Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 2008

Vol. 192 No. 14

Report of Sub-Committee on Ireland’s Future in the EU: Statements.

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

I apologise for not having copies of my script to distribute. I wanted to wait until the Dáil debate was well under way so I could make the script as up to date as possible. I wanted to give the House the opportunity to consider the circumstances as they obtained at lunchtime following discussions and the bilateral meetings that took place. I was at my last bilateral meeting this morning.

Our work this week is very important because we are approaching the meeting of the European Council on Thursday. Against this background, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the Seanad on the recently completed report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. I want to give the House a completely up-to-date understanding of where we stand as we approach the European Council meeting. I do not often agree with the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Kenny, but I believe what he said in the Dáil an hour ago was profoundly true. He was absolutely correct in stating we have reached a pivotal point in the relationship between Ireland and the European Union. We need to give considerable thought to where this leaves us. Deputy Kenny was also correct in reflecting the Taoiseach's view that the period ahead is critical to the nation's welfare. We have a choice to be at the heart of the European Union or at the periphery. I firmly believe the heart is where we will thrive. If we consign ourselves to being on the sidelines, either in reality or in the perception of others, we will suffer in a profound way. It is time we teased out this issue and discussed and understood what it means.

It is against this background that we must consider the work of the sub-committee, which has done absolutely sterling work. Its Chairman, Senator Pascal Donohoe, its Vice Chairman, Deputy Timmy Dooley, the members from both Houses and the many witnesses, amounting to more than 100, have worked extremely hard and carefully to produce a very important report to a very demanding deadline. As I stated in private to Senator Donohoe, my personal admiration for his work and the way the committee conducted itself is very high. The nature of the sub-committee's work, the dedication of its members and the iron fist adopted by the Chairman certainly confounded many cynics who did not have the highest expectation for the sub-committee. It is appropriate that this be put on the record, irrespective of whether one is on the "Yes" or "No" side.

The report arises from the referendum result of 12 June. Following the vote, the Taoiseach explained to his European Council colleagues that Ireland would need time to seek to understand the concerns underlying the vote. We took a twin-track approach in our analysis of the referendum result. First, we set in train the Millward Brown study, with which we are all familiar, to examine the reasons for the vote. We went to great lengths to ensure the results were made available widely.

I attended the meeting to commemorate the 35th anniversary of Eurobarometer ten days ago in Paris and noted people's extraordinary admiration for the report. It is regarded as one of the best reports on public attitudes to the European Union. It is not just a report on how Ireland feels about Europe but a report on how the Union relates to its citizens in the wider sense.

In the main, the survey findings tended to confirm what many of us probably felt underlay the vote, particularly the lack of understanding. There were some surprising elements, specifically the wider misapprehension about conscription. This began to emerge in the feedback from canvassers in the very final days of the campaign. I still believe very few of us calculated it would have such an impact.

Survey data and statistical analysis are important tools. As the Taoiseach stated in the Dáil, however, the Oireachtas itself is the natural forum in which to conduct a national conversation on Ireland's future in the European Union. This challenge demanded the creation of a new forum within the Oireachtas, which was to meet in parallel with other committees. The agreement to set up an all-party committee reaching beyond party allegiance by including Independents to examine the issues that played a role in determining the referendum result was inspired. Both Houses agreed that the sub-committee was to carry out its work under four broad headings, namely, to analyse the challenges facing Ireland in the European Union; to consider Ireland's future in the European Union; to make recommendations to enhance the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in EU affairs; and to consider measures to improve public understanding.

The work of the sub-committee, from its establishment right through to its vote on the final report, was carried out in as inclusive a manner as possible. It is important to recognise that. I was appalled by some of the mean-spirited, mean-minded and untruthful comments I just heard in the other House about people being excluded because of this process. I did not witness any such exclusion having watched the committee work on the report on most of the days it sat. It was a model of its kind. All the parties in the Oireachtas were represented, including those who campaigned against the treaty. Witnesses represented a very broad swathe of public opinion and represented both sides of the debate, as it should be. The sub-committee focused on hearing from witnesses who had particular knowledge of and expertise in European affairs, and this elevated its work. I was sorry, given the sub-committee's inclusiveness, that it was not possible for all its members to agree on the final report. However, we suspected this might be the case from the outset.

As Members of this House know, the sub-committee was not mandated to recommend a solution in the wake of the referendum, nor did it do so. However, its work has really helped to condense the views that obtained and to focus on the areas to which we need to attend. That the sub-committee managed to report within an extraordinary timeframe was remarkable. It is a remarkable tribute to its Chairman, members and secretariat.

The report contains a finding similar to one in the survey reports, namely, that Ireland's place is at the heart of Europe and that we should be contributing positively and deploying our influence carefully to promote our national interests. The report recognises that Ireland's ability to contribute positively and defend its interests has been, at the least, impaired. Moreover, it recognises that very real, long-term damage to our interests will be done if we fail to address the present crisis in the near future. An important finding of the report is that damage done has been much more systemic than specific. While certain individual cases can be identified, the wholesale shift in the perception of Ireland is far more important in the longer term and far more damaging.

Since the sub-committee commenced its work, I had at least one bilateral meeting with every member state. During the course of those meetings, I took time to meet members of civil society, academics and media representatives, as I did this morning in Riga. It was extraordinary to note how the perception of Ireland is beginning to change. This is a very damaging trend. I am noting this because it is something we need to address. Rightly or wrongly, our partners abroad, whether they are on the investment boards of multinationals deciding where to invest in Europe, or foreign governments assessing how influential their friends are within the Union, perceive a change in our attitude. This is dangerous and comes with a cost. The sliding perception is not cost free. The sub-committee's recommendations about our domestic approach make interesting reading. An Oireachtas sub-committee is uniquely positioned to analyse and comment on domestic practices and procedures.

Many of the sub-committee's suggestions on the way we do our business in Ireland have important consequences for both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a matter for both Houses of the Oireachtas to respond, and I hope the response will be positive. There is a clear sense running through the report that we need to reconsider the manner in which the Houses engage in Ireland's EU business. Those words were a joy to my heart because that is a view I have held for a long time. We must drag our considerations of Europe into the light of public scrutiny so that the people can understand what is happening and see that their interests are being looked after.

Ultimately, it will be a matter for the Houses to decide on how to proceed, but I can assure Members of the Seanad that the Government's approach in this matter will be one of an open mind. My personal approach will be one of enthusiastic support. The Minister for Foreign Affairs rightly described the report as the most sustained exploration of the issues surrounding our membership since we first joined the EEC 35 years ago.

I want to turn now to solutions and talk about where we find ourselves. Taken together, the independent research and the sub-committee's report provide a very comprehensive overview and analysis of where we stand. A lack of understanding and comprehension of the most important of the issues that come forward needs to be addressed. I was startled at the suggestion in the other House earlier today that we are engaged in some form of token exercise in either this debate or this report, or indeed in the Government's assessment of the current situation or the response we shall carry before the European Council next Thursday and Friday. That assessment, analysis or assertion is, of course, simply that, an assertion not based on any proof or objective truthful analysis. I suppose that approach is to be expected, particularly from Sinn Féin, but it is sad that people have closed minds on an issue that is so central to Ireland's importance. Those making the charges ignore the reality that the Lisbon treaty represents a very finely balanced outcome on retracted negotiations. It represents an outcome in which individual member states gave and took and in which there was a balance where people surrendered positions in order to move ahead.

I need to emphasise to the Seanad, however, that we have a serious challenge ahead of us in the coming days. The outcome of this week's summit remains uncertain. Some partners have made it clear to us that they have serious concerns. They point out to us that all member states made concessions and we had indicated we could reach agreement on the treaty, and that is true. Some gave a little and some gave much, making deeper concessions in the interests of reaching agreement, and that is also true. Therefore, where we do we stand today?

As I hope this House will understand, even at this late stage, mere days before the European Council, it is not possible for me to describe in detail the shape of the agreement that might be reached at the end of the week. However, the House is entitled to an honest assessment of where we are. The Taoiseach made our position clear after his meeting on Friday last with President Sarkozy. On the steps of the Élysée, he said, "Our first duty is the people of Ireland, and we intend discharging that duty conscientiously by allaying the concerns that we have identified."

The sub-committee has helped us to identify those concerns. We accept also that Ireland has an obligation. Solidarity has been shown to Ireland in the past, and solidarity in the EU is a 27-way, not a one-way street. The Government is seeking legally reinforced guarantees in the area of sovereignty, taxation, social and ethical issues and defence as well as on the issue of a Commissioner per member state. We have made it clear to our social partners that the concerns in these areas have been expressed and that we shall have to address them in a manner that meets the concerns of Irish voters and is legally robust and sufficiently strong to meet any legal challenge. Having a series of legally binding agreements that are Ireland-specific should not cause other member states which have been through the ratification process any real concern if there is a willingness and goodwill to meet us more than half way. We recognise that some member states are reluctant to concede to the Government's demand that every state should retain the right to appoint a Commissioner permanently. However, this is a key issue. The Taoiseach has made it clear that while we respect the views of others, this is an issue which this country sees as central, and one that we will be pressing.

Following a very intensive round of discussions, we believe this is an area where agreement can be achieved. Increasingly, the logic of our position has been put forcefully, and I believe it has been recognised. However, the Seanad is entitled to know that there are still member states that do not share our views, and so the work of converting them will continue right through the week up to Friday. The Lisbon treaty provides a mechanism to achieve this. What is necessary is a means of triggering the Lisbon mechanism when the treaty is ratified by all 27 member states, to continue the position whereby every member state will have the right to nominate a Commission member. The Lisbon mechanism, of course, can be operational only if the 27 member states ratify the treaty. One of the great ironies of the "No" vote on 12 June is that by rejecting the Lisbon treaty we locked the European Union into the Nice treaty process, which provides for a Commission of fewer than 27 Commissioners next year, a position that can be reversed only if Lisbon is ratified.

