Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 May 2008

Vol. 189 No. 10

Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008: Second Stage (Resumed).

Atairgeadh an cheist: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Senator Cecilia Keaveney

This is not a particularly usual situation for the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is virtual unanimity on the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, with the exception of one political party. While I am advocating a "Yes" vote in the referendum, I accept that people have the right to make up their minds on this matter. All I ask is that campaigners be honest with the Irish people about the Bill. It is shocking to hear some people try to insert the issue of abortion into the debate on the Lisbon treaty. The treaty has nothing to do with abortion. That and other health matters remain issues for the sovereign nations.

The treaty is not about a unanimous and equal tax system across Europe. Taxation is a matter for the national authorities, yet some people are asserting that it is part of the treaty. The treaty is not about losing our neutrality or becoming less Irish. Ireland has been involved in many peacekeeping roles in the past and can be involved in many more in the future. We have secured great respect throughout Europe and beyond for our neutral stance. However, another lie has been perpetrated about this. I do not often use the word "lie" in parliamentary debate but so many untruths have been spoken about the treaty, it is hard to keep one's patience. The untruths are propounded by people who say they have read and understand the treaty, which makes it difficult for people who have not read and do not understand it to differentiate between what is true and false.

Another suggestion propounded by people who are supposed to be presenting the facts is that the treaty is a self-amending treaty and that when it is ratified, Europe will not have to refer back to the people again and will continue to amend the treaty to incorporate other issues. This is a scare tactic that should not be accepted or perpetrated. It is not true. Similarly, some people are trying to relate the Lisbon reform treaty to the WTO talks. The WTO negotiations are utterly separate from the Lisbon treaty. The farming community, of all sectors, must realise how important Europe has been for Ireland. That community, as well as many other sectors, has been a serious beneficiary of the European Union. The fishermen would not feel that they and their industry have benefited as much as the farming sector. I plead with people in the agriculture sector to realise the damage that could be done if they link the treaty to what is not in the treaty and link that to whether they vote "Yes" or "No".

I believe the treaty is good for Ireland. We have supported and voted for all previous treaties and each time Ireland and its citizens gained from them. The same people who opposed previous treaties now oppose the Lisbon treaty. We must consider that fact. If one is constantly against something from which Ireland benefits, then whose interests do those people have at heart? What are they propounding? I only want the facts to be available.

The question is why we need the treaty. We all know that any institution set up with six countries in mind cannot operate at the same level, in the same way or with the same efficiency and effectiveness when it becomes a group of 27 countries. There are 27 member states now and we must adapt the mechanisms and the administration to ensure the Union is effective and efficient for all.

The European Union and the rest of the world face new challenges that are best dealt with in a consolidated way with people working together. I am talking about issues such as global warming, energy security, globalisation and cross-border crime. By working together we can solve those issues. Ireland by itself cannot solve many of them. It is important therefore that we work with a treaty that can support Europe to be as efficient and effective as possible in these areas.

What are the reasons to vote "Yes"? The Union will be more democratic as a result of this treaty if it is passed. The European Parliament will have a greater role in making EU law and will gain greater oversight of the EU budget. The national parliaments will have a greater role as a result of this treaty and, via the citizen's initiative, citizens will have the right and ability to have their voices heard. The Union will be more efficient, its citizens will be better protected and the EU will be better equipped to meet global challenges.

We might look at the other treaties that have been passed. The Single European Act led to the Single Market and Structural Funds. Those that came to Border regions were hugely important to Ireland, not merely as a republic but as an island. The Maastricht treaty gave us the euro. If we look now at the strength of the euro now against the dollar and sterling we must acknowledge that if we were separate states with separate currencies, one could be played off against another at a time when currency fluctuations are quite serious. While the euro has its own challenges for business in terms of competitiveness, its strength is important for us in terms of personal finances. The establishment of the euro was a positive and important decision that came from the Maastricht treaty.

The Amsterdam and Nice treaties helped to end the Cold War and unify Europe. A unified and peaceful Europe is a better place for all Europeans. The Lisbon treaty equips Europe to deal with the challenges of today's world in a similar way to that in which previous treaties attempted to improve the situation at point of treaty, with all the pertinent contemporary difficulties.

We might examine the issue of justice and cross-border crime. I come from the Border area, near to the fourth largest city on the island and yet it is in a different jurisdiction. This issue is magnified if we look at crime in the context of the European area where people can be on the verges of a number of different borders. The Lisbon treaty contains important new provisions that will strengthen the EU's ability to fight cross-border crime, illegal immigration, trafficking of people, arms and drugs. These are key matters to us all as citizens of Europe, no matter where we live. As a Border representative, I believe this to be especially the case. As our legal system differs from those of most of our European partners, we will apply an opt-in, opt-out procedure that will enable Ireland to join in new arrangements case by case. The Government attached a strong declaration to the reform treaty making it clear that Ireland intended to join its European partners wherever possible, that we intend to participate in full with police co-operative measures and that we will apply all measures aimed at the freezing of terrorists' assets. That situation will be reviewed in three years' time.

If we look at Ireland's record regarding criminal assets it is clear that we have been at the forefront of attempts to deal with terrorism. We have not merely looked and thought, we have acted and reacted. We have discovered that we cannot do this alone. To those in other political parties who call themselves "Ourselves Alone" I would say that Europe has been good for us and we must value our international links while remaining Irish and maintaining an Irish identity. If we vote for this treaty we will retain the respect of Europe. I do not say that in a patronising way. Wherever one goes abroad one finds that people recognise that Ireland has always punched above its weight because it has an ability to work with other countries and maximise results for itself.

People who have isolationist views and who propound things that are not in this treaty are not being fair. In the next few weeks as we approach the treaty referendum and the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, I trust there will be honesty regarding what the treaty is about and there will be a fair chance for the people to say "Yes" again to further improvements in how EU member states will work together for the benefit of all the people of Europe.

Senator Shane Ross

With the permission of the House I wish to share my time with Senator Rónán Mullen in proportions to be very strongly weighted in my favour.

I listened to what Senator Keaveney said and I agree with some of it. The historical points she addressed are absolutely correct. On the whole, Europe has been good for Ireland and if gratitude exists in politics, let us be grateful to it for what it has done for us. Much of the Structural Funding went in our favour. We were net receivers of money and donations for a very long time and many people will say that contributed to the Irish boom.

I am not decided concerning the Lisbon treaty. One of the things Senator Keaveney said was indicative of some of the attitudes to Europe and the treaty in this country, namely, that all political parties in this House, bar one, were in favour. She stated that this was a good thing but I am not sure that is necessarily the case. When we think of Europe we tend to lose our critical faculties. It appears to be an irresistible train which we must board because jumping off it or even aside from it, criticising it or being different, is something we fear.

The safe choice is to vote for Lisbon, to go the way of all the political parties, bar Sinn Féin, and support it. The correct choice is to know what is in the treaty, to criticise it and then to make a decision on balance. The reality is there is not a sinner in the country who knows what is in the Lisbon treaty. I must confess that I have not read it all. I was rather struck by something that Ulick McEvaddy, a businessman who has come out against the treaty, said. He read the text on the way between Singapore and Australia and when he got to Australia he was irate because he believed he had only got the draft. He telephoned Dublin, asked that the full document be sent and was told that he had it. He said that what he had could not be the full document because it was almost impossible to understand.

That lack of understanding of the full document is undoubtedly translated into a lack of understanding of what is in the treaty. Politicians have played little part in conveying the message of what is in the Lisbon treaty because they do not really know what is in the text. They do not need to know because every politician, bar a few, is uncritical of Europe.

I am in the ranks of the undecided because I have reservations about this treaty. I deeply resent the fact that Ireland is the only country holding a referendum. I also deeply resent the fact that some European countries and Ministers have taken the view that this is too important an issue to be left to the people. The former President of France, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, is quoted as saying that the French people cannot be trusted with making a decision on this treaty. That obviously extends to other countries as well. Whereas, we may applaud the Government for taking the legal advice to the effect that there should be a referendum here, giving us the choice, the fact we are taking the initiative on our own puts Ireland under a pressure that is not shared by other European governments. Why will they not put this to a referendum in all the member states of the EU? The reason is quite simple, or so it appears to me. It would be defeated, as the polls in many countries show. What we are actually seeing here is a concerted effort to bypass the individual nations of Europe. If it was put to the individual nations of Europe, it would not go through.

That is a pretty devious type of activity for governments to indulge in. It is not necessarily unusual because governments are, by definition, devious and do not like the people between elections. They want to leave as little as possible to the people, unless it is inconvenient for them to make decisions. The fact that Ireland is the only member state holding a referendum and that other countries have been deliberately denied that privilege makes me suspicious. I resent the fact that this treaty is being pushed through by stealth because the people who control the European morass have decided it would never get through if there was a popular or democratic vote on it. That is the problem I have, generally, with Europe and the European model, in that democracy is subsidiary to the administrative machinery which governs it.

