very significant changes to the Union's institutions. We must have a strong interest in a dynamic and effective Commission, and that is what is achieved here, since there is more balance than before. In future, every member state will be treated as an equal regarding the Commission. A new voting system in the Council, based on achieving clear majorities both of member states and of the population of the Union, is fairer, clearer, more logical, and more effective than the current complex arrangements. Member states will continue to chair most Councils on the basis of equal rotation. There are new posts of President of the European Council and Union foreign ministers, but those functions already exist, and the posts bring more coherence and clarity to the Union.
The Union's common foreign and security policy, of which its security and defence policy is an integral part, is also strengthened. The usual criticisms have been made. The other night I listened to a Sinn Féin councillor arguing that this was somehow creating a military superstate. I was struck once again with the breathless disregard for truth and logic that the party sometimes shows — a disregard that would have made the late Dr. Goebbels blush. First, the EU's values and objectives — international peace, stability, respect for human rights and the promotion of democracy and justice — are enshrined in the constitution and supported by every democrat. Let me ask two questions. Does any serious observer of the international scene believe that the problem is that Europe is too strong and too assertive? The answer is "No". What can we deduce from the fact that among those who criticise the Union's efforts to develop its capacity are, apart from Sinn Féin and their fellow-travellers on one extreme, some of the leading American neo-con ideologues on the other?
The sixth reason is that, over the last 20 years, there have been four new treaties. This constitutional treaty brings more coherence and an end to a period when Europe was continually re-inventing itself. Very often, the same issues were kicked from one conference to the next, and there were left-over issues. After this treaty, however, there will be no left-overs. Key issues were so thoroughly debated in the Convention and IGC that the final outcome is recognised as balanced in every way. There have once again been the usual myths and arguments about where we are regarding Eurofederalism and Euroscepticism. It is time that people recognised that the European Union is unique in that it is neither, being a union of member states that have come together and pooled their sovereignty to achieve great things. No one who has any sense of history, as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the ending of the butchery on the continent that was the Second World War, could argue that the construction of the Union has not been an entirely happy period in history.
There is a banner headline that another Europe is possible, something very often glibly and fatuously put forward. I suggest that it is misleading. If this constitutional treaty fails, there is simply no prospect that a substantially different document can be negotiated. Instead, the Union will be cast into a period of divisiveness and uncertainty, in no one's interest. It would have to continue to operate on the basis of existing treaties which, while serviceable, are clearly inferior to this.
There is another sense in which another Europe is possible, however. We know from history what that Europe means. It would be a Europe of narrow nationalism and selfish balance of power politics. Anybody who has any sense of history or the truth knows exactly where that Europe brought us. We have been marking the 60th anniversary of its end in western Europe. The new member states that joined a year ago have more recent and bitter memories of what it meant for them.
Ireland's experience of the EU has been immensely positive. It will remain so if we have the confidence, the self-belief and the capacity to seize our opportunities and to help shape those opportunities. The European constitution does not ensure that the Union will continue to thrive and to serve all its people's interests any more than our own Constitution determines our success as a nation. However, it establishes a clear and enduring foundation for a successful future together.