In the Dáil today there was talk of another referendum. We all recognise the constitutional realities that bind us in this matter. However, it is too early to talk about a date for a new referendum. The primary aim of the Government must be to ensure the concerns of the Irish people, as reflected in this report and in the result of 12 June, can be addressed. The Government can revisit the ratification process only if that happens. This is the appropriate and logical order in which to deal with the current impasse.

The Taoiseach has pointed out that we are in a work-in-progress phase at the moment — no decisions have been finally taken, as yet. We can commit to ratification of Lisbon only if the concerns of the Irish people are met by means of a legally robust set of mechanisms, and when the issue of the Commission is resolved. It is likely to take months of very detailed discussions to reach that point, after we reach the conclusions on Friday. The time for deciding on our ratification process is when the EU 26 and Ireland have agreed on a legally robust mechanism that meets the concerns of those who voted "No" in the last referendum.

The French Presidency view about the period ahead is worth noting. At the end of Friday's meeting in the Élysée, the French Presidency spokesperson summed up the position, and said:

We respect the choice of the Irish and the wish of the 26 other member states to see the Lisbon treaty enter into force. We are looking for a path between the two that satisfies everybody. We believe that it is possible to provide responses to the concerns expressed by the Irish, and we are looking for the right wording.

It is appropriate to put on record that the French Presidency has worked extraordinarily well with us to seek a solution to the current impasse. The French are sympathetic and have put all the might of the Presidency behind our efforts. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have engaged in intensive consultations with fellow members. In our discussions, we have sought to tread a delicate path between ensuring the concerns of the Irish people can be responded to, while not creating difficulties for others. This week will be a real test of the Union's capacity to accommodate the needs of all member states. I remain hopeful — I am always an optimist — that the Union will pass the test and that we will find the path, although it is a very difficult path to define. It has to be defined, respecting the different views that exist within the Union. It will not be easy to secure agreement among our 26 partners on the final shape of any deal, but the Government is firmly committed to finding a way forward that meets everybody's needs. All that said, I have been encouraged by the determination and commitment of others, in particular President Sarkozy and the French Presidency in helping us to find a way forward. There is a real desire on all sides to reach agreement this week and we shall do everything possible to achieve and deliver that ambition.

The report we are considering has helped to shape the response of Government and I believe it will help Ireland and her 26 partners to craft a solution to the current impasse that commends itself, not just to the European Council, but more importantly to the council that counts, the Irish people.

Senator Maurice Cummins

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. The report of the Oireachtas Joint Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union is to be welcomed as it comes at two critical junctures for the European Union. First, it occurs as all 27 member states decide on the Lisbon treaty, a document that is intended to update and reform the workings of the Union and bring Europe closer to its citizens. Second, from an Irish perspective, it comes at a time when Ireland faces fundamental questions about its position in Europe.

This year's referendum on Lisbon showed an Ireland that is struggling to define itself and its relationship with the European Union. That struggle is predictable. All relationships face moments of redefinition, questions about whether to commit to a relationship or walk away from it, questions about what happens when the basis of the relationship changes and when old certainties disappear and are faced by new challenges.

Until now, Ireland's role in the European Union has been one where our contributions — financial, economic and cultural — were less than the benefits. However, the growth of a new Ireland, with new links and identities, has changed how we view ourselves and our relationships. Now that we are moving from being a net beneficiary to a net contributor, we have begun to ask fundamental questions about the relationship, what we want from it, what we expect it to deliver and what costs we are willing to endure. Perhaps the Lisbon campaign, and what it revealed, is our coming of age.

Our party leader, Deputy Enda Kenny, summed this up last month in a speech about Fine Gael's view on Ireland's relationship with Europe, when he spoke of the "disconnect" that now marks Ireland's relationship with Europe. He said: "This disconnect, which runs deeper than the Lisbon treaty itself, is a major challenge for both the European Union and the national political system." This disconnect is perhaps the most important feature revealed by the Lisbon referendum. It reflects an Ireland where Europe is no longer the paymaster, where it can no longer be told "Vote yes and get £8 billion." We are moving from a relationship where we simply gained to one where we have responsibilities as well.

Politicians and people in Europe often presumed ordinary people in Ireland and elsewhere understood Europe, its goals, institutions and structures. What the referendum has shown is that the basic knowledge we all presumed was widespread does not exist, showing, as Brendan Halligan told the sub-committee, "We had not an information deficit, but a comprehension deficit." This comprehension deficit in turn has demonstrated a disconnect that, if not faced up to, could become something more tragic, an alienation that would fuel Euroscepticism. Eurosceptics have been shown to be some of the most cynical and dishonest campaigners of all, willing to tell any lie, spin any mistruth, misquote any fact, doctor any document or push any falsehood to further their agenda. They do not care what hurt they cause our country or its interests. Their agenda takes precedence over everything, particularly the truth.

Fine Gael believes the people have a right to the truth. In Deputy Enda Kenny's words, "We must persuade people that a reformed, democratic and efficient Europe is essential if we are to successfully meet the massive economic and political challenges we face, like the growth of the emerging economies, climate change, energy security and third world development."

As proposed in the committee report, we want to see an increased role in the scrutiny of EU legislation for the Oireachtas. The European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002, as amended, could be further amended so as to permit a much wider range of measures to be subject to legislative scrutiny. Fine Gael suggests the scrutiny committee should have the power to require a Minister to attend before it prior to attending European Council meetings at which legislative proposals will be discussed, issue a recommendation to the Minister on foot of those proposals and seek a report from the Minister on the outcome of such discussions within a stated time. We believe this would be a crucial reform that would provide greater information for Oireachtas Members, the media and the public as a whole.

We also want to see the creation of an EU citizens' officer for Ireland, who should in part fulfil the sort of role exercised in financial affairs in the State by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The functions of this office would be to provide a legal analysis of EU regulations and directives produced after the taking up of office, and for these analyses to be made publicly available; to publish an annual report on such legislation as well as the status of its transposition by the Government into Irish law; to provide services for the Irish public with regard to information on existing EU laws and institutions and to provide a feedback system for channelling difficulties emanating from EU laws for individual citizens; to make recommendations to the Government on all aspects of EU legislative development; and to compare the implementation in Ireland of EU laws with the implementation of such laws in other member states and make recommendations to the Government on the implementation processes and models, to include a look-back remit.

The desire of the Irish people for a guaranteed Commissioner must be facilitated and the Government must use its good offices to secure this. We oppose the Government's opt-out from parts of the justice and home affairs areas as it limits our ability to use European links to fight crime.

Detailed clarifications, known as "decisions", must be provided to reassure Irish people of the meaning of the treaty in areas such as taxation, neutrality, conscription and abortion. Voters expressed real fears about those areas. Those views were misplaced, but given that they were expressed they must be explored and answered.

In the long term, rather than continue with the same type of haphazard debates as we have currently over whether a constitutional amendment is needed in regard to the treaty, all treaties should be reviewed by the Supreme Court under a new procedure to see if they are constitutional. If anything in the treaty is not compatible with the Constitution and requires a referendum, the entire treaty should be put to the people. This would mean that instead of the current chaotic debates over whether some or other part of a treaty is constitutional, we would have a definitive ruling. However, this procedure should be initiated for later treaties, not the Lisbon treaty. It would be wrong to change the current procedure for this treaty.

I have mentioned the problems that have come to light with regard to the treaty, namely, our coming of age in the relationship with Europe, the disconnect felt by people and the comprehension deficit and I have put forward the proposals suggested by Fine Gael to correct those problems. I congratulate the committee on its work. It did a valuable service in providing people with a detailed source of information.

I must express some criticism of the lack of media coverage. Judging by the media coverage, one would think the only people to appear before the committee were Declan Ganley and Cóir. However, a large number of people appeared, academics, former diplomats, authors, journalists, former politicians, "No" campaigners, "Yes" campaigners and others. There was no lack of information, but unfortunately the major part of the committee's work was not covered.

I commend the Chairman of the sub-committee, my colleague Senator Paschal Donohoe, who faced a difficult task, yet proved exceptional. A decade ago, the late Jim Mitchell earned widespread praise for his work in chairing the Committee of Public Accounts. It is fitting that Jim's successor as Fine Gael candidate in Dublin Central, Senator Paschal Donohoe, has shown himself to have inherited Jim's abilities in the Chair. We owe him and the committee a debt of gratitude for their sterling work.

I have deliberately decided not to deal in detail with the conclusions of the committee as I believe the Chairman of the committee should be afforded that opportunity. I look forward to his contribution later in the debate. The main conclusion of the sub-committee has been the lack of and loss of influence with our EU colleagues. Moreover, in speaking of his visit to Riga, the Minister of State has verified this point. The question of influence and our lack thereof as a result of the referendum must be addressed. While I do not know when another referendum will be held on the Lisbon treaty, it cannot be done until the issues Members have raised have been addressed by the Government.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I also welcome the opportunity to discuss the report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. As a member of that sub-committee, I am delighted that both Houses of the Oireachtas are debating this excellent report. It is excellent because in the short time available to the sub-committee, it managed to interview, interrogate and enter into discussion and dialogue with a wide range of actors who have an interest in the question of Ireland's future in the European Union. This involved academics and experts in the areas of European law and general affairs, as well as activists, campaigners, representatives of non-governmental organisations and those who campaigned against the treaty or had strong views about Ireland's future role within the European Union from a perspective that differed from some of the rest of us. Consequently, it was a highly fruitful and productive sub-committee. I congratulate and commend its Chairman, Senator Paschal Donohoe, on the excellent job he did in what were at times highly trying circumstances, as members were obliged to do a great deal of work within a short time.

The sub-committee was established by the Government as part of the process that followed the rejection of the Lisbon treaty by the Irish people in June 2008. When this happened, it was important the Government should in the first instance respect the views of the people, which I believe it did. However, at a political level there was concern about the possible consequences of that decision. It is clear to those who were involved in the discussions at a European level that a possible consequence for Ireland is that over time, it may become either semi-detached or possibly even completely detached from the European Union unless it keeps pace with the political developments and reforms that are supported by the governments of the other member states and which are contained within the Lisbon treaty.