The other issue that is so often taken up is that of tax harmonisation. We are reassured time and again that the Lisbon treaty will not make any difference to tax harmonisation. That is true if one reads the small print. However, there was a good deal of sabre rattling a few months ago by the French and the Germans about tax harmonisation. They have been very quiet about it in the last few months as this referendum comes up, because they do not want us to take the opportunity to send a message to them that we do not want them tinkering with tax harmonisation. One can be certain, however, that the moment this is passed the French and the Germans will start rattling those sabres again — and do not believe those who say it cannot be changed because we have got a veto. They can hit us in other places, in all sorts of other areas, including agriculture. If they threaten us in one place or other, while calling for a review of tax harmonisation, we can be put under almost unbearable pressure on that front.

We should not believe, therefore, that this has gone away or is copperfastened because what the French and the Germans want, the French and the Germans get in Europe. That is the lesson we should learn. That is why we do not have the type of economic independence which we might have. That is why we do not have control over our interest rates. It might or might not be a good thing — I have not the time to go into that. That is why we do not have control over our currencies, because it is the French and the German will that this is the way Europe should be run.

Let us not be naive and say it will not happen or will not be threatened again. It will be threatened almost immediately the treaty is passed. One must be careful, even in the Seanad, to see the type of window dressing that has been going on over this. We had the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Hans-Gert Pöttering, here the other day. He was a very good speaker and had a good deal to say, but that was an example of the European machine moving in on the parliaments and doing their public relations. Nobody on the other side was invited to address the Seanad and say the treaty was wrong. At the same time EC President José Manuel Barroso was in Dublin Castle and coincidentally paid a visit to the National Forum on Europe, to do his job of pushing the European message. The balance does not exist.

I am worried about this treaty for the reasons given. I am not saying I shall vote for or against it, since I have not made up my mind yet. However, I am concerned at the fact that there is a kind of European train going through, supported by all the political parties, criticised by no one, with very few opponents in the media or the Irish establishment, when this is too important an issue not to warrant more scrutiny.

Senator Rónán Mullen

I thank Senator Ross for sharing his time with me. I find myself in a similar position, with questions and concerns as regards the Lisbon treaty. I want to stress, however, how important it is that the people of Ireland should engage and give concentrated attention to the decision they have to make on the Lisbon treaty. We all know how difficult it is, sometimes, to pay attention to referendums such as these, where net issues do not appear to be at stake. There is much about this treaty that appears to be administrative in essence, and as such perhaps people will tend to throw their hands in the air and not engage properly with the issues involved. It is the duty of all of us as citizens to engage as much as possible and try to understand the issues. Admittedly, there are complexities, but I agree with the view that the treaty can be boiled down to certain recommendations in terms of institutional change, the composition of the Commission, the new President of the European Council and so on.

Like Senator Ross, I have noticed the tendency of the institutions to row in behind a particular point of view. Despite telling us that it is the people's decision, there has been a clear imbalance. I was very glad that Herr Pöttering was invited to the Seanad, but by the same token I should have liked, perhaps, if similar respect had been shown to those with a different viewpoint. That has not happened and I have been wrestling with the question as to at what stage it is desirable that institutions such as the European Commission should weigh in on one side or other of an argument. I accept the point, however, that there is such a thing as representative democracy.

While I know some are concerned at the fact that Ireland is the only member state to hold a referendum on the treaty, and empathise to some extent, I understand that ultimately, people elect their public representatives. If they do not like the direction in which public representatives are taking them, in terms of increased integration or the move towards a more federalised Europe — let us be honest, that is what is on the cards — ultimately, people in each of the member states have a choice in terms of deciding whether they are satisfied when they elect their own governments.

I agree that certain issues should be kept separate from the Lisbon treaty. Politicians on the Government side have been at great pains to emphasise that some of the more unwelcome interventions from European bodies have nothing to do with the treaty — such as the one we discussed this morning on the report from the Council of Ministers calling into question Irish legislation on abortion. I accept a protocol was introduced into the Maastricht treaty which has been extended to this treaty and which in theory at least should preserve for Ireland the right to determine all its own issues regarding abortion and specifically regarding Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution. That said, I am not entirely happy and would welcome clarification about the Government's assurances on the Charter of Fundamental Rights included with the Lisbon treaty. We are told this will relate to only existing areas of EU competence or the implementation within member states of areas covered by existing European law. While that sounds fine in principle, people as eminent as Professor Gerard Hogan SC of Trinity College Dublin are concerned that this charter could eclipse the Supreme Court in its deliberations on sensitive social issues. If my memory is correct, he has also pointed out that there are areas covered by this charter, such as the right to marry etc., which in principle should not be covered by European law.

The concern would be that areas we believe not to be covered by European law could turn out to be covered by such law. A good example is the intervention by Commissioner Vladimír Spidla over section 37 of our employment equality legislation concerning the right of institutes run by religious to discriminate positively in order to preserve their ethos. At one level we would have thought that education was an area in which the member states had sovereignty and not an area for intervention by the European Union. However, it comes in under the heading of employment equality. Sometimes the areas we believe to be outside the purview of European institutions come rapidly within.

I do not know how the referendum will go. The opinion polls suggest it could be tight and possibly defeated, such is the momentum against it. It is up to our politicians, particularly those in Government, to tell us the implications of a "No" vote. Is there a plan B? Will there be the possibility of renegotiating? Will there be the possibility that Ireland could seek greater opt-outs, for example regarding Articles 40 to 44 of the Constitution, of the kind we have with the protocol on abortion that would allow us to ensure sensitive social issues remain maters for us to decide? However we decide them may not agree with my preferences, but they should remain matters for Ireland to decide. That margin of appreciation should continue to be respected at European level in a way that is not happening lately with other European institutions, such as the Council of Ministers and the European Commission as evidenced by the intervention on the employment equality legislation I mentioned.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I ask the Senator to conclude.

Senator Rónán Mullen

A section of the community is concerned about this matter and the onus is on the Government to address those concerns and explain clearly to us the implications of a "Yes" or "No" vote for further development of these social issues.

Senator Dan Boyle

Much comment has been made about the factors that may lead to a substantial "No" vote in the referendum that this Bill seeks to bring into being. There has been demonisation of those campaigning on the "No" side in a referendum, which has been unhelpful. Aside from a distaste for politics, one of the biggest factors that brings about a strong "No" feeling in the country is an attitude of being talked down to and lectured. There has been a process in several referenda concerning the European Union of the phenomenon I would call the unquestioning "Yes" vote. We need to be open at all times to have an honest debate about our existence in the European Union, the value of the Union and where it is likely to go as a result of the changes proposed in the Lisbon treaty.

For the most part everybody can say membership of the European Union has been positive for this country. The potential for further development in the relationship and what the country can get from our membership of the European Union remains large and should be striven for. Unfortunately a debate with the kind of name-calling and demonisation we have seen in the past creates an unnecessary group of people who are opposed to the very idea of the European Union itself. We need to move away from that if we are interested in advancing some of the stronger principles of the European Union and impressing the value of the European Union on our citizens.

I voted "No" in all previous referenda. While I was only ten years of age in 1972, I voted "No" on referenda from the one on the Single European Act onwards. I did so because while I continue to recognise the value of the European Union and the European Community that preceded it, I was concerned at the direction it has been taking in terms of distance from the citizen and not being an institution with which ordinary people could identify. I believe I would have supported the constitutional treaty, a matter to which I will return shortly. I support the Lisbon treaty because it is the first instance I have witnessed in that series of referenda in which the move towards the centre and towards an elite has turned back towards national sovereignty, national parliaments and the individual citizen. It does not go far enough. It does not bring about a fully democratic open and inclusive European Union. However, at least it goes in a direction that previous treaties have not. The main reason to support the treaty is to try to work from within, bringing about a more open and democratic European Union.

As someone promoting a "Yes" vote, I believe we should get out to the people who should participate in the referendum. The participation in referenda on European Union issues has oscillated all over the place. The turnout for the first referendum on the Nice treaty was 35%. While it increased significantly it was still a low enough poll by the time of the second referendum on the Nice treaty. We should encourage more than half of the electorate to participate. The primary challenge will be to get people to vote in the referendum and then to inform the voters to ensure they vote in an informed way. Those of us on the "Yes" side have a further challenge in trying to ensure there is a "Yes" vote.

I sense from many of the people with whom I have shared "No" platforms in previous campaigns something I would describe as a degree of paranoia. I do not believe in the idea of a monolith, a clique or people who sit in dungeon-like rooms in a mythical castle in Brussels ordaining that there will be a Europe to fit their vision. I recognise that within the European Union there is a diversity of opinion. I accept the French and Germans would like to have a co-ordinated approach to taxation. Under existing legal mechanisms they cannot get their way. I do not like eating snails or sauerkraut. They will not make me change my opinion on that and the treaty does not allow them to do that kind of thing. The idea that there exists an organisation to which we have already given powers that can force us to change elements of our national decision making and sovereignty is a myth that needs to be challenged. It is based on opinion of Ireland as a nation that lacks self-confidence.

We should really say that our participation in international organisations and in particular the EU is based on the fact that not only are we getting something from it, but we are getting something from it because we are contributing significantly to it. We will be a net contributor of funds from now onwards. However, our contribution in terms of the people we send to the European Parliament, the people who have represented us as Commissioners, our representation on the various secretariats of both the European Council and the Commission shows this is a country that has punched above its weight. We have been able to do so because we have acted as an honest arbiter in ongoing discussions on many issues at the heart of the European Union, including the questions of whether we are moving towards federation, whether there should be a military component and whether we could possibly have a co-ordinated foreign policy approach.

On the last area, I believe it is possible. However, ultimately no matter how advanced or entrenched the systems of the European Union become it will still be a decision-making body where national interests predominate and decisions will be informed because of that. Two examples inform my opinion on having a common foreign policy. I recall the reaction of member states' governments at the time of the Iraq war. Some chose to support it, some chose to oppose it and some chose to remain neutral. There was no common European position and I suspect that if the same set of circumstances occurred in the next ten years we would have exactly the same situation. Recently an issue has arisen relating to the recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign country. The Irish Government and other European Union countries have chosen to recognise it but some member states have great difficulty with this. Greece, Romania and Bulgaria have difficulties with the recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign country and because of this the European Union has not recognised it.

These are issues at the heart of national interests that should contribute to informed national foreign policies. I do not share the fears of some people regarding a European army, the role of the European Defence Agency or the role of the still to be appointed foreign policy member of the Commission. Despite this, we need to be involved because of our foreign policy record and our history as a sovereign nation. We should never forget that when we try to achieve common foreign policy positions very often they may be informed from a bad perspective. Many large countries in the European Union were colonists but as we were not so we can inform the debate and apply the brakes when the occasion deems necessary. We can make ourselves available as the type of honest arbiter we have proven to be in leading the force in Chad at present. On all these grounds I think we should take a more positive approach to our participation in the European Union.

I mentioned earlier that I would have been supportive of the constitutional treaty and much has been made of the rejection of it by the French and Dutch electorates. The constitutional treaty was necessary and will be necessary again because the European Union lacks a single, simple, comprehensible document on how its institutions should be run. That we have difficulties relating to what people are voting on in this referendum, how it can be understood and the effect of the changes is due to our having a referendum on yet another amending treaty. We must return to a final document that all member states and citizens of the European Union can understand. When that time comes I would prefer that the document be approved by the people of all European Union member states. The constitutional means for ratifying treaties are different in every country. We may come to a time when we finalise the documents that lie at the heart of the European Union and this will ultimately show that the step we are taking through the Lisbon treaty towards greater democracy, when previous treaties went in the opposite direction, has paid off for the citizens of Europe.

My party leader was a representative on the constitutional body that met to put together that treaty, as was the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, and he suggested that we should have a referendum of all the people of Europe that would be valid only if also approved by a majority of member states. There are other mechanisms that could involve the people of Europe that are not being used today, but I believe the Lisbon reform treaty is an important step towards helping us get there. It is important that we put this referendum to the people, encourage them to adopt an appropriate response and do so in a frame of mind that does not demonise, is not selective with information and allows an informed debate in this country that results in a decision that best serves our interests and those of the European Union.

Senator Joe O’Reilly

The Lisbon treaty involves a set of organisational and administrative changes that will properly organise a Europe of 500 million people and 27 member states. The directional shift in the treaty is towards greater democracy, greater participation by individuals, greater participation by member states and greater participation by national parliaments. The individual is put centre stage by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has 54 articles that set out the rights of the individual in a range of areas. This is a very reassuring document and I am disappointed by people who are not aware of its merits.

National parliaments will have an enhanced role through the treaty and will be given advance notice of legislative proposals. The Seanad will have one of 54 votes as a house of a national parliament and if 18 votes from either upper or lower houses of national parliaments are cast in a particular direction legislation must be reviewed. In matters of criminal law 13 votes can effect a review of legislation. This is called the yellow card system. At present the Seanad has no legislative safeguard relating to blocking European legislation but this system will change that. This is a significant alteration of our current status.

The European Parliament will be strengthened and will have a greater say in budgetary affairs, which is a welcome further democratisation of Europe. This treaty will bring about administrative change to cope with greater numbers and democratisation to shift power to the regions and to the people. I contend that this treaty represents an advance in these areas and I congratulate Senator Boyle on identifying this.

A number of misconceptions exist regarding the effects the Lisbon treaty will allegedly have on this country. In the area of tax harmonisation we will retain our veto and unanimity must prevail in this respect. It is disingenuous of my distinguished and erudite colleague, Senator Ross, to suggest the French and Germans will start talking about tax harmonisation when the Lisbon treaty has passed. Of course they will; that is the nature of politics. Irrespective of whether we pass the Lisbon treaty, some elements in Europe will favour tax harmonisation. We know how much Irish national interests depend on not conceding to tax harmonisation and, consequently, we will not concede to it. Our position on tax harmonisation will not change and it is a non-issue in the context of the treaty. As of today, some people in Europe want tax harmonisation; we do not. The day after the passage of the Lisbon treaty the same situation will prevail.

Misconceptions and dangerous distortions also apply to the issue of abortion because there is a protocol in the Maastricht treaty that specifically accepts Irish legislation on abortion, which prevents abortion in any case, except where the life of the mother is in danger, including suicide. It is untrue, a misconception and a distortion to say the abortion issue applies to the Lisbon treaty.

The issue of neutrality is a bit like the issue of tax harmonisation. We are neutral today, we are against militarisation and will remain so after the Lisbon treaty is passed. Politics will, naturally, go on and some elements on mainland Europe would like us to give up our neutral status and join military alliances. Some people on mainland Europe want abortion and tax harmonisation. Those people will still be there after the Lisbon treaty is passed but these issues do not relate to the treaty itself. The Lisbon treaty is about administrative change, the democratisation of Europe and making Europe manageable in the context of its current large population.

We should not lose sight of what Europe means for the future, in practical terms. There is a wonderful parable in the gospels about the curing of a group of lepers and only one returns to say, "Thanks". This should warn politicians that we should not rely too much on the gravy train Europe has been for this country in the past.

Those mean enough to want to forget everything that has been achieved through Europe should consider the future. Our future within the EU involves giving us a market of 500 million people for our goods and services, an opportunity we cannot ignore. As an island country wanting to trade, progress our services, and use the expertise of our brilliant graduates and universities, Europe is the place to play. The way to enhance our credibility in Europe is to go with the Lisbon treaty and be proactive supporters of the European ideal.

Rather than considering our future involvement in Europe as a slavish mentality of subjugation, I believe Ireland has a national self-confidence on the European stage, taking part in the institutions and flying the Irish flag. I am proud to be part of the Irish delegation, of which Senator Terry Leyden also is a distinguished member, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We are well fit as a delegation to put forward our views to amend documents and put across the Irish perspective. Our MEPs are similarly equipped in the European Parliament. We have had Commissioners second to none. Our Governments and Civil Service have been second to none on the European level. We are well fit to stand up there with the best.

Without giving away secrets, I was born in the mid-1950s and come from a generation that knows of an Ireland before and after EU membership. I remember an Ireland before EEC membership where women had to give up their State jobs when they got married and there was not equal pay for equal work. I remember growing up in an Ireland with limited and backward infrastructure and subsistence levels of income in farming which depended on one market in Britain.

I also remember a changing Ireland after EEC entry when our infrastructure and third level colleges and institutes were greatly improved. New social legislation and directives that opened up the windows of this country were introduced. We got a larger market for our goods and a confidence as an economy. Those are the two contrasting Irelands which I have known.

There is nothing sinister in the treaty. We are well fit to play on the European stage. Our social, economic and other advantages lie in the European project. There is no place to be other than in Europe. To go outside of a wholesome participation in Europe would be regressive.

Some argue the treaty can be re-negotiated. That is not the way to progress the European project when there is nothing sinister in the treaty. We must knock down the myths about the treaty. Europe has been good for Ireland. We are well fit to make Europe better in the future. We can sell our goods and services to a market of 500 million people. While it may not be politically correct to say so, it is regrettable there has been so much debate around the treaty. None the less, it is a worthwhile exercise. I am so convinced that it must be a "Yes" vote on 12 June that I find it difficult to grapple with the alternative. Ireland has a young and vibrant population which needs its future to be centre stage in the world. We must vote "Yes" for the treaty.

Senator Terry Leyden

I compliment the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Pat Carey, on the useful meetings he is holding throughout the country on his drugs strategy. It allows people to have an involvement in the most serious social issue of our day.

I thank Senator Joe O'Reilly for his compliments on working together in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which he is a distinguished member. Senator Ann Ormonde is also well regarded in her work there and has made a major impact in it. It is a useful forum for Irish parliamentarians, as is the European Parliament.

We are facing an important decision on 12 June. We all have a tremendous involvement in the Lisbon reform treaty. It is a monumental decision for the Irish people. Each citizen has an individual decision to make. It is a credit to the authors of our Constitution, especially Eamon de Valera, to foresee that Ireland would join international bodies in the future but that the people should decide. The Irish electorate will decide on the future development of the EU for 500 million people. It is an enormous responsibility. Ireland is the only country out of 27 member states that will have a referendum on the Lisbon reform treaty. The Minister of State will know from his visits to Europe that the one question that always comes up is whether the referendum will be passed.