Following on from the Millward Brown survey, which began by investigating and highlighting what were the issues of concern among samples of the public, the role of the sub-committee was broadened. It was to consider Ireland's membership of, and future engagement with, the European Union. It was not to take anything for granted, as nothing can be taken for granted in respect of our future relationship with the European Union at present. The sub-committee also examined the current challenges facing Ireland and specifically considered the potential role both Houses of the Oireachtas could play in raising awareness of European issues as well as increasing the levels of information and knowledge among parliamentarians and the public on EU matters. The sub-committee's brief also was to investigate what might constitute measures that would improve public understanding of the European Union, its institutions and how it functions.

As a member of the sub-committee, one issue that struck me most forcefully was that of Ireland's influence. Many of those who appeared before the sub-committee spoke of how Ireland's influence within the European Union's institutions had been quite considerable, given its size, over the years. Although Ireland had managed to operate highly effectively within the institutions, such influence has dimmed considerably since our vote because other member states obviously have interpreted the Irish vote rejecting the Lisbon treaty as a vote that somehow rejected the issue of deeper European integration as well as the necessary reforms the other member states perceive to be within the Lisbon treaty.

Another important issue was that of perception. A number of representatives of multinationals and the general business community appeared before the sub-committee and spoke of the perception among international investors that Ireland was not at the heart of Europe and that our decision somehow has raised questions whether we are a core member of the Union in the minds of those who might invest or consider investing in Ireland in the future, as well as the importance of such a perception in the context of any decision to bring foreign direct investment to Ireland.

The issue of the European Union's ongoing development also was raised and many important tasks lie ahead of it. From an internal point of view, one pertains to the issue of the social market economy that is described in the Lisbon treaty and which the European Union clearly has set out as the kind of model of economic development it intends to pursue and promote. All Members are aware there are many concerns at present, especially internationally, about the state of the global and European economies. While the concept of a social market economy certainly was important before the vote on the Lisbon treaty, it has become all the more important because it is clear to Irish people that the Irish economy is quite vulnerable. The European economy certainly faces many challenges and we must develop a model of economic progress that incorporates both the possibilities for new forms of economic growth and social protections in order that the workers and people of Europe will believe their membership of the European Union offers them something that will help them to prosper in an increasingly uncertain global economic environment.

Another issue pertained to the many benefits that have flowed to Ireland from the environmental and social legislation that has emerged from the European Union. In the workplace, Irish workers have benefited from the directives emanating from Europe on increased parental leave and protections for fixed-term and part-time workers, as well as the working time directive, which will set a maximum limit on the number of hours workers can work. All these measures are incredibly beneficial to Irish workers and the development of a social market economy obviously will consolidate and continue to develop such progressive social and employment policies.

There also was much mention of the possibilities for Ireland, within its membership of the European Union, to exercise global influence. The sub-committee discussed issues such as climate change, the challenges presented by the developing world, the provision of a fairer deal for developing world countries and the issue of human rights. Obviously, the European Union can play a part in trying to address many human rights issues worldwide. The sub-committee also discussed Ireland's particular and unique contribution to the peacekeeping efforts of the European Union and its necessity.

It was made clear to members that there is a strong reason Ireland must take its present and future membership of the European Union very seriously. The sub-committee made a number of recommendations which, to a large extent, pertained to how Ireland can Europeanise its own institutions, including both Houses of the Oireachtas, in order that the Seanad and the Dáil would become much more involved in promoting greater public awareness of European issues and legislation emanating from the European institutions. One of the more interesting suggestions made by the sub-committee was that a permanent EU information service should be established in Ireland. It was envisaged this would be an institution or organisation that would operate as an impartial and authoritative source of information on European issues and affairs and which would be seen to be independent. This would be an important step to take and the Government should consider it. Regardless of the future of the Lisbon treaty, if we wish to re-engage citizens fully in the European project, such a step would be essential.

The sub-committee's second recommendation pertained to how to provide Ireland's Parliament with greater oversight of the legislation that emanates from the European institutions. It recommended a formal scrutiny reserve system such as that which applies in the United Kingdom's Parliament. This would give the committees that specialise in European affairs in both Houses of the Oireachtas much greater control over new European legislation to which Ireland is signing up, particularly at ministerial level within the Council of Ministers.

We also looked at the role of the Seanad. I particularly liked the proposal from the sub-committee that we consider establishing a new panel involving five Senators who are appointed based on their expertise and experience in the area of European affairs. The Upper House certainly has the potential to make a considerable contribution to the levels of informed debate, both from the point of view of media and of raising public awareness of European issues.

We looked at the issue of Ireland's defence policy and the importance of protecting our neutrality. We also referred in one of our recommendations to the issue of the triple lock. While many people see the triple lock as an important safeguard to ensure that there is strict control by the Government and the Dáil, and a UN mandate, on any participation by the Defence Forces in an EU mission abroad, we sought to strengthen that safeguard further by introducing what is called a super majority in the Dáil. Rather than a simple majority, which the Government of the day could automatically expect to have, we felt it was important that two thirds of the Members of the Dáil and Seanad would support any decision for Irish troops to participate in European military or defence missions abroad, whether in peacekeeping or in any of the other forms of missions which can be included under the Petersberg Tasks. This would be an important safeguard to build in and one that the sub-committee recommended.

We also felt that the issues of taxation would be important and that the Government, in its negotiations with our European partners, would need to look for significant reassurances in this area so that those who were reluctant to support the Lisbon treaty on the basis of their concerns about future Irish control over the setting of our taxation rates, particularly corporation taxation rates, could be reassured.

Obviously, the issue of the Commissioner is important, as are the issues of defence and neutrality, but the last issue I want to touch on here is socio-ethical in nature. We all will be aware that there were some sensitive social issues which caused concern to people and they need reassurance about them. The issue within this area about which I am concerned is that of workers' rights. It is essential that the Government, in its negotiations with our European partners, makes clear that the kinds of reassurances and concessions being sought in the area of workers' rights will be achieved. We need to look at the fact that one of the main areas of concern of those who voted against the Lisbon treaty was the issue of workers' rights, that there was a widespread feeling that it would appear the fundamental market freedoms have begun to be privileged in European Court of Justice decisions over the rights of workers and that the interplay between legislation that exists at European level and national level often serves to undermine hard-won social protections, social legislation, wage agreements and agreements around working conditions at national level.

It is important that the posting of workers directive is looked at again by the European Commission because it is an incomplete directive. Some amendments must be made to it and the report produced by the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union has made clear recommendations about what needs to be done.

If the Government returns from its negotiations during the European Council Summit this week without having expressed that concern about the area of workers' right, there will be a serious glaring omission in terms of the kind of package we are looking for from our European partners to reassure those who voted against the Lisbon treaty in June of this year that they need have no such concerns and that they can support any re-run of the Lisbon treaty referendum in the future without those concerns affecting their willingness to do so. That is my hope. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that issue.

Senator David Norris

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, back to the Chamber where he was once so comfortable and happy as a member of our little group here. There is no point in re-running the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign and I do not think the Minister of State did that. Once or twice he wobbled a bit because his tenses got a little confused or because of the way in which he expressed himself. He seemed to state on one occasion "if" the Lisbon treaty is ratified, then once or twice he stated "when" the Lisbon treaty is ratified. He hovered between optimism and anxiety, as we all have done.

Anybody who is concerned with the future of this country must be concerned about our place at the centre of Europe. We have played a distinguished role over the years. It is remarkable that we have a woman at the head of the European bureaucracy in Brussels. We have had very significant Commissioners. We really punched above our weight in Europe and I have always welcomed that.

I have been increasingly anxious. Although I have supported ultimately all the treaties we signed, I have been concerned about the incremental militarisation of the Union and that is the point at which I stuck. That is why I came out and opposed the Lisbon treaty. I was one of the first, if not the first, in this House to do so. My voice did not carry very far, although I am glad to say that some of my colleagues, who hovered nervously on the brink to see if I would be demolished by friendly or other fire and who, when they found that I had survived, took a jump themselves, may have had more persuasive voices from different angles.

I will review a couple of the issues and then get down to neutrality. First, there is the question of abortion. I am sure this will raise its head again. There was in the past a rather sly manoeuvre whereby the Irish people were out-manoeuvred by those who, when it suited them, talked about democracy, and a secret protocol was inserted into a previous treaty. At this point I am not arguing the merits of abortion, one way or the other. I am just as pro-life as anyone. I resent the colonisation of language that is represented by the take-over of these kinds of phrases. I am very much pro-life and my record will show that. As a tutor in Trinity College approximately one girl per year came to me, probably because she thought I would not be judgmental — that meant about ten during the ten years I was tutor — and I gave them information about non-directive counselling agencies. Nine of them did not have an abortion; one of them did. I think if that information had not been available, they all would have had an abortion. Mine was very much a pro-life stance but it has been misinterpreted.

This is a very complex area and I do not intend to get into it, except to say this. I very much hope if some such protocol is written in that it does not narrow or seek to narrow the already quite narrow judgments of the Supreme Court. It is important that we do not seek further to constrict. I will leave it at that.

Then there is the question of the Commissioner. There have been statements recently that we would get our own Commissioner. Why, out of all the 27 countries, should Ireland be the one to get a Commissioner?

Senator Terry Leyden

Everyone gets one.

Senator David Norris

That will mean 27 of them.

Senator Terry Leyden

Yes.

Senator David Norris

The Commission will be quite big. That reverses all the arguments. They are now on their head, and that is fine, but if we were the only one, ours would be put in charge of the tea-making committee.