One of the most important provisions of the treaty is the recognition of the EU as a single legal personality, requiring the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention has stood the test of time as a comprehensive yet practical protection of human rights. While it has high aspirations and protects fundamental rights, it is not simply a declaration.

The establishment of a court to protect individuals from human rights violations is unique among international conventions on human rights as it gives the individual an active role in the international arena. Ms Ann Power has recently been appointed as the Irish judge to the European Court of Human Rights by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I wish her every success in her role.

The effectiveness of the convention is evidenced by the improvements in member states' domestic legislation and judicial decisions which have directly resulted from decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The accession of the EU to the convention will mean the institutions of the EU, when making and implementing EU law, will be subject to the same judicial control in respect of human rights as the individual state parties to the convention. An individual EU citizen will be able to make a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the EU. Citizens will of course retain the right to make a complaint against their own state.

Despite the efforts of the "No" vote campaigners, it has been conclusively established that the proposed treaty poses no threat to our sovereignty in many important areas, including taxation. This was confirmed in this House by Mr. Hans-Gert Pöttering, MEP, President of the European Parliament, and by Mr. José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission.

Vague claims such as a "No" vote will protect workers add nothing to people's understanding of the treaty. Sinn Féin's claim that the treaty erodes Ireland's neutrality is nonsense. It is a simple fact that our Constitution prohibits participation in any common defence. The treaty does not change that; it maintains the member state veto on defence matters. However, it adds to the debate that a national political party such as Sinn Féin is participating in the democratic process and putting forward ideas to debate this issue, which I welcome. If everyone were singing from the same hymn sheet there would be no real debate. Therefore, I commend a political party that decides on a particular course of action. That party will then put its case to the electorate on 12 June and the electorate will have the final say.

This is not a party political issue, rather it is an individual issue. Political parties will have made up their minds and the majority of them have gone in the same direction. Ultimately, the treaty is an individual contract between each voter and the European Union. I believe that, on reflection, the people will decide the European Union is worth supporting on this occasion.

Furthermore, claims by groups such as Libertas that the Lisbon treaty would create a serious democratic deficit are simply untrue. For example, any analysis of the treaty will rapidly conclude the claim by Libertas that the treaty would make national parliaments subordinate to the Union is quite simply nonsense. In fact, the opposite is the case. The treaty gives national parliaments more power in European matters. All draft legislation must go directly to national parliaments giving them more time to consider Commission proposals. National parliaments will have a so-called yellow card procedure giving them the right to request a review of draft legislative Acts. Parliaments will also have a right of veto in certain matters for the first time. The reform treaty will bring national parliaments directly into the European Union decision-making process.

This House will have an enhanced role because of the Government decision to propose this treaty and I commend the work of the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, in this regard. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, made it clear in statements in recent days that the Dáil and Seanad will have the role of examining European legislation as it is published, which means that for the first time we will have a say in European legislation. This is of great benefit to individual citizens and of vital interest to this House.

The main implications of the treaty have been discussed often but particularly in light of recent polls indicating a low level of knowledge of the treaty, there is nothing to be lost by again summarising the treaty. The implications would be as follows: a new voting system in the Council of Ministers to make decision making more effective; a greater role for national parliaments in the Union's activities; a rotating system of membership of the European Commission; a full-time president of the European Council to co-ordinate and chair European Union summit meetings and appointed for a term of two and a half years; a high representative for foreign affairs and security policy who will bring greater coherence to the Union's approach to foreign policy; and the Charter of Fundamental Rights is given legally binding status, which I outlined at the start of my speech.

More specifically on the Bill before the House, which represents the seventh proposed constitutional amendment on European integration, it is worth noting that the "Yes" vote in European referendums has been consistently higher in referendums with higher turnouts. The disappointingly low turnout of 38.4% in the first Nice treaty referendum meant that we were almost obliged to put the issue to the people again. That treaty was decisively endorsed by a more representative portion of the electorate in the second referendum. However, in the case of the Lisbon treaty, it is either passed or rejected. I do not believe it is possible to have a second bite at this cherry. The other 26 member states have agreed to the reform treaty. If we decide to reject it, the treaty cannot be amended to satisfy objections we might have and the reform treaty would fall.

As soon as this Bill is passed and the text of the amendments finalised the referendum campaign can begin in earnest. The most important objective to be achieved is a high turnout and I hope all sides in the debate will encourage people to vote on 12 June. The sign of a true democracy is participation by the people and if the treaty is endorsed, as I hope it will be, I expect that will be in a referendum with a turnout which can be said to be a fair representation of a well-informed Irish electorate. Contrary to some assertions, hard copies of the text of the treaty are available to the public throughout the country in all public libraries and on many authoritative websites, and information on the treaty is freely available.

The proposed amendment to the Constitution is quite straightforward and is in line with previous amendments which have facilitated our participation in European integration. There is a clear prohibition on Irish participation in an EU common defence in the proposed subsection 15. The proposed subsection 11 is modelled on the existing subsection 10, which has been in place for many years and ensures compatibility between the Constitution and the EU. It is important to note that this applies only to laws, acts, and measures "necessitated by the obligations" of European Union membership. It is nonsense to claim the treaty will have unlimited supremacy over our Constitution. Subsections 12 to 14 allow for the opt-outs secured by Ireland in the treaty negotiations.

I look forward to the acceptance of this Bill by the Oireachtas and to the ongoing and developing debate on the Lisbon treaty. It is time for Ireland to take on a role we have held previously with respect and distinction, namely, leaders in Europe. I commend the Bill to the House and the treaty to the people of Ireland. It is far better for Ireland to be inside looking out than outside looking in and to be there to have a say in the future of Europe. It is imperative for the future progress of this country and I will say as much to the Irish Farmers Association, IFA. What control would we have over the European Commission if we vote "No" on 12 June? The answer is "Very little"; our influence will have waned. I make this appeal not in the interests of any political party, not on behalf of the Government, but on behalf of the people of Ireland.

Senator Pearse Doherty

Like the majority of people on this island I believe that Ireland's place is in Europe. Many benefits have come as a result of our membership of the European Union. Continued co-operation with our European partners is essential if we are to meet the challenges facing us in the future. It is certain that regardless of the outcome of the referendum, Ireland's place in the European Union will be secure.

It is now just more than six weeks to the day of the referendum and only 5% of the Irish electorate say they understand the Lisbon treaty. This speaks volumes about the Government's handling of the referendum. Let us examine the debate which has taken place in the Oireachtas. It has dragged on for weeks, squeezed in before and after other legislation, and with no real focus. It is not an overstatement to suggest that the majority of people are as unaware of the debate inside this Chamber as they are of the treaty itself.

People need information if they are to make an informed choice. I accept the treaty is technical and unwieldy, but a bigger problem is that the majority of citizens will not even have seen the treaty, never mind read it, before polling day. The Government is taking the electorate for fools and it is unacceptable.

When one pares it back, the biggest reason to vote "No" to this treaty is that it gives the EU too much power. We are giving up too much and getting far too little in return. How could it be in Ireland's interest to lose our automatic right to a Commissioner, to cut our voting strength on the Council by half, to hand over power to unelected officials and to change the future direction of the European Union without recourse to a new treaty or referenda? The Irish negotiators failed to stand up for Ireland's interests. However, we can secure a better deal if we vote "No" on 12 June.

I wish to address the serious implications for rural Ireland if this treaty is passed. It is not an over-statement to say that rural Ireland is suffering a death by a thousand cuts and while the key responsibility for this lies with the Government, the decisions of unelected EU leaders are also having a major impact. Let us examine what has happened in recent years. EU policy has led to the closure of the sugar beet industry. The EU is also actively undermining the provision of vital services to rural communities, including post offices.

EU policy has become synonymous with red tape and bureaucracy, due to which rural Ireland is suffering. The farming community and rural Ireland are significantly concerned by the World Trade Organisation negotiations. There is considerable resentment at the approach of Commissioner Peter Mandelson. It is part of a pattern that emerged under his predecessors, Mr. Pascal Lamy and Sir Leon Brittan, and that will continue after he has gone. This agenda promotes free trade aggressively irrespective of the cost to family farms in rural communities or the world's poorest countries.

How will the Lisbon treaty affect this issue? Its passing will strengthen Commissioner Mandelson's hand. Article 2 gives the EU exclusive competence over commercial policy, including the negotiation of international trade agreements. Article 188 gives the Commission power to initiate and conclude negotiations, including international trade agreements, and transfers the final decisions on such agreements from the unanimity principle to qualified majority voting at the Council of Ministers, thus ending the State's veto. It is a critical matter, as the ability of future Governments to protect farming will be removed. Article 10A mandates "the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade" to be one of the EUs guiding principles in its interaction with non-EU states. Restrictions would include agricultural subsidies, preferential treatment for developing world companies in government procurement contracts or environmental and worker protections.