Then there is the matter of the tax regime. The international financial system is now very volatile. Certainly, I could not predict what would happen with regard to that particular protection but I would point to the views expressed by Dr. Antoin Murphy of Trinity College Dublin — I referred to them in this House some time ago — that inevitably we would have to face what he described as a kind of black hole in the Irish economy. I hope that the present regime can be sustained. I will leave it at that.

With regard to neutrality, I have been concerned for a long time about the European armaments group, which has now coyly been renamed the European defence association. I wrote, but at a fairly late stage, to the committee asking that this should be considered and giving some outline arguments about it. I am not sure that this matter was addressed in any great detail.

In that regard, people have questioned the participation of Mr. Declan Ganley. He is a person of whose illustrious reputation I was completely unaware until the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign, in which he certainly took a spectacular part. People wondered why he did so. My suspicions about the European armaments group were confirmed when Mr. Ganley got involved in the campaign. Why would someone with apparent connections to the American munitions industry seek to undermine the European Union's attempt to pass the Lisbon treaty? I believe there was a conflict of interest between the American munitions industry and the growth of a centralised munitions industry within the European Union which had the intention of manufacturing arms not only to equip our own forces but also to compete with the powerful military-industrial complex in the United States. For the first time, this group is being incorporated into the architecture of the EU. That is a step too far for me.

In the way it constantly changes its name and elements of its structure, the European armaments group reminds me of the AIDS virus. Our triple lock strategy plays the same role as the triple therapy. The disease remains but it is becoming chronic instead of fatal. It is a cancer at the heart of Europe.

I wish to refer to an excellent series of articles by Dr. Karen Devine, who is a post-doctoral fellow in Dublin City University. She outlined a history of neutrality dating back to Thucydides's account of the Peloponnesian war, which was not a very happy example from our point of view. The island of Melos declared neutrality between Athens and Sparta but the Athenians invaded and massacred the populace of the island. That is a primitive example but for the sake of honesty I have to record facts that are uncomfortable for my case. In 1408, a French king declared neutrality in the disputes between the various popes who sat in Avignon and elsewhere. This was followed in America in the neutrality Act of 1794.

While we have been interested in neutrality for a long time, ours has never been a principled neutrality. Mr. de Valera's neutrality was not at all principled. We all know that he would have sold out had he been given the Six Counties. It happened to be a wise choice but who knows whether it was deliberate given that his mind was opaque? However, the Irish people have a real commitment to neutrality and many of us were offended by the use of Shannon Airport not only for the transport of massive numbers of American troops, which the Government claimed was purely for monetary reasons, but also for the purpose of extraordinary rendition. Neutrality has been the most consistent reason given for voting against the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon treaties. I could stomach the earlier treaties but this one has gone too far, especially when I note the attempt to rebuff this argument by the distinguished Institute of European Affairs and Patrick Keatinge. I am amazed these people have the gall to claim that we bought the concept of common defence when it was first included in the Maastricht treaty in 1992. We raised the issue at the time but were told that our neutrality would not be compromised. Now we are told we have already signed up to common defence. That is what I mean by incremental militarism.

The best survey, the social and political attitudes survey, found that Irish people understand the term "neutrality" to mean non-involvement in wars, independence, impartiality, non-aggression, the primacy of the UN and UN peacekeeping and not supporting big powers. This is an active concept of neutrality.

Acting Chairman (Senator Kieran Phelan)

Senator Norris has one minute remaining.

Senator David Norris

I hope it will be an expansive minute.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

So do we.

Senator David Norris

Fianna Fáil decided to be neutral in the Falklands war in order to get up Margaret Thatcher's nose. That is a policy with which I am in complete sympathy.

The final article by this splendid woman, Dr. Devine, states:

The primacy of the UN and its peacekeeping is eliminated under article 28A(1), as EU missions do not require a UN mandate. The neutrals' proposals for EU missions to require a UN mandate were rejected.

Article 28A(6) provides for permanent, structured co-operation in defence matters, and designates larger states to execute the "most demanding" military acts. Neutral state representatives argued that large state missions going ahead in the name of the EU in the face of objections from smaller states will have little credibility, as they would clearly show that there is no genuine common foreign policy.

These provisions, combined with article 15B/201a on Constructive Abstention, make unanimity as a decision-making rule a non sequitur, while articles 280B, 11(2-3) and 16b, also objected to by neutral states' representatives, eliminate abstaining states' independence in action.

The "anti-militarism" value is affected by article 28A(3) which commits member states to increased military spending and a common arms policy within the article 28D-supported European Defence Agency.

Finally, the military neutrality concept of non-membership of a military alliance is eliminated under the article 49c(7) mutual defence clause that effectively constitutes a new EU military alliance, and the article 188R solidarity clause.

Acting Chairman

I ask Senator Norris to conclude.

Senator David Norris

I will leave the final word to Henry Kissinger, who said: "No foreign policy — no matter how ingenious — has any chance of success if it is born in the minds of a few and carried in the hearts of none." Our position is not quite so extreme. However, my distinguished colleagues, Patrick Keatinge, Peadar Ó Bhroin and Ben Tonra, are anxious about the prospect of achieving Danish status. They claim that as an opt-out country, we will be left on the sidelines and that while we will be able to participate in discussions, we will not be able to vote. Their comments echo a French general who came here to tell us what to do. The Irish Times of Saturday, 29 November reported General Bentégeat as saying exactly the same thing. That tells us where they are coming from. I will campaign as vigorously as I can against this treaty unless we get an opt-out from participation in the military objectives of the European armaments group, rechristened the European Defence Agency.

Senator Ann Ormonde

I thank the Minister of State for giving of his time to discuss this report. It is timely that we are holding this discussion given the Taoiseach's forthcoming meeting with the European Council. We have an opportunity to reflect on Ireland's position on the non-ratification of the Lisbon treaty. I commend the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union and its Chairman, Senator Donohoe. I spent many evenings listening to their deliberations. I have not yet had time to examine the report in detail, although I have scanned through it.

A lot of thinking will be required on how we should express ourselves and reflect the concerns of the public. These concerns were thrashed out by members of the sub-committee in their discussions with the wide range of witnesses who appeared before them. The task ahead is huge but the people have spoken and we must accept their decision. I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate these issues in this Chamber because there is no better place to hold a debate on our connection with Europe. Every other month, we have a golden opportunity to discuss these issues. It has been suggested the Houses of the Oireachtas should spend more time on European matters, which I hope would lead the media to reflect on how Europe can be presented.

I have reflected on why the people said "No". There is no doubt we came in too late to the campaign and were reacting to it. We were engaged in a defence mechanism and no matter how many times I tried to explain the issue of the Commissioner, it was no use.

People came up with the idea we had over-regulation, with which I would agree. I felt we were being dominated by Europe, particularly when directives came through. One would ask if we were able to thrash them out properly, have the final say in the matters or have the ultimate say in blocking some proposals coming from Brussels. I was never sure we were in that position. I hope that whatever proposals come from Brussels now, we in Ireland will decide whether we agree with them. We, rather than Europe, will speak for our people. Brussels will not speak for Ireland. That is a very important message to get out.

We are in control of our destiny in Ireland. We must link with the public and understand the issue. There is no doubt the public did not understand the treaty, and to be honest it took a while for me to grasp it. By the time I had, the public had already made up its mind. The concerns that we were over-regulated and that decisions were being made in Europe rather than in the Parliament in Ireland must be addressed. The public must be reassured that we are in control of our destiny.

If it is possible we and every other member state should retain a Commissioner. The public felt there would be no link between Ireland and Brussels if the Commissioner was taken away. There would have been no two-way process. We have an opportunity to indicate we will retain our Commissioner. We explained to the public that the Commissioner's job was to speak to his brief rather than Ireland but that did not cut ice. The people took it that the Commissioner was speaking for them and he or she was their representative. We must clarify the matter and get the message out that our Commissioner will be the link. Perhaps we must give more power to the Commissioner in order that there will be a real link between Ireland and Brussels. That is important.

We spoke at length about neutrality. I tried to explain the triple lock mechanism to the public but it is gobbledegook to them, although it works in here. I know what the triple lock mechanism is and the reassurance it provides. One point we should get across is that there will be no dilution of our neutrality and a referendum will have to come about if there is to be a change in that policy. The point that there will be no European army must be reinforced.

I wish the Minister of State and the Taoiseach well in the challenges ahead. We must get the issue right, reflect the concerns and respect the Irish people. At this time the public is considering the issue again. We cannot impose anything on the people they do not like but they are ready to revisit the matter, particularly if there is less control from Brussels and more power for the Irish Parliament.

The Seanad provides a golden opportunity to debate these matters at length. We tried this in the last Seanad and there were visits from the various MEPs at different times. We should encourage a greater link between the European Parliament and the Seanad, although we may not be able to encourage such a connection with the other House. We have enough speakers to link the public to the issue and reach out to it.

We must ask the media to help us this time; it has not helped us yet. Whenever there is a debate in this Chamber on European affairs or reform of the Seanad with the aim of linking to Europe, we never get a line in the newspaper. That is a shame.

I wish the Minister of State well and wish every success to the Taoiseach. There is support for the Minister of State and the report of the sub-committee. I hope its recommendations will be dealt with in due time.

Senator Alex White

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I also welcome the Minister of State to the House. The sub-committee's report provides and interesting and timely opportunity for us to revisit the issues we have previously discussed in the House. Like others, I do not want to repeat all the arguments in which we have engaged on the various occasions we have discussed the Lisbon treaty.

I welcome the report and congratulate Senator Pascal Donohoe on this extremely detailed and readable document. I took the opportunity to read the report and one of my colleagues said I did not need to read all of it. I thought I would do justice to the sub-committee and read the report, which is excellent and helpful to us in our deliberations.

It begins by placing this debate and the moment we are at in true terms. We cannot shirk from those terms, as they point to a choice that must be made by the Irish that is of enormous importance. It cannot be shirked by people on either side of the argument. Those of us who supported the "Yes" vote did not do so on the basis that we would not have liked to change some elements of the treaty. Anybody engaged in a political activity knows that an international treaty involving 27 governments will require compromise and elements that are not liked.