Last week, the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Kenny, spoke at the National Forum on Europe and called on the Government to use its veto at the Council if the outcome of the WTO trade talks was bad for Irish farming. What he did not tell farmers is that if the Lisbon treaty is passed, the veto will be gone. In future rounds of WTO talks, farmers will ask why Fine Gael urged them to support a treaty that was clearly not in their interests. To make matters worse, Ireland will lose a Commissioner for five years out of every 15 years under the terms of the treaty. When critical matters are being discussed, such as international trade agreements or reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, Ireland may not have a voice at the Commission table. Attempts by the Government and Opposition parties to tell us that the loss of a permanent Commissioner will not make any difference do not wash. Imagine the outcry if the Government told the people of County Donegal that they would have no Deputies for the next five years but that the other counties in the region would look after their interests. It would not be acceptable in that case and should not be acceptable in this instance.

Government claims that it is not practical or efficient to have 27 Commissioners is a nonsense. There are 15 Ministers and 20 Ministers of State for a population of fewer than 5 million people. It seems more than credible and necessary to have 27 Commissioners to represent more than 500 million people. The Government does not want people to know that Ireland's voting strength on the Council of Ministers will be reduced by 50%. In comparison, Germany, France, Britain and Italy will each nearly double their voting strengths.

Weighing up the increased centralisation of powers, the self-amending articles, the loss of influence of smaller member states and the weak measures offered to member state parliaments and citizens, there is no doubt that the Lisbon treaty is a bad deal for Irish and EU democracy. If ratified, it will deepen the democratic deficit. The treaty should be rejected and negotiators sent back to do a better deal for Ireland and the EU.

Significant challenges lie ahead, but we must face them as full members of the EU. We must secure a better deal for Ireland. I urge Senators and the people to vote "No" in the referendum on 12 June.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Roche, to the Chamber during this important debate on the EU reform treaty or, as it is commonly know, the Lisbon treaty.

As the world's largest trading bloc, the EU is crucial to Ireland's future economic and trading strategy. Irish trade in merchandise with the EU-25 in the year ending December 2006 comprised exports to the value of approximately €56.6 billion and imports to the value of €36.1 billion. Companies supported by the State in the form of Údarás na Gaeltachta in the Gaeltacht, which comprises the most peripheral areas of Ireland — west County Mayo, west County Galway, west and south-west County Donegal and parts of County Cork, west County Kerry, County Waterford and the Ring Gaeltacht in County Meath — created trade or merchandise valued at €700 million in 2007, of which €350 million was exported. The majority of those companies are small. These figures reflect the considerable benefit of the EU as a market of 500 million people, as the majority of the exports were to other EU member states. Service exports to the EU amount to a further €30 billion per annum, representing 63.9% of our merchandise export market. Some 59.7% of imports come from within the EU.

Our membership of the EU has coincided with strong Irish economic growth and convergence of per capita income levels with some of the best regions in the EU. GDP per capita has increased from 58.8% of the EU average in 1973 to almost 125% of the EU average in 2006. The Union is important to the development of business in Ireland. Many business groupings around Europe are making queries about how the referendum campaign is going. The primary reason these queries are being made worldwide, but particularly in Europe, is that individual companies and groupings know the EU must engage more effectively if their opportunities for business expansion within the Union are to be developed. After 50 years, the EU must modernise and change if its business is to be carried out in a more effective manner. It must reform so that we can face the new realities, namely, EU member states are not the only countries in the world seeking to secure higher levels of inward investment. It must be generated from within. We live in a globalised world where we compete for new business against other trading blocs, including India, China, Brazil and emerging markets in Asia. Europe cannot stand still. We must raise our game, which is the purpose of the treaty. We must engage positively and proactively with it.

Anyone who opposes the treaty on the grounds that it is the wrong way forward for the European economy is putting a case that lacks credibility. During the referendum campaign, those opposing the treaty, including Sinn Féin and Libertas, a business liberal think tank, have sought to put forward obscure political and economic arguments to justify their case. They tell people to vote "No" because it is the right way forward for the European economy, Article 48 is a self-amending provision and the EU will have more power over finalising common commercial agreements with third countries. Their arguments are always couched in the negative. Nothing has changed in this respect since 1973 when they opposed Ireland's entry.

The choice for the Irish electorate is either believe these obscure and technical arguments or look to the list of proven economic successes that the EU has brought to its citizens. Europe may have started as a common market but the Single European Act brought about the Single Market, in which 82% of the Irish people now have full confidence. The Maastricht treaty gave the green light for the euro, thereby bringing many practical benefits to consumers and businesses alike. Not only have exchange rate transfers been eliminated but the euro is a significant source of stability for the European economy during the current rocky period. Members will recall the currency speculation that took place in 1992 which resulted in currency devaluations across Europe, a hike in interest rates and serious economic difficulties for member states and individuals. In the aftermath of the sub-prime mortgage collapse in America, the European Union would once again be facing the bleak scenario of 1992 if it had remained a community of 27 different currencies.

EU competition policy is pro-business and it helps the European economy to grow and prosper. Through the European Social Fund, the EU is a major contributor to the training of youth and long-term unemployed in Europe. EU regional and cohesion funds have helped to rebuild the infrastructures of the poorer economies of Europe to help them participate effectively within the Single Market and the eurozone. Those who oppose this treaty on economic grounds are putting forward flimsy arguments to back up their cases. They fail to recognise the stability and success that the EU has brought to the economies of all member states. It is as if the Single Market and the euro are apparitions or optical illusions. The EU needs new structures in order to address global challenges such as climate change, security of energy supplies, organised and cross-border crime and multilateral trade agreements.

The reform treaty has nothing to do with the consolidated tax base. The EU cannot set tax rates without the unanimous agreement of all member states. A study of the practicalities of introducing common corporate taxes in Europe conducted by the European Centre for Economic Studies on behalf of the German Ministry of Finance concluded that common corporate taxes were unworkable, politically undesirable and too simplistic for the EU with its 27 member states operating 27 different tax models.

This treaty is not only about the present generation, it is about the future. The intention behind the establishment of the EEC was to bring peace and harmony to Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War. This has been a success in that member states can engage with each other in a peaceful and democratic way. We have seen that first hand in the North, where the European Union has played a significant role in bringing peace in our time. The Taoiseach also played a major part in that regard. The electorate needs to recognise the €58 billion which has come from Europe since 1973, as well as the funds that have transformed the Border regions from which Senator Wilson, Senator Doherty and I come. I am daily reminded of the benefits of the EU for Border regions. The Irish people will not forget that. We will be voting for the people of the North as well as for the Republic. It is time we tell the Irish people we want to vote "Yes" because we want to be major players in Europe and to protect future generations in the decisions we make.

Senator Alex White

In the context of this debate on the Lisbon treaty, I have no difficulty with people raising profound issues on where Europe is going, the policies it takes in respect of world trade and the impact it has on different sectors of our economy and society. I do not criticise Senator Doherty or anybody else for raising such issues in this debate because we are thereby afforded an opportunity to consider the treaty and related issues. However, I have a difficulty with the attempts being made by Senator Doherty and others to visit at the door of this treaty all the concerns and objections people have about what is happening in Europe. That is a fundamentally dishonest approach.

For example, the need to rebalance world trade should be debated politically in Europe. Senator Doherty, Sinn Féin and other parties, irrespective of who they are, have a responsibility to engage in debate. However, to suggest that the provisions of the Lisbon treaty somehow privilege the position of Commissioner Mandelson, who seems to be the new bogey man for opponents of the Lisbon treaty, is fundamentally dishonest. The Lisbon treaty does nothing of the kind. I may be one of the few people who actually read the treaty, perhaps because I lead a nerd-like existence. Nothing in the treaty supports for a moment what Senator Doherty is arguing.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I mentioned the three articles.

Senator Alex White

I accept the legitimate point he makes in respect of the need to have a debate about trade but it is inaccurate and dishonest to visit the issue at the door of the Lisbon treaty. I do not mean to personally attack the Senator because he has the right to raise these issues and I respect people who have different points of view on this debate.

The Senator suggested that the Government is taking people for granted but, while the Minister of State will answer for himself, I do not take anybody for granted. Anyone with an interest in the issues could find parts of this treaty that he or she does not like. However, anyone who believes in the social market, which I believe Sinn Féin does, would come down on the "Yes" side in an objective judgment of its achievements compared to the negatives. I say that without demur or qualification. Anybody can list the negatives but it behoves us to acknowledge the gains made in this treaty. Senator Doherty failed to mention the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Senator O'Reilly made a useful point in that regard. The notion that it is us against this big monolithic Europe, that we are losing something or being diminished by this process is the sort of thinking, as Senator O'Reilly said, that is more associated with the past about which he spoke than the present. Robust, self-confident political parties, whether it is the Labour Party, Fianna Fáil or Sinn Féin, and Sinn Féin has representatives in the European Parliament, can get in and work with other people for a social Europe.

The notion that Ireland's interests are undifferentiated is wrong. We had an interesting debate yesterday and this morning about agency workers. I take a different view from that of IBEC in regard to agency workers. The "we" of Ireland, if I can call it that, is not an undifferentiated thing. There are different interests internally in this jurisdiction and I would want to fight for much better protection for agency workers and employees throughout Europe. It is clear that an opportunity is available for us as politicians, and those of us who want to promote a social Europe, to fight for that at the heart of Europe rather than saying the only way we can deliver this is by voting down the Lisbon treaty.

Perhaps the most fallacious notion I heard was that we can secure a better deal and that we send back our negotiators to do that. If we are asking people not to take people for granted and to be honest with the Irish electorate, is there any reality to the suggestion that we can vote "No" to the Lisbon treaty and send the negotiators back to get what is called a better deal? That will not occur. There will not be such an opportunity. The opportunity to negotiate a deal has been taken. I am not saying it is the best possible deal that has been obtained but it contains a sufficient amount that we can support.

Regarding some of the proposals on the move from unanimity to majority voting, which relates to the point I made earlier, we should not take it for granted that majority voting is by definition against our interests. There is a presumption in the debate that if something is moved from unanimity to majority voting we must lose out. That is not the case. We can look to secure our interests in common with other countries to press for decisions to be made which other countries are against. We can sometimes be in the majority of that majority voting, and very often are, a point made by both Senator O'Reilly and Senator Boyle. It is about having the self-confidence to negotiate, do battle and win.

I must refer to what is almost a little Ireland approach in that if it is out there in Europe, we must resist it and put the brake on because it can only go against us. Those arguments have been heard repeatedly. Each time there was a vote, a treaty or a proposed amendment, there were stories that it would lead to a calamity and we would lose out.

The very principle of what we are doing in terms of pooling sovereignty, and we should remind ourselves of that, is that we make a decision to give up or share sovereignty. It is not taken from us. It is not a raid on our sovereignty by this big conglomerate monolithic body. We make a judgment ourselves that we are prepared, in the interests of achieving things, to pool our sovereignty. That may not be a particularly exciting point to try to make in the context of the debate, and perhaps there are complexities in it, but people should be honest about what is happening and understand that whereas there are losses and potential downsides, what can be achieved is vastly greater than the risks to us of any loss to our sovereignty.

On the point made by Senator Ross earlier, I understand his frustration that Ireland is the only country allowing for a referendum on this treaty, which is unfortunate, but it is not a reason for voting "No". In fairness to Senator Ross, he was not specifically advocating a "No" vote but he criticised the fact that Ireland was the only country holding a referendum and it seemed to him, if I understood him correctly, to be an argument against the treaty. That argument does not hold water. The fact that we are having a referendum and other countries are not may be a subject for criticism but it is not a reason for voting "No". It is ludicrous that we would vote "No" simply because we are the only country being given the opportunity to vote "Yes" or "No".

Senator Doherty made the point that we will not have a Commissioner sitting at the table for five out of the 15 years after 2014. He made an unsustainable comparison with representative TDs. People elect TDs to a sovereign Parliament and they have representative responsibilities under the Constitution but we must understand that the European Union appoints Commissioners in a different constitutional and legal context. They are not there simply to fly the flag for their country. That is not what they are appointed to do. At the risk of offending the Minister or anyone else here, I would have far more confidence in some of the non-Irish Commissioners, and I say this from a political point of view in terms of what I believe in in Europe, and would find myself in a much higher measure of agreement politically with many of them sitting at the table in Brussels than with some of the Irish Commissioners waving the so-called Irish flag there. It is not a valid comparison in constitutional or legal terms to say that if Donegal or some other county lost a representative TD, it would be the same as losing a Commissioner. It is a nonsensical comparison. It is not sustainable.

My party has done the analysis. We have tested this against our politics and our priorities and have no hesitation in supporting the Bill on Second Stage and the referendum when it is held.

Senator Paddy Burke

I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. He has had a very busy schedule in recent days. He attended the European scrutiny committee; he was in the Czech Republic; he was in this House; and he is back in this House again. We also hear him on the airwaves. The Minister of State is doing a great job in respect of this treaty.

I have some questions about the Bill, one of which is about the name of the Bill and the language that is used. The majority of people do not understand what is meant by the Lisbon treaty or the Nice treaty. Different language should have been used in describing those treaties. Perhaps it should be called a more power to the parliament treaty, which is what this Bill is about, or the people's treaty because it is about people. It is not about Lisbon but people do not understand that the treaty was agreed in Lisbon. Naming it differently might mean more to people in putting forward the treaty.

In the Minister's contribution he referred to the use of the general passerelle provision in the treaty. Is that a new word in the dictionary? Is it a country, a town or the name of a person? I had never heard the word previously.

Deputy Dick Roche

It is a French word.

Senator Paddy Burke

An economic argument cannot be made for voting "No" in this referendum. That is a non-starter. This country knows what it has gained from the European Union in the years since we joined. As the Minister and other speakers have said, this treaty is about the individual within the EU. We are privileged in this country to have a vote. Each and every one of us has the same right in ratifying this treaty.

The treaty is about enlarging the Union from 15 to 27 countries and increasing the population from 250 million to 500 million. The United States of America has only 250 million or 260 million and this new Europe has 500 million people. We will need every one of them to have the power and momentum to compete with other nations and continents, such as China, India or other heavily-populated areas that will be a big force in the years ahead.

We come from a nation of 4 million people. I recall Senator O'Reilly mentioned he remembers his area in a time before EU involvement and after, which I do myself. We had some very dark days and Europe has been particularly good to this country. Travelling around Europe one can see the hand of the European Parliament and the European Commission. There is no way we can vote against this treaty.

My party is having 34 public meetings around the country and we are campaigning for a "Yes" vote. Like Senator Leyden, I believe it important we have people like Sinn Féin who will put their case forward so we can get answers to questions. I am very much in favour of this treaty.

The Minister of State himself indicated on a number of occasions that this will lead to a very exciting Europe. Many nations and continents would like what we are going to have. Our Commission will not be elected but will be appointed by various Governments. Senator Alex White and I, as members of the EU scrutiny committee, met eight Commissioners recently in Europe. I could not believe the transparency evident in the European Commission and with each of the Commissioners. They were very open and frank about what they are doing and so forth.

I wish the Government and its Departments here were as open and transparent in their work. If they were, we would not need the Freedom of Information Act to the same level as is currently required. I would not be at all afraid of placing my full confidence in the European Commission.

This treaty will give the individual more rights also, as more power is being given to the European Parliament and there will be co-decision making between the Council and Parliament. There will be an openness in the Commission and there is a veto which can be operated by parliaments. Even this Parliament, including the Seanad, has a full veto in Europe. It is a major power to be able to use, indeed it is unbelievable power that this House, comprising 60 Members, will have a veto in Europe. We do not fully understand the power that we may really have. I am very excited about the new Europe and how it will go forward after this referendum has been passed.

We can see ourselves where major projects are taking place around the country which are co-funded by the European Union. It never seems to get any credit for any of the major funding it provides or for projects that have been put in place. There should be some mechanism where the European Union takes some credit and representatives should be present at the opening of some of the major projects.

All too often we criticise Europe. For example, there was an issue with water rates in schools, for which Europe was blamed. There was also a turf-cutting regulation for which Europe is being blamed and the cottage industry is also affected. With red tape, it is all too easy to blame Europe, not giving any credit for matters raised by several Senators, not least equality for women in work and incomes. Europe and its Commissioners should take more credit for its actions and involvement.

I am very much in favour of this treaty and do not see any problems with it. We are in a great position. As the Minister of State has indicated, it is a revolution within Europe and I am looking forward to a new Europe with more power to our Parliament and people.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Dick Roche)

I was absorbed in my notes and from looking over some of the comments. I congratulate Senators on what I believe was one of the most calm, focused and best debates I have ever heard in any House on this treaty or any other. That is in no sense a patronising comment. If there was ever a reason to retain a good and strong Seanad Éireann, it was reflected in the debate.

I will not have time to mention everybody but I will refer to Senator Burke's contribution. The word passerelle is the French for a bridge and the word is jargon in this treaty. There is, unfortunately, much jargon but we have to reflect that this is a Union with 27 different member states and 22 different working languages, including Gaeilge. We must occasionally genuflect in the direction of other languages.

The word is used in the treaty to mean when one moves from one position to the other. I am delighted the Senator raised the matter because in this case it refers to those arrangements where the Union would move from unanimity to qualified majority voting, QMV. This has been grotesquely misrepresented.

First and foremost, that would only happen in areas which are strictly circumscribed within the treaty. It would not happen in the areas that certain persons have suggested. For example, it will not happen with tax issues, defence or those areas where the treaty specifically subscribes to the protection of unanimity.

The Senator touched on an important point in the final part of his own contribution. There can only be a move from one state to another in this treaty, from unanimity to QMV, if every government in the 27 member states agrees, bar none. The European Council must unanimously agree and the European Parliament must also agree. It can only happen if none of the 27 member state national parliaments, many of which have two Chambers, disagrees. In the case of Ireland, it can only happen if Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann votes in favour of the change. Why anybody would pick this word, passerelle, to use as a scare tactic and shadow I do not know. I am grateful that the Senator raised the issue.