Those of us who argued for a "Yes" vote now have a choice as to how and in what circumstances we might revisit the question. It is a difficult choice because we know and respect the decision of the Irish people, which is the right action. Is it being suggested that we let the issue go? Those on the "No" side also have a choice to make, as I have repeatedly heard people almost pleading that they are as European as the next person. They believe in a strong Europe with Ireland at its heart but they do not like the treaty.

It is incumbent on all of us, including those who argued and voted against the treaty, to come forward not just with repetition and a rehashing of those aspects of the treaty they do not like but to help us point the way. The people should advocate how we can ensure that we are at the heart of Europe in future, particularly through a method other than what I term Lisbon plus. There should be some genuine accommodation of the obvious concerns that many Irish people have and had with the Lisbon treaty.

There are 26 other countries that propose to proceed on the substantial basis of what is in the Lisbon treaty. When this point was made before the referendum, it was referred to practically all the time as bullying. It is now a simple fact. There is a choice to be made. If the other 26 countries take the view that they are not prepared to slow progress to the pace Ireland might advocate following our decision in June, what can we say? We should be absolutely blunt. This is a choice between some form of real accommodation post-Lisbon treaty or, at a minimum, a semi-detached status for Ireland in the European Union. If I am wrong and there is a third realistic option, I would like to hear what it is. I do not just mean a theoretical option that someone might advocate. Out of courtesy to other colleagues who will contribute after me, I should say I have another commitment and must leave soon. However, I will read with interest any suggestions on a realistic third way, to coin a phrase, that may be open. The debate has been put in true terms by the sub-committee. It is no exaggeration for it to say, as it does in its report in paragraph 4 on page 3:

Ireland's standing and influence in the European Union have diminished following the people's decision not to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. In immediate terms, this inhibits Ireland's ability to promote and defend its national interests at a European level. This is likely to affect Ireland's ability to influence key upcoming policy discussions within the Union. These include, but are not limited to, the development of the EU's climate change package [by which we mean the future of the planet and our ability to influence it through being involved in discussions]; the negotiations on the future shape of the EU budget beyond 2013 including provision of adequate resources for the Common Agricultural Policy; and responses to the global financial crisis.

That latter point refers to the current extraordinarily serious global financial crisis. Our ability to participate not just in discussions but also in finding a way forward will unquestionably and self-evidently be affected if we go down the road advocated by some, which seems to be an almost unavoidable march towards isolation and exclusion from the possibility of being involved in decisions that will affect us. They will affect the planet on which we live and the environment we bequeath to our children and grandchildren. It is no exaggeration to put these matters in such grand terms because that is what the debate is about. It is a pity it was not conducted at that level during the referendum campaign and that it did not envisage these grand issues, including the future of the planet, because that is precisely what we are dealing with.

I listened carefully to Senator Norris and know that the report has set out the findings of the sub-committee reasonably faithfully. I also know that Senators Doherty and Mullen have had their dissent recorded at the back of it. I genuinely respect this and look forward to ascertaining the basis on which they both did so. Without referring to their dissent directly, much of what Senator Norris said and a lot of what I have read about some of the objections to what is contained in the Lisbon treaty has more to do with a fear about what might or could happen in the future than with what is actually contained in the treaty. Senator Norris gave the game away slightly when he said we were told something back in 1992 and it turned out to be something different. That is a legacy of a lack of self-confidence in our political culture. We have this notion that we want to halt them at the gates and hold them back because the best way to stop things from ever occurring is to ensure we have blocking constitutional mechanisms, whether they concern abortion or neutrality. None of these is affected in any way by the Lisbon treaty. People are talking about the possibility or worry that abortion might be introduced or that our neutrality might be affected, but these matters are not addressed in any way in the treaty. Without wishing to demean or insult the views of those who promote them, it seems to be almost like a Hallowe'en syndrome. It is as if there are ghosts and bogeymen all around who are going to come and get us.

Senator Rónán Mullen

The Senator should look behind him.

Senator Alex White

I can see the Senator is there. I genuinely believe that because in a sense people are predicating their political response on a fear which in most cases is not well founded. While I do not believe the question can be put to the people again in the same format, the question of our relationship with the European Union must be revisited. If it is bullying, I am sorry, but whether people like it our relationship with the Union will be mediated through the Lisbon treaty in some form and an accommodation will have to be reached.

While I agree with what Senator de Búrca said, I am concerned about one issue on which I hope the Minister of State will respond. He listed the items with which the Taoiseach and the Government were preoccupied and said it was seeking legally robust guarantees on sovereignty, taxation, social and ethical issues, defence and a Commissioner per member state. He did not mention workers' rights. Senator de Búrca is right in stating the issue was high on the list of concerns expressed. Many Labour Party supporters and others have genuine concerns on this issue which will have to be addressed in an equally robust fashion as the other issues on the list. I respectfully ask the Minister of State to add it to the list that the Taoiseach will bring to Brussels on Thursday. If he does not have it on the list, it will not be possible to revisit the Lisbon treaty in the manner suggested.

Senator Terry Leyden

I welcome the Minister of State and his staff. I commend him on a well thought-out and comprehensive speech which brought us through today's proceedings in the Dáil, including the speeches made by the Taoiseach and the Leader of the Opposition. This debate is a very worthwhile exercise. I commend Senator Alex White on his thoughtful contribution. I am sorry he did not have more airtime to put the views he expressed to the public because they deserve to be heard. I also commend Senator Donohoe, the Chairman of the sub-committee which produced the report. It was an honour for him and this House that a Senator chaired the sub-committee. The Vice Chairman was Deputy Dooley. It is unusual for a new Senator to have his report debated by both Houses of the Oireachtas on the one day. I know that the Taoiseach attended the Lower House specially to contribute to the debate. Senators Doherty and Mullen also made a major contribution to the debate at the sub-committee, thus making it more inclusive. No views were excluded from the discussions.

We appear to be making progress in finding a way forward for Ireland in the aftermath of the rejection of the Lisbon treaty by the electorate. The President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, said today he was convinced that the European Council meeting on Thursday and Friday could respond to Ireland's national concerns, while finding a European solution. I heard his speech tonight on the European television service and was impressed by his openness. It is a tribute to the work of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach who have travelled widely in recent weeks to put their views to their European counterparts. It appears almost certain that legally binding assurances will be negotiated to address these national concerns before the treaty is put to the electorate again in another referendum. In the light of these facts, the report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union is of vital importance in two ways. First, it identifies the issues on which the people would like assurances from the European Union and other member states. The sub-committee heard submissions from many stakeholders and experts and the recommendations in the report will be of significant use to the Taoiseach at the European Council meeting this week, as well as to our European diplomats and everyone involved in the discussions in the coming weeks.

The primary concerns appear to be maintaining control over direct taxation policy and that the State's role in the provision of public services should continue to be a matter for each individual member state, as should policies in areas of social and ethical sensitivity. The sub-committee also concluded that, while it seems that the purpose of the Commission is sometimes misunderstood, it appears that having a Commissioner nominated by the Government is a matter of national sensitivity. It is also clear that the people have great pride in Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality and, therefore, it needs to be protected.

I was not particularly happy with one aspect of the treaty, namely, our loss of a Commissioner for five of every 15 years. This would have been too long, whereas expanding the Commission to comprise 27 Commissioners is reasonable and workable. When I was canvassing, I found this to be a considerable issue. The recommendations of the sub-committee on these matters are the result of in-depth discussions with a broad range of interested parties and must be given great weight in the coming weeks and months.

The sub-committee's establishment was worthwhile and owes much to its effective chairmanship. Given how many people were invited to contribute, the television broadcasts were also worthwhile. The hearings of the sub-committee addressed some of the exaggerations, misrepresentations, half truths and untruths that were all too prominent during the Lisbon treaty campaign. I hope that putting on record and distributing the expert opinions heard by the sub-committee will serve to ensure that the next campaign, which I am sure will occur, is based on issues and not unjustified scaremongering.

The report concludes: "It is the view of the Sub-Committee that European matters do not play as prominent a role as they should in Irish politics, media or public discourse." This is undoubtedly a reason for the confusion that reigned about some issues in the last campaign. As public representatives, we can all do our bit to ensure that the EU is given more coverage, which can only occur by allocating more time to discussing EU proposals in the Houses. The report recommends that both Houses, as well as the relevant committees, should play a much greater role in the scrutiny of EU policy.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, which is chaired by Deputy Perry and scrutinises all European legislation to a certain degree. Indeed, all Oireachtas committees study and scrutinise that legislation. Under the Lisbon reform treaty, however, the Oireachtas would have had greater involvement in and control over European legislation. For this reason, the treaty's rejection in June was a blow to democracy.

I am also convinced that a referendum must and will be held. Due to the current crisis in the pigmeat sector, we are looking to Europe for financial support. However, our currency has been tarnished, our strength weakened and our position lessened in the EU. As a member of the Council of Europe, I regularly meet many members from other European states.

Acting Chairman

The Senator has one minute remaining.

Senator Terry Leyden

They are surprised and disappointed that a country that gained more from EU membership than any other rejected the referendum. At this critical stage, we can all make a great contribution to the country by voting "Yes" at the next referendum, thereby ensuring the acceptance of the Lisbon reform treaty, which will be amended by protocols to some extent.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I thank the Minister of State for attending the debate and my colleagues for their kind words about my role in the sub-committee. I was deeply honoured to have the opportunity to do the work and was privileged, not only to be chosen for the role by my party leader, but to have the report debated in both Houses. I place on record my deep gratitude for the work done by all members of the sub-committee. Their level of commitment to and intensity in discharging their work was marvellous. We were wonderfully supported and enabled by a secretariat and staff whose commitment to our work was second to none. I take this opportunity to add my appreciation to that of my colleagues regarding the secretariat's work.