The contributions earlier today and yesterday were wonderful. I compliment Senator Alex White on his contribution. I do not understand, after 35 years of remarkable progress, how it is that people in Ireland conjure shadows about Europe.

The European Union, for its faults, warts and deficiencies, has given the Continent of Europe the longest period of peace, tranquility and progress in human history, not just recent history. How is it that any person with a sense of history could consciously destroy that? I do not understand the thinking. With regard to the Irish peace process, Europe gave us a space in which our politicians and political leaders North and South on this island could meet and discuss matters along with British counterparts.

Senator Alex White is right when he states the debate should focus on facts. It is very important we have a debate and it is very healthy for people to take opposite sides. If we take opposite sides we should do so on the basis of facts. There is a slogan arguing there are no politics, but facts. I would subscribe to the slogan if it were sincere. He also correctly points out that it is inaccurate to state that the arrangements on trade will somehow or other be changed by the Lisbon treaty. Such statements are false. The Lisbon treaty will not change the arrangements to which the Irish people signed up in 1973. The Senator is also correct in that it does not change any of the arrangements to which we have subscribed in the interim.

The Senator was also correct to point out that qualified majority voting, QMV, is a positive development. Ireland is the most striking example of the importance of QMV. The reason is that the Republic exports 80% of everything it produces. This is the case because in the late 1980s Irish citizens had the good sense to vote in favour of the Single European Act. Does anyone present recall the referendum relating to that Act? I do and I remember people arguing that it would be the death knell for Ireland's trade and the final nail in the coffin as regards our neutrality. It seems that each treaty represents the final nail in that coffin.

People have a right to take a different view on these matters. However, I recall — because of the sense of history I felt at the time — travelling to the Border on 31 December 1992 and watching it being dismantled. It was one of those amazing occasions: a crystal clear, frosty night on which a border was being removed. The latter was happening because the people, contrary to advice they received from those who are again advising them to vote "No", had the courage to vote "Yes".

Why does a small country such as Ireland possess one of the most successful economies in the world? Why is it capable of attracting foreign direct investment? The answer lies in the fact that we voted "Yes" and signed up to the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. It is also due to the fact, as Senator Alex White stated, that Ireland, even though it is small, is not afraid to fight its cause. It is not the number of votes one obtains in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty that wins the day, it is the strength of one's convictions and the quality of one's arguments.

I started out in my working life as a civil servant some 35 years ago. At that time, I attended my first European meetings and I recall the mystique of it all. I have lectured in public administration and European affairs for 22 years and I have never come across a single instance — I challenge people to cite one — where the big countries conspired to do damage to their smaller counterparts. Quite the opposite is the case. If anything, they have been frustrated by the smaller countries fighting their corner.

The slogan "Vote No for a better Yes" is just that, a slogan. More than that, it is a hollow slogan without any truth, focus or reality. The treaty represents the work of almost ten years. Some 205 men and women drawn from all of the parliaments, institutions and governments of the European Union spent the better part of two years producing this treaty. It is the most democratically produced treaty we have ever seen. I accept that it is complex. I do not subscribe to the view expressed by one businessman that treaties should be similar to Ladybird books in order that seven year olds might read them. People would not expect that to be the case in respect of a serious contract and neither should they expect it in a treaty which binds together 27 member states.

There is no possibility of the small and medium-sized countries negotiating a better deal. I do not agree with Senator Doherty, who made a fine contribution, but I compliment him on the way in which he put his arguments. I had the great honour to be part of the Convention on the Future of Europe. Ireland was well served at the presidium by Mr. John Bruton, by Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, who played a sterling game at the section of the convention that dealt with social Europe, and by Deputies Carey and Gormley, who put in many long hours of work. I led the group, which was an honour, which was supported by Mr. Bobby McDonagh and various officials.

Ireland was at the core of a group of small countries called the Friends of the Community Method. A book was written on this issue and I recommend it to Senator Doherty, who is an open-minded man. We fought hard to have particular issues dealt with in the treaty and we won great victories. We won the right to ensure that the treaty refers to equality and that a two-tier Commission would not be created. The latter was a major victory because the larger states were of the view that they would have permanent commissioners and that their smaller counterparts would be obliged to make do with having junior ministers of some form. As someone who has served in Cabinet and been a Minister of State, I can say that the more senior position is the one everyone wants to occupy.

It is disingenuous to suggest that it would be easy to renegotiate the treaty. As already stated, the treaty was largely the product of the Convention on the Future of Europe. The biro marks on it are Irish. More than ever, we had, by good fortune, the opportunity to make a real mark. We led the Friends of the Community Method, protected the idea of equality in the Commission, we ensured that there was a more coherent voting system put in place and we fought the cause of smaller countries and won. In the final days, virtually all the amendments put to the Convention on the Future of Europe and carried were penned in Ireland. Those are the facts; that is the history. The veracity of said history is capable of being checked. France and the Netherlands rejected that draft of the treaty and a further intergovernmental conference, IGC, was held. However, 95% of the material put forward by the Convention on the Future of Europe — all of it good — was eventually retained.

We should not delude ourselves. It is easy to make a slogan. Those who put forward the slogan "Vote No for a better Yes" should indicate what they mean by a "better Yes". This treaty is plan B and there is certainly no plan C.

I am sorry I missed Senator Mullen's contribution. The Senator referred to two main issues, namely, abortion and the charter. I understand the sincerity with which he raised the issue of abortion. I fully respect his views, which are not that far from my own. Everybody knows that I am strongly pro life. I accept, however, that the beliefs of others are different to mine. Under the treaty, we will retain our protocol on abortion and the protection we placed in the Constitution at Article 40.3.3°. I wish to give credit to someone who is not a Member of the House, namely, Mary Lou McDonald, MEP, who on a number of occasions courageously stated that this matter is not an issue in the debate.

The charter is not a reason to be fearful. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, to which the treaty will give effect, was drafted by the convention. It represents bringing together those values of which everyone in Europe is proud. I refer for example to the protection of human life, democracy, the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities and the right to work. I cannot understand how anyone could perceive the charter as diminishing our position. The opposite is the case because under its provisions member states will be protected against the institutions exceeding their mandate. The charter is an additional statement of rights. An important point made at congress last year was that the trade union would be obliged to support the treaty if the charter was included. The latter has happened and the charter will have the force of law.

Senator Ross referred to tax harmonisation. I apologise if I misrepresent his views but I was not present for his contribution. When he came before the House, the President of the European Parliament, Professor Pöttering, made the point that the treaty contains no changes in respect of taxation. He was telling the truth. A week later, at the National Forum on Europe, the President of the European Commission made the same point. On Monday last, I read newspaper reports to the effect that Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill, who chairs the Referendum Commission — which we have appointed, which is completely independent and which, among other things, is attempting to get at the truth — had also made statements to this effect. More to the point, the treaty makes it clear that there is no change in respect of taxation. I was not present to hear Senator Ross's point but it seems the President of the European Parliament, the President of the European Commission and the chairperson of our independent Referendum Commission are making the same point on the treaty. We should start believing them. If we have any doubts, we should believe our own eyes.

An attempt is being made by one group to suggest that this change could happen under Article 113. I was listening to a debate recently and it was claimed that three new sinister words were being added to an obscure article in the treaty. I looked up the article and tried to point out on the radio that people should read the first five words of the same article which state that "The Council shall, acting unanimously...". That was dismissed because it was said that words do not matter, but of course they do. The treaty says what it says.

The World Trade Organisation featured a lot in the discussions and I would like to make a few points about it. First, the WTO has absolutely nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. Second, the discussions on the WTO are taking place under treaties that we signed up to in 1973. Therefore there is no change whatsoever in the legal position in Europe made by this treaty. There is certainly no honest connection between this treaty and Commissioner Mandelson or the WTO talks. On the basis of everything we are reading, the basis of a WTO agreement is not in place. In a sense therefore, we are flogging ourselves over something that may not happen. The various countries are just too far apart. If anything, in recent weeks they have grown further apart. We know there was supposed to be a WTO ministerial meeting in May but they are now talking about it being in June. I wish that meeting was held sooner rather than later because we could get it out of the way. I have no doubts whatsoever that the basis of an agreement is not in place.

Candidates in the US presidential election campaign have made it abundantly clear that they do not accept what is being said. The WTO is a group of 151 countries, of which we are one. Ireland's voice is amplified because as members of the European Union, we are not in the debate on our own. The agricultural sector's leadership should recognise that. Earlier this year the IFA president made a courageous statement pointing out that we must be in Europe to be in a position to build alliances. That is why he was advocating a "Yes" vote.

We have strong allies in this debate. For example, President Sarkozy of France wrote to the President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso indicating his concerns about the balance. We also had the recent intervention by Chancellor Merkel who superficially mentioned her concerns. Mr. Barroso was in this country and heard Irish concerns at first hand, which were amplified ten thousand times in the streets.