I will focus on the report's two main points. I also will focus on an assessment of our current position and of where our country needs to move. Regarding the current attitude harboured by many on the "Yes" side, there is a lack of confidence in those who would seek to progress the issue and to articulate their reasons for doing so publicly. People such as myself and others who argued for the Lisbon treaty were beaten fairly and squarely, but losing elections, arguments and referendums is part of what politics is all about. Our desire to return to the fray and to ask the people to vote again is not a subversion of politics or an attempt to circumvent the will of the people, rather it is what parliamentary politics is all about.

The people spelled out their rejection of the Lisbon treaty. Their reasons were legitimate and acceptable because the people are sovereign. However, my role in the process is not diminished or challenged by my willingness as a politician to spell out the decision's consequences and to ask the people to speak again. We need more confidence in asserting our role, a necessity spelled out in the report.

Four of the sub-committee's terms of reference were important and we focused on a number of areas. Of most relevance to this debate is the question of where our country stands now in the short term and the long term. I wish to read into the record of the House the conclusion reached by the majority of the sub-committee's members in adopting the report. We stated:

It is legally possible for the Union to stand still and operate into the future on the basis of current treaties and institutional arrangements. However, given the overwhelming desire among Member States for reform of the Union's structures in a manner such as that envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty, this is considered unlikely. It is more likely that a mechanism will be developed by other Member States which allows them to proceed with a process of further integration which excludes Ireland. This would lead to a two-tier Europe with Ireland on the political and economic periphery. Such a scenario would have a devastating effect on Ireland's political influence, economic prospects and international standing.

By making this statement, I am not seeking to bully or scare anyone, I am simply stating a fact, namely, that member states know that the challenges facing each nation state are greater than any one nation state, no matter how large, can handle on its own. They recognise that working together more efficiently is the way to address the situation.

Ireland must accept that the European model of development — democracy supported by a free market economy that recognises individuals' human rights — is being challenged by other models and by events in Asia and the east of the Continent. Europe's share of the global population and the world economy is declining. We must find ways to punch above our weight. The Lisbon treaty represents the best way for the EU to tackle this issue. The sub-committee's report also points out that if we continue not to ratify the treaty, which is our democratic right, there is a strong possibility that other member states can find legal ways to move ahead without us. The consequences of this for Ireland would be very damaging.

In the context of where matters stand — I say this in sorrow rather than anger — I am extremely concerned that the mistakes made by those on the "Yes" side during the referendum campaign are being repeated. I point to two factors in this regard and I will address my comments to the Minister of State in particular in respect of them. The first factor is the Government's relationship with other political parties, particularly those on the "Yes" side. It is a fact that every European Union ambassador, Foreign Minister or Prime Minister knows what Ireland wants. However, it is also a fact that the leader of my party, Deputy Kenny, and, I believe, the leader of the Labour Party, do not know what is the Government's negotiating position or what it is seeking to deliver in detail.

While the Minister of State will need the agreement of other member states to support a new arrangement, he will also need the support of the other political parties in Ireland to deliver on that arrangement. Fine Gael has raised the issue of the opt-outs in justice and home affairs and the Labour Party has raised that of workers' rights.

Acting Chairman

I must ask the Senator to conclude.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I appreciate that. However, I beg the Acting Chairman's indulgence because I invested a great deal of time and effort into producing this report.

Acting Chairman

I accept that. I have no desire to cut the Senator off.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

It is strange that we should find ourselves in a position where legitimate issues that have been raised by the people whose support the Government will need in order to pass a referendum, should a second one take place, are not being recognised. This makes the campaign for a "Yes" vote extremely vulnerable.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the Minister of State represents a Government which has an 18% approval rating. That may change or it may not.

Acting Chairman

The Senator has now gone well over time.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I will conclude. My final point is that while the Government may be negotiating with other member states, it is not negotiating with the Irish people. The latter require straight answers with regard to the nature of the Government's roadmap. It is fair to ask whether the Government proposes to hold another referendum. It is incumbent on this Administration to spell out the position in this regard now in order to provide leadership to the people. In the absence of that clarity, confusion will spread and those on the other side of the argument will be presented with a vacuum in which they will be able to put across their points.

I thank the Minister of State for coming before the House. I also thank Members for the comments they made in respect of the report, which, I hope, will move the debate forward. It is incumbent on the Government to recognise the serious concerns of those who want to support it with regard to its relationship with other members of the "Yes" campaign. It is vital that the Government act now to answer the simple and clear questions people wish to ask in order to ensure that the foundations are laid for a successful campaign in the future.

Senator Rónán Mullen

I welcome the Minister of State. I am grateful to the Government because it was on the initiative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that I was appointed to the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. I was appointed by my colleagues on the Independent Benches but this was at the request of the Minister. I was glad to take up my membership of the sub-committee, particularly in light of the importance of the issues involved. I was extremely sorry that I could not assent to the findings contained in the sub-committee's report. It was not that I had intended to dissent from the outset nor was I dissatisfied with the way in which the committee was run. I take this opportunity to express my great thanks to Senator Donohoe for his excellent chairmanship of the sub-committee. I do not believe any other member of the sub-committee worked as hard as the Senator. I also wish to place on record my gratitude to the staff of the secretariat and the officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs for their hard work.

I dissented because I do not believe that the final report provides a basis on which Ireland can move forward and negotiate a solution to its Lisbon problem. The report has many good aspects but the time constraints prevent me from discussing these in detail.

I approached the referendum on the Lisbon treaty and the work of the sub-committee from the perspective of one with a particular expertise and knowledge of people's concerns in respect of social and ethical issues. Those concerns can be summed up by reference to a fear regarding competence creep on the part of the European Commission and its institutions and a certain judicial activism on the part of the European Court of Justice. No less a person than Roman Herzog, the former chairman of the German constitutional court, has been extremely critical of the European Court of Justice. It is important to make that point, particularly in the context of Senator Alex White's concerns. It is not a question of people having groundless fears. As a lawyer, Senator Alex White will be aware that when one reads the text of a treaty, one does not merely examine what the words say — one also gives consideration to how those words might be interpreted in the future. This is important because what caused many people to vote "No" was not just what the Lisbon treaty or the Charter of Fundamental Rights might mean for the future but also that other existing treaties might be interpreted in the future, particularly in light of current experiences regarding how European institutions extend their competence into areas in respect of which they were not thought to enjoy such competence. I provided several examples of the latter — which went unrebutted — during the course of my work on the sub-committee.

It was not illogical, therefore, for people to vote against the treaty on the basis of more than just its mere contents. Even while people may be satisfied with the vast majority of decisions coming from Europe, the referendum was an opportunity for them to express their concerns with regard to certain aspects of the European project and the drift of decision making in particular areas at European level. We are all appreciative of the positive influence the EU has had on our lives.

I identified three areas of concern when considering issues regarding how European law is interpreted in instances where it appears to go beyond its area of competence. On decisions taken by Ireland regarding how matters operate at European level, I referred to the example of our failure to take a stand against the use of money from the EU's common fund to finance embryo destructive research where it is legal in other member states. I also referred to stances taken at international fora by our Ministers and officials on matters that would impact on Ireland's constitutional values in respect of sensitive issues. While our officials and politicians often fight the good fight, there have been numerous occasions on which they have failed to export our values at times when other countries were keen to export theirs.

It was extremely difficult to encourage the Government to accept that a difficulty exists with regard to how matters stand in respect of the EU and how some of its institutions operate. That is understandable because to accept that a problem exists is to imply that there had been failures up to now in instances where the Government was involved in negotiations at European level. It is always difficult to admit prior failures. Members of the sub-committee informed me privately that they agreed with the concerns being raised during our public meetings but that they could not allow the report to go there when it came to the final analysis. So be it.

As already stated, while the report provides a useful basis for considering a range of issues, it will fall to the Government, in its discussions at EU level, to delve into those areas the report was reluctant to investigate and to negotiate the necessary wriggle room for Ireland in the context of the social and ethical issues that are of concern to certain people. I am encouraged in this regard because it appears that the Government has got the message. It is not merely discussing abortion because this matter involves more than just that. People's concerns relate to a range of issues that are socially sensitive, namely, marriage, the family and the question of who runs the education system. I provided examples at meetings of the sub-committee of how EU decision making is already impacting on those areas and I explained why it was likely to further impact on them in the future. I refer, in particular, to the scope of equality legislation and how it is interpreted in ways that tend to access all areas of national life.

On the reality of people's concerns, I and others have been proposing that Ireland should determine its position in respect of the issues to which I refer. In extolling his pro-life credentials, Senator Norris proceeded to criticise the Maastricht protocol. I cannot understand why anyone would have a difficulty with Ireland reserving the right for its people to make decisions in respect of certain matters. The provision of a constitutional filter whereby Ireland would have the final say in respect of issues that are socially sensitive would involve enhanced subsidiarity and any democrat should agree with this.

The outcome of the Government's negotiations will become apparent in the coming days. The test as to whether people like me can be "Yes" voters in the inevitable next Lisbon referendum is dependent upon the granting of substantial constitutional independence to Ireland, the establishment of a constitutional filter in our constitutional amendment and also upon whatever agreements are made with our European partners. It will have to be something substantial if it is to pass muster and it will have to be legally justicible. This is to allay not only the concerns of religious voters, but of people who are authentically democrats in that they want issues which are capable of being extremely divisive and undermining our harmonious life together ultimately to be decided by the Irish people, however they might decide them.

Quite apart from the legal solution, it is important that the Government moves to create trust among that section of the electorate which believes the Government has not in the past looked out for Ireland's independence on sensitive social issues. Confidence is sapped by the Government's inaction, for example, in the face of UCC's controversial decision to carry out embryo destructive research or indeed by the banning of a perfectly innocuous organisation like Veritas from carrying out advertising. In addition to whatever legal solution is proposed, there needs to be a confidence building measure on the part of Government that will show the people, who are concerned about subsidiarity on these issues, that it does care and that what it is bringing home from the negotiations is something they can trust. Míle bhuíochas arís.

Senator Paddy Burke

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. He has done a great deal of work on this issue during the past number of years. While it was not his fault the referendum was not passed, we must question why this was so. The former Taoiseach should take a considerable amount of the blame for not putting his full weight behind the issue.

I am long enough around to remember Ireland in the early 1970s and 1980s and what we have gained from Europe. There is no doubt but that Ireland has gained unbelievably from its membership of the EU during the past 30 years. Those of us who were members of local authorities know what Europe has meant to us in terms of improvements to our roads and water and sewerage systems throughout the country. Also, through our membership of the EU, we have become much more forward-thinking.

I listened with interest to many commentators on this issue, including Mr. Ganley and Mr. Ben Dunne who received great air time on Joe Duffy's "Liveline" and on several other shows. A point made by them is that Europe is being run by unelected and unaccountable people. I do not believe they have been challenged in this regard or on what type of Europe they want. When they say those running Europe are unelected and unaccountable, what exactly do they mean? Do they mean the Parliament should be running the show? When they speak of elected people, are they speaking of people elected solely to Europe? I believe we have a great system in Europe through the Commission, Council and Parliament, all of which provide for co-decision making.

The Joint Committee on EU Scrutiny visited Brussels a number of months ago and met with eight Commissioners who were open and frank in every regard, in particular in respect of the issues with which they were dealing in Europe. They were much more open than the Irish Government. I believe Mr. Ganley and Mr. Dunne should be questioned about the type of Europe they wish to see in the future.

The current crisis in our beef and pork industry was brought about by wrongdoing which would not have been discovered but for the controls put in place by Europe. We have Europe to thank for this, bad and all as the crisis will be for our economy, pig producers and people working in the industry. There are cowboys out there. However, the controls put in place by Europe has increased standards in Ireland and we must be thankful for that.

It will be difficult for the Government to re-run the referendum. While the people have spoken in this regard, I believe there has been a change of attitude since then. As Senator Donohoe stated, politicians must lead people in this regard. I do not believe that is what happened on the last occasion. We cannot drive people into Europe or drive them forward; we must lead by example and bring them with us. There is no other place for Ireland but in Europe, which is a 500 million people market and open economy. We have more to gain from being in rather than out of Europe.

I compliment Senator Donohoe and the sub-committee on its tremendous work in compiling this great report which lays a good foundation for the weeks ahead in terms of the direction in which we will go.

Senator Paul Bradford

I wish to say a brief few words in regard to the report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union and the broader theme of where we go from here. All members of the sub-committee and, in particular, Senator Donohoe, are to be praised for the enormous efforts they put into the work of the sub-committee. While there were a few highlights of the sub-committee's work as far as the media was concerned, much of its work was done not behind closed doors, but away from the glare of the media and public attention. In that sense, the work of the sub-committee almost mirrors the project of the European Union in terms of its institutions. While Europe is open and transparent, much of what happens there, from a policy perspective, does not receive the political or media attention it deserves. This is one of the difficulties of trying to sell the concept of further European progress and co-operation. The vast majority of the hugely outstanding work done in what is called "project Europe" does not get the political attention it deserves.

My colleague, Senator Burke, mentioned the current crisis in the Irish food industry and its knock-on effect at European level. There is a certain irony in the fact that the agricultural community, the Minister and all of us must now turn to Brussels and to Europe to seek aid and support in our hour of desperate need. We are all aware of the widespread debate that took place a few short months ago with the farming organisations and the difficulty the Government, and all of us, had trying to sell to Irish farmers the concept of further European political progress. We must now, once again, call on Europe from an agricultural perspective to come to our aid at a time of grave national and economic need. I know that the Minister of State and his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, will not be found wanting in this regard.

The work of the sub-committee was difficult because a referendum was held and the people had spoken in this regard. One cannot change a result just because one does not like it or believes it is or may be fundamentally damaging for the country. There is little point in our saying the same question must be posed again. It is like saying that the 2007 general election must be re-run in the same constituencies with the same candidates. While some of us would wish that could be case, it will not happen. Certain amendments, clarifications and changes must take place.

The people who spoke out most strongly against the Lisbon treaty are in the majority. The "No" vote constituted a broad church. Many of them prefaced their comments by saying, "We fully support the European Union, we want Ireland to be a part of it, but..." and that led to questions. Europe will always be a package of measures and proposals and it will never be the perfect political project, but I know of no political project across the globe that has been as successful as the European Union and has the capacity to be even more successful in the years ahead.

The analysis as to why people voted "No" is interesting. I am sure future students of politics will study it in even greater detail. It was a broad spectrum coalition, all parts of which I respect, ranging from the far left to what some people call, even though I am not comfortable with the term, "the far right". The issues which caused people such concern, namely, the abortion issue, workers' rights, our Commissioner, etc., must be addressed. I was quite comfortable with the language, content and intent of the Lisbon treaty, as it was worded, but I must recognise that the majority of people were not. Therefore, it is important that we address those issues.

The whipping boy we allowed Europe to become has resulted in a perception that it is to blame for all ills. All Governments, domestically, take the credit for all good measures while Brussels gets the blame for bad proposals and bad measures. If we reflect on what we have been debating here on the margins of the political programmes in recent days, we have had two, if not three, discussions on the removal of cribs from stores and streets. That was not a European but a domestic decision. People are concerned about the question of changes in social law, such as civil unions, etc. The argument can be made that there is a certain degree of European perspective on that, but the Irish Government has brought forward such proposals, they have not been forced on anybody by the so-called planet Europe. Many of the causes as to why people voted "No" last June were domestic rather than European.

If we think back to last June and ask what went wrong, as happens in the political cycle of events, the Government was beginning the inevitable downturn all Governments face, the economy was beginning to slip downwards and the people were quite angry. On the other hand, we have accepted the mantra of blaming over-regulation, the wrong legislation and measures such as that which has resulted in Veritas experiencing difficulty in regard to religious advertising on television. Europe seems to get and take the blame for all those unrelated disconnected matters. That is why the task ahead for the Minister, his Government colleagues and all those who believe that the Lisbon treaty is not only good but important and essential for Ireland is a difficult one. It will be a long winding road and will not be an easy journey.

I respect how the Irish people voted in the referendum in June 2008. We cannot repeat the same question. The genuine concerns raised need to be addressed. We cannot demonise the people who voted "No" as they are in the majority of people and they had an entitlement to vote they way they did. Neither should we personalise the campaign because we made significant political figures of people who, in most cases, would not have been elected to a parish council. We should focus on the issues and remind people that what the Lisbon treaty offers is a continuation and a development of the project that has transformed this country and given everybody a new economic, social and political lease of life since 1973. We must accept the decision made last June but, collectively, try to work our way out of it and progress towards passing not an amended but a clarified version of a treaty, which is essential for our economic and social development.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I welcome the opportunity to address the Seanad on the Report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union, particularly as it is now less than two days until the European Council meets in Brussels. It has been clear to us all along that the Government had no intention of addressing the concerns of the electorate about the Lisbon treaty and instead set itself on a course to re-run the referendum. At no point in the past six months did the Taoiseach even ask any EU leader to renegotiate the treaty, nor did the Government even consider the option of using the strong mandate it was given for the good of this country.

It is clear that later this week the Taoiseach will announce his intention to ignore the democratically expressed views of the electorate and hold a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty. It is also clear that he will be supported in this by the Green Party, the Labour Party and Fine Gael. I listened with interest to the Dáil debate on the report during which members of Fine Gael said that if they had their way, I would not have been involved in the subcommittee. I am glad that the same type of language has not been used in this House. I commend the chairperson of the committee, Senator Donohoe, on the way he conducted the meetings, although we disagreed on many occasions.

There is deep anger among the people at the arrogance of the Government and its mishandling of the current economic crisis, but this will be worsened if it pursues such a high handed, undemocratic course. The Irish people voted for a better deal and that deal should have been delivered by the Government. The almost 1 million people who rejected the Lisbon treaty and those who voted for it but respected the democratic outcome will make their views known in next year's European elections.

The sub-committee provided the opportunity for a deep and meaningful engagement with the public on the direction of the European Union but instead it was a missed opportunity. Its report was always going to mirror the views of the Government, given the limited terms of reference and refusal to engage with wider public opinion to understand its views.

Speaking at the inaugural meeting of the Oireachtas sub-committee, I warned against the Government's attempt to reshape the public debate on the Lisbon treaty away from the treaty to one on Ireland's membership of the EU. I also emphasised that the debate must be led by members of the public and not politicians who are, as was clear from the referendum result, out of touch with ordinary people. Critically, we must use the outcome of this debate to inform and change Government policy on the EU that reflects the Irish people's views on its future.

Sinn Féin took a constructive and positive role in the work the sub-committee. However, we made it clear from the outset that we would not be part of any sham to set aside the democratic wishes of the Irish electorate. Sinn Féin was concerned that it was the Government's intention, with the support of the Labour Party, Fine Gael and the Green Party, to use this sub-committee as a space to prepare the groundwork for a re-run of Lisbon. We argued that the terms of reference were too restrictive and that the focus of the debate should be the future of the EU and Ireland's role in shaping that future. The Government and the other parties rejected our proposals for more inclusive terms of reference.

The founding principles of EU were and must continue to be peace and prosperity. We want to see Ireland continue to play a central role in shaping the future of the EU in the interests of all its citizens. We are ambitious for what we, as a small member state, can achieve in the interest of all the people of the EU.

It is important to emphasise Sinn Féin's view that Ireland's place is at the heart of the European Union. We want the Irish Government and people to play a central role in shaping the future of the European Union. Our policy of critical engagement means supporting those aspects of EU policy and development that are good for Ireland and the EU while opposing and working to change those policies and developments that are not in our collective interests. For Sinn Féin that means changing the present course of the European Union. We want to move it away from the centralising, privatising and militarising direction it is currently taking, in favour of a more democratic, social and peaceful road, promoting prosperity and equality for all.