Does anyone engaged in this debate seriously believe that if we were to vote "No" on 12 June we would be in a better position to build alliances, win allies to our cause and defend agriculture? It defies logic that we would go to a group of countries that have been good and supportive to us — it has been two-way traffic because we have been good to Europe too — and give them all a collective slap in the face, saying that out of some sense of hubris we will not allow them to have what they want, and then expect them to be our friends the next day? That is illogical. I hope and pray that people will be able to make the difference between the two positions. Why should anyone stand with us when we stand against them? We must face that fundamental question. Twenty-seven sovereign governments want this treaty because they want Europe to be more efficient, effective and democratic. They also want Europe to be in a position to cope with all the challenges on the international stage. If we destroy that and frustrate those requests, how will we build the necessary alliances? My answer is that we simply cannot do so.

Senator Norris, who is always colourful, began by talking about the theatricality of the French presidency. I had to say to him yesterday that he probably knows more about theatricality than any other Member of the House, but I take his point. He referred at length to an article in The Irish Times written by Susan George, although he did not refer to the response. Susan George made the point that the treaty contained 25 references to competition and 63 references to the market. I do not want to be accused of being exceptionally pedantic, but the treaty contains only seven references to competition, so there was a slight exaggeration in her research. There are fewer than 30 references to the market, including agricultural markets. It may be a petty point but it highlights the fact that if a person wants their research to be taken seriously, it must be undertaken seriously.

Ms George also mentioned that the treaty is too complex, which is a point that has been made in this House and elsewhere, including on the RTE 9 o'clock television news last Sunday week. Of course, the treaty is a detailed and complex document. It represents the aspirations and concerns of 27 different member states which have a series of different legal systems. It is, however, no more complex than any of the previous treaties. It is certainly no more complex than, for example, a major contract, our welfare code or the taxation code. To suggest that because a treaty is complex it should be destroyed, and to suggest further that it should be re-written like a Ladybird book, is not a real basis for voting "No". When people say, "If you don't know, vote no", my argument is that if people do not know, they should ask.

The point was also made about the amount of information that is being made available. The information booklet is now going through every door, although earlier on there was an argument over an attempt to stop it legally. It will not challenge anyone to read it. In its new form the booklet has 24 pages in English and 24 pages in Irish, setting out clearly and objectively what the treaty is about. We also have a reform treaty website on www.reformtreaty.ie. We also have a website on which one can ask any specific question on www.dfa.ie. In addition, we have a lo-call number. I have looked at the number of website hits and the number of requests which are very high. I am grateful that is the case.

As Senator Alex White indicated, we also have a wonderful document, the consolidated treaty, produced by the Institute for European Affairs. A copy of that has gone into every library. It would cost tens of millions to send a copy to every household, but I am not sure that would be a prudent or efficient use of public funds. It can, however, be downloaded free on the website www.reformtreaty.ie. If anyone calls the lo-call number or sends a text, we will send them a copy of the consolidated treaty free. Copies of the treaty itself are freely available, so it is not true to suggest there is a conspiracy to keep information away from people. The worst thing a Government could do is to put a copy of the treaty in a brown envelope and send it out to everyone. That would be a disingenuous way of dealing with it. The Government’s responsibility is to explain the matter. The political parties and IBEC are doing a superb job in providing information. There is no shortage of information.

In addition to a lengthy representation of Susan George's views, Senator Norris also dealt with the issue of the European Defence Agency. There is absolutely nothing sinister about that agency. I would like to be in a world where there were no guns, armies or wars. It would be a wonderful world to live in, but the reality is that there is a potential for great evil. We saw it several times in the last century with war, destruction and the Holocaust unfolding. We have also seen it in this century. Our great troops are out in Chad at the moment trying to deal with an arrangement that goes back generations. A wonderful book has just been published on it, which I am in the process of reading. It is extraordinary how the people have suffered rapine, slaughter and starvation at the hands of governments, as well as the predatory activity of warlords. It is good that we are in a position to send young men and women there to help those people. It is a humanitarian and Christian thing to do. However, if we are sending our men and women out there, we must ensure they have the best equipment and that if they are in one part of that troubled country they can talk to their counterparts from other armies who are also there for humanitarian purposes. The point of the EDA, which was established during the Irish Presidency, is to support the member states and the Council in efforts to improve defence capabilities in the field of crisis management and to sustain the ESDP as it develops into the future. It is not a sinister agency. It is intended to ensure that where money must be spent on armaments, it is spent prudently. It is an entirely voluntary agency. No state must join it and states can leave it if they wish.

I mentioned the issue of corporate taxation. I wish to make a final point without being too pedantic and detailed. The arguments that have been put forward by one of the recently formed ad hoc groups outside the Houses suggested that there was a back door system of dealing with corporation tax. That argument is false.

I thank the Senators who participated in the debate. It was one of the most enlightened debates I have heard in any forum on this issue. I particularly thank the new Senators who clearly put a huge amount of time and effort into preparing for the debate. I also thank the Opposition parties and those who take a different view from mine. I believe in democratic debate; it would be a monologue, not a debate, if we heard just one side of the argument. The debates in the Houses demonstrated huge support for the Bill. The extent of our engagement in the European Union is also a feature of the debate. Incidentally, I should point out to Senator Doherty that I insisted the maximum amount of time was made available in the other House. It was the longest debate we will have——

Senator Pearse Doherty

The debate and the amendments were guillotined.

Deputy Dick Roche

——in either House.

Senator Pearse Doherty

On a point of order, will the Minister of State tell the Seanad if the debate on Committee Stage was guillotined in the Dáil? My party representatives were not allowed to debate the amendments. Members have spoken about lies being told by those for and against the treaty. Will the Minister of State clarify if the debate was guillotined?

Deputy Dick Roche

I am glad Senator Doherty asked the question because I provoked it. The Senator should check the record of the debate, particularly the debate on Committee Stage. One of the Senator's party colleagues took more time than any other Member to repeat the same things time and again in a classic filibuster. To suggest that the debate was somehow truncated when 24 hours were allocated——

Senator Pearse Doherty

Was it guillotined?

Deputy Dick Roche

I have said it was, after one of the Senator's party colleagues decided to continue to talk through——

Senator Pearse Doherty

There have been five weeks of statements in this House and not one person on the "No" side was able to participate.

Deputy Dick Roche

I did not interrupt the Senator. He asked a question and it is common courtesy to allow a person to reply to a question. I respect the Senator's right to ask a question; he should respect my right to reply to it. I wished to make the point, not to be aggressive or to increase the Senator's blood pressure, that there has been a lengthy debate. In both Houses, too, we have seen a huge demonstration of support for the treaty.

The debate also demonstrated that the Union has brought great benefits to Ireland. The reform treaty will continue that. Yesterday in the Czech Senate we discussed this treaty. The one thing the Senators were interested in was how to emulate Ireland. How can anybody say this country has not gained immeasurably from participation in Europe? How can anybody who has opposed joining the Union, the Single European Act, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Maastricht Treaty, the Nice Treaty twice and now opposes the Lisbon treaty suggest that they are pro-Europe? The Bill will be debated on Committee Stage and then the people will have their say.

The reform treaty has simple objectives even though it is a complex document. It will make the European Union more effective than ever and more efficient in conducting its business. It will make it more democratic, as Members of the House have attested, by expanding the amount of democracy in the Union. It will give the Union, for the first time, a clear and coherent voice on the world stage. Whatever our differences in this House or in this debate, we would all agree that the values of Europe are values that should be expressed on the world stage. The values of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, the rights of minorities and workers' rights, which are central to the European project, should have a coherent voice on that stage. There has been one loud voice on the world stage for the past few years and other loud voices are beginning to be heard, but they do not espouse any of the causes we espouse in Europe.

The treaty will ensure equality of treatment between the member states. Equality is written into the treaty in a way it was never written into previous treaties. The treaty also offers a clearer explanation of the distribution of powers between the Union and the member states. Most importantly for those who are nervous about moving forward — there is always reason to be nervous about that — this treaty ensures that the vital national interests of each member state are recognised. It ticks all the boxes in that regard.

We will continue to bring the message to the people, and I am grateful to the Opposition parties for their support. The treaty is about making Europe and, by extension, Ireland more efficient and effective and more capable of dealing with the challenges in the world. It is about Ireland's position in the world — a confident, outward-looking, focused Ireland. It is the type of Ireland Senator Alex White spoke about in his fine speech. We are a confident people, we have made a mark and we are capable of defending our rights, as we have shown over 35 years.

We should focus on our sovereignty. Until we joined the European Union, the only sovereign right we had was to export our sons and daughters and to live in a country that was continuously under the shadow of a near neighbour who was not always benign to us. Our exports went to that country. When we joined Europe we liberated ourselves as a nation and when we broke the link with sterling we learned to stand on our own feet. We have shown, under different Administrations led by different political leaders, a capacity to use Europe for our benefit as well as for the benefit of the 500 million other citizens of the Continent.

I commend the Bill and I am grateful to the House for a wonderful debate.

Cuireadh an cheist: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

Question put: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Senators

Vótáil.

An Cathaoirleach

Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?

Senators Pearse Doherty and David Norris rose.

An Cathaoirleach

As fewer that five Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Orders the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.

Question declared carried.

Sitting suspended at 2.10 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.