In addition to seeking broader terms of reference, Sinn Féin also wanted to see a proactive public engagement, and a debate that reflected the diversity of opinions on the European Union that were clearly evident during the referendum campaign. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred. The sub-committee adopted a rigid and exclusive format, inviting witnesses to appear before the committee to be interrogated. The meetings were all held in Leinster House with limited public attendance and no avenue for meaningful public engagement.

Sinn Féin argued that the sub-committee should travel across the country and meet in different venues including public libraries, schools, universities, community centres and places of work. We argued that rather than the adversarial witness approach, the sessions should take the form of an ongoing dialogue. Unfortunately, all of those proposals were rejected. As a consequence, the sessions were on most occasions simply a rerun of the debates of the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign itself, involving many of the same well known public faces, with little new content.

Worse still was the incredible imbalance in the witnesses who attended the sub-committee. Of the more than 100 individuals who addressed it, only a handful of voices were critical of the Lisbon treaty. While some speakers or organisations did not adopt a formal position either way, the overwhelming majority of those who spoke at the committee were clearly in support of the treaty. Having excluded the general public and selected a panel of speakers that held the Government's view, it is hardly surprising that the sub-committee's official report merely confirmed the Government's position. The report could have been written by any of the pro-Lisbon treaty parties on the committee without having to go through the charade of dozens of sessions over eight weeks.

Sinn Féin did not support the report produced by the sub-committee. Instead, we produced our own report, Majority View — Minority Report — The Future of the EU and Ireland's role in shaping that future. The report sets out in detail the challenges facing Ireland and the EU and the mechanism we believe could have been used to address the concerns of the electorate on key issues such as maintaining our political strength, protecting neutrality, workers' rights, public services and tax sovereignty. It is clear that those issues can only be addressed in a new treaty, which includes legally-binding protocols and not declarations or clarifications that are not worth the paper on which they are written.

In Sinn Féin's view the Government and Opposition parties have abused the Oireachtas, cynically manipulating the sub-committee in order to set the ground for a rerun of the Lisbon treaty. In so doing they have done a great disservice to the Irish people and the European Union as a whole. The sub-committee could have provided an invaluable opportunity to open up a meaningful and wide-ranging debate on the future of the EU and Ireland's place in that future. We could have extended the debate beyond the narrow confines of the Lisbon treaty, a treaty democratically rejected by the electorate, and created a vibrant and forward-looking dialogue on a broad range of policy issues. Instead, the Government closed down the debate. As a result, the sub-committee's official report will add nothing either to our understanding of the EU, the Lisbon treaty or the various options that currently exist for the future of the EU. It is a missed opportunity.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I wish to raise a point of order about this session and future sessions on the matter. I completely disagree with Senator Doherty.

Senator Pearse Doherty

That is not a point of order.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

It will lead to a point of order.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I did not interrupt Senator Donohoe.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

Members should bear with me. None of the three members of the sub-committee, who had different views, had time to finish our contributions. We are the people who have been buried in the bowels——

Acting Chairman

That is not a point of order. It was agreed that spokespersons would have ten minutes and all other speakers seven minutes.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I just want to make the point——

Acting Chairman

I have been generous to speakers.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

——that in future when we have such discussions, members of the sub-committee who put in the time should have the opportunity to make their points in the fullest possible way.

Acting Chairman

In fairness, it is up to the leaders to agree those issues.

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

Because of the time constraints I will confine myself to commenting on each——

Acting Chairman

The debate must conclude by 10 p.m.

Deputy Dick Roche

I know. That is why I am trying to deal with the matter in a way that deals courteously with every contribution.

Senator Cummins referred to the discreditable tactics on the "No" side. I do not wish to single anyone out for a particular mention because every citizen in a democracy has an inalienable right to argue either side of any case. However, neither groups nor political parties have the right to distort the truth, mislead the public in a deliberate way nor to invent facts. Sadly, especially in the context of the previous speaker, that is precisely what we have seen in this country.

Senator Pearse Doherty

Which facts have we invented?

Acting Chairman

In fairness, the Minister of State should be allowed to conclude.

Deputy Dick Roche

Senator de Búrca——

Senator Pearse Doherty

Which facts have we invented in this speech?

Deputy Dick Roche

I will deal with Senator Doherty in a moment.

Acting Chairman

The Minister of State did not interrupt Senator Doherty.

Senator Pearse Doherty

The Minister of State is making accusations that are wild and unfounded. He cannot stand over them.

Acting Chairman

Senator Doherty.

Deputy Dick Roche

I wonder if I could have additional time due to the filibuster by Sinn Féin to stop democratic debate. It is so patently obvious.

Acting Chairman

The Minister of State should proceed.

Deputy Dick Roche

Senator de Búrca touched on a number of key issues, namely, defence, neutrality, taxation, social and ethical issues and the Commission. All of those issues are part of the negotiating brief. She and Senator Alex White also touched on the rights of workers. The first point that should be made is that the European Union has been one of the most positive sources of social legislation in Ireland, especially on the protection of workers. I am surprised that neither Senator de Búrca nor Senator Alex White mentioned that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is central to the course of progressing social Europe. The charter was one of the great things the European Trade Union Confederation wanted to achieve. Ireland has already extensive protection in those areas.

Senator Norris has an acute ear. It is interesting that he picked me up on using two different tenses. I used the word "if", but had he been reading the script he would have seen that it was "if" as written by mathematicians. That is appropriate to the previous contribution.

Senator Rónán Mullen

"If" is not a tense, it is a mood.

Deputy Dick Roche

The point I was making is that if, and only if, we achieve legally binding arrangements on the issues outlined can we go back to the people. That is the point that is being made.

Senator Ormonde was absolutely correct when she said the will of the Irish people is supreme in this matter. Senator Alex White made a lucid contribution. He pointed to the situation that now faces Iceland where it appears that 80% of the population now look favourably towards Europe. He also made the fair point that every treaty involves give and take. It is only a peculiar minority that takes the view that "no surrender" is a good basis for going into any important treaty discussions. Senator White also made the point that the 26 other members states have rights too. Senator Leyden picked up on the same point.

Senator Donohoe talked about the lack of confidence on the "Yes" side. That is a good point. The "Yes" side was cowed, especially in the debate prior to the referendum. It was shouted down. When one tried to point out the truth that other countries were going to go ahead and ratify the Lisbon treaty, one was told that one was bullying. The reality is that the people who told that particular untruth are now oblivious to that issue. On whether the Government is committed to another referendum, the Senator must have missed the point, which is the one Senator Norris picked up. I said that if, and only if, one gets to a point where one has satisfied all of the concerns of the Irish people can one start talking about a date for another referendum. The constitutional reality is that if we are to ratify the Lisbon treaty, there must be another referendum. I made that point as far back as the McGill summer school earlier this year.

Senator Mullen made an important contribution. When he reads the words I have spoken into the record, and those of the Taoiseach, he will find great satisfaction in them. Specifically, what we are talking about is protecting sovereignty in areas such as social and ethical policy, taxation, defence and neutrality. That is not out of kilter in any way with European law. I advise anyone who is interested to examine how the German basic law enacted the provision to go into Europe. I referred to that elsewhere.

Senator Mullen also illustrated the problems of the referendum process. He made the point that if one asks a question one gets many different answers. I agree generally with the comments of Senators Burke and Bradford and I regret that I do not have time to go into them in detail. I would have believed that, from the point of view of Sinn Féin, "no surrender" was not a policy that had any attraction. I am amazed that those who advocated "no surrender" historically are not consigning that bankrupt policy, put on a pedestal by Sinn Féin, to the dusty annals of history. However, that is neither here nor there.

The Senator also stated he wants to see Ireland at the very centre of the European Union and I accept his bona fides in that regard. While Sinn Féin may have some ingenious Baldric-like plan to do this, the reality is that the Union is a construct of 27 sovereign member states and we cannot dictate to them how they should operate any more than they can dictate to us how we should operate. The intellectual dishonesty of the Sinn Féin viewpoint is demonstrated by the fact that, while Martin McGuinness extolled the virtues of the European project as a peace process in an excellent speech recently in Belfast, his colleagues in the South were, at the same time, talking about the European Union in completely different language.

Senator Pearse Doherty

In the report, we acknowledge the role of the European Union in terms of peace——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister of State without interruption.

(Interruptions).

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I ask the Senator to respect the Chair.

Deputy Dick Roche

Senator Doherty is stung by the truth.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I respect the Chair but I also respect the truth.

Deputy Dick Roche

Senator Doherty is stung by the truth. The reality is that, in a superb contribution——

Senator Pearse Doherty

The Minister should read the report.

Deputy Dick Roche

——Martin McGuinness spoke about the European project as a peace process. The Senator's colleagues who were knocking on the doors in Bray were talking about militarisation. The ultimate hypocrisy and dishonesty was in the final point of the Sinn Féin contribution tonight. Senator Doherty spoke about wanting to see Ireland at the heart of Europe. I may have lived in a parallel universe but I do not remember Sinn Féin ever advocating a "Yes" vote. I recall it opposing vigorously Ireland's bid to join the European Union and opposing vigorously the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam treaty and every other treaty, including the Lisbon and Nice treaties. None of the these treaties is perfect but the reality is that no international treaty ever is. However, honest politicians at least accept this reality. Senator Doherty may come into this House and posit that he or his party supports Ireland's position in Europe but every Tom, Dick and Harry in the country knows Sinn Féin has opposed every single treaty tooth and nail. That is the reality.

I thank the contributors. Unfortunately time ran out and I did not have time to address some of the contributions in detail. Ireland is at a very pivotal point, as stated in the report and by many contributors. We must decide to stay with the European Union or decide to assign ourselves, somehow or other, to the sidelines. The latter decision would be a disaster for Ireland.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Terry Leyden

At 10.30 tomorrow morning.