JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 8 Apr 2008

Lisbon Treaty: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Kieran Allen, joint editor of the website, VoteNo.ie; Mr. Roger Cole, chairman of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance; and Ms Patricia McKenna, a patron of the People’s Movement. We also invited Mr. Declan Ganley from Libertas but that invitation was declined. I remind delegates that while members of the committee have full privilege, witnesses appearing before the committee do not enjoy the same privilege. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. The normal procedure is that each group makes a presentation of five or ten minutes’ duration followed by questions and answers. We hope to complete the meeting within two hours.

The purpose of this exercise is to obtain information that will be of benefit to the public in the course of its assessment of the issues before it in the forthcoming referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Representatives of the social partners have already attended meetings of the committee. Some confirmed their support for the treaty, some indicated that they are considering the issues, and others signalled a desire to hear more about the issues so as to be in a better position to lead their members in a particular direction. Meetings of this committee will take place at locations throughout the State at which the same format will prevail. We plan to produce a report at the end of this process. On the basis of the information submitted in the course of these hearings, the committee will come to its own opinion on the treaty and set it out in this report.

I call Mr. Kieran Allen, joint editor of the website, VoteNo.ie, to make his submission.

Ms Patricia McKenna

Before we begin, I wish to speak on behalf of all three delegates. Members are undoubtedly aware of the conditions set down under the McKenna judgment on the use of public funds. We are aware that the committee has been asked about the format of the forthcoming public meetings. We have some concerns in this regard. For example, what are the Standing Orders, who will be invited, will there be a designated "Yes" and "No" speaker, and will the public and those on the "No" side enjoy equal participation with the committee itself? It is our understanding that all the members of the committee are on the "Yes" side, so this raises questions of balance. I am sure members will not abandon their own opinions while participating in these meetings and pretend they do not have a position. That would be virtually impossible to do.

Will the Chairman explain how the meetings will be structured, how the public will be involved and how equal balance will be achieved between the "Yes" and "No" sides? What budget has been set aside for these meetings? It is a new departure for an Oireachtas committee to sit in locations throughout the State. I understand the rate is something like €800 for an overnight stay.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

With respect, may I respond to that?

Chairman

I will answer Ms McKenna.

Ms Patricia McKenna

We simply want to know what the procedure will be. The Chairman stated at the outset that the committee wants to obtain information that will be of benefit to the public. However, the public is also interested in how public resources are spent.

Chairman

The assumption that all of those who have made presentations to the committee to date advocate a "Yes" vote in the forthcoming referendum is incorrect. The committee has written to a number of well-known analysts to ask them to speak on one side or the other. One of the committee's ideas was to have speakers from the "Yes" and "No" sides. Several of those we contacted have replied that they prefer to maintain an analytical position - to analyse the treaty as it stands according to their own opinions - than to take a position on the "Yes" or "No" side.

Funding will be made available in due course in the ordinary way. I have referred briefly to the format of the meetings. This will not be the first time an Oireachtas committee has met outside of Leinster House. I was a member of the Committee of Public Accounts when it met outside of Leinster House. Provision was made, by means of an order of the House, for it to meet outside of Leinster House in the same way that provision is being made today for this committee to meet elsewhere on this occasion. The issues raised previously in respect of the protocol for the meetings have been discussed by the committee. The protocol may yet be amended by the committee. The public will be informed of any such amendments by means of public advertisement. All concerned will have ample opportunity to respond in any way they see fit.

The existence of the McKenna judgment does not, in itself, affect the work of this joint committee, which consists of Members of Oireachtas Éireann. The committee's mandate is derived from and is governed by the running of the Oireachtas. No attempt has been made at any time to exclude any speaker from making his or her case at a meeting of the committee. It is not likely that an attempt will be made to exclude any speaker during the public meetings and hearings which will take place. This committee of the Oireachtas has the right to come down on one side or the other having gone through the various processes, such as engaging in an examination of the submissions made. We are involved in such processes at present. Those who appear to have a positive or negative attitude to the treaty have been specifically asked by the members of the joint committee to qualify their positions at this forum. Many of them have done so. We have been advised that such an approach is in accordance with the McKenna and Kelly judgments and any other judgments.

Ms Patricia McKenna

I would like to say one thing.

Chairman

I do not propose to have a debate on this subject. Ms McKenna mentioned--

Ms Patricia McKenna

How will the meetings--

Chairman

The meetings will take the form of formal sittings of the committee pursuant to an order of the Houses of the Oireachtas and in accordance with Article 15.1.3° of the Constitution. The meetings will be conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures of the Houses of the Oireachtas relating to the sittings of committees. The sittings will be presided over by the Chairman of the joint committee. They will be organised and conducted to ensure objectivity, fairness and balance in the proceedings. Members of the public will be invited to attend and may speak at the meetings, subject to certain conditions. Each meeting will be opened by the Chairman who will address those present with an opening statement. Thereafter, the Chairman will invite two speakers to address the formal committee sittings - one speaker in favour of the treaty and one speaker against it, the order having been decided in advance by lot. Each speaker may make a short opening statement of no more than ten or 15 minutes' duration. Members of the audience who may wish to speak will be invited by the Chair to take the floor - each will have up to three minutes' speaking time. Prior to asking a question, each member of the audience shall mention his or her name, organisation and the area where he or she is from, for the purpose of reporting the proceedings.

Members of the committee, by virtue of their election to the Oireachtas, have a mandate. The meetings proposed will take place through that mandate. The Chairman of the committee will invite the audience to ask questions of and make comments to the committee. Questions will be taken in rounds of three or four, at the discretion of the Chair. The Chairman will, at his discretion, call various members of the committee to respond to the questions asked. He may also, at his discretion, ask those purporting to advocate a "No" vote to reply to the audience queries. An equal opportunity will be provided by the Chair to enable each side to respond to questions and comments. If the 17 members of the committee take a certain view on a topic, a speaker on the other side of the debate will not get 17 opportunities to respond. It will not work that way. Speaking time will be organised in a manner that is proportionate to the size of the committee and reflective of the manner in which committee meetings are always conducted. I assure members that everybody will get fair play. Nobody will be excluded. Members of the committee and invited speakers who are nominated to respond will be invited to take the floor. Each of them will have up to three minutes in which to reply. I refer to the members of the committee.

Ms Patricia McKenna

Sorry--

Chairman

Members of the committee, invited speakers and members of the audience may take the floor only when called upon to do so by the Chairman. The Chairman will have complete discretion in the running of the meetings. He will ensure the proper balance of the meetings and the maintenance of the decorum of the meetings, as provided for in the Standing Orders of the Oireachtas or otherwise. The Chairman may also restrict the repetition of questions or views as he or she sees fit. The proceedings of the sittings, including the contributions of the members of the public, are to be recorded. The purpose of recording the proceedings is to ensure the accuracy of the formal record of the proceedings. It will be prohibited to privately record, by visual and audio recording devices, committee proceedings without the prior written permission of the committee. The costings will be conveyed to the general public in due course, in sufficient time for the public to evaluate their significance or otherwise in the context of the referendum. The committee reserves the right to amend this protocol if it deems it appropriate to do so. The Chairman may also, in running the meetings, adjust any of the procedures I have mentioned if he believes it necessary in the context of his complete discretion. I ask Mr. Kieran Allen of www.VoteNo.ie to address the joint committee.

Mr. Kieran Allen

In my submission, I will outline why I think the process is unfair. We are very concerned about the manner in which these meetings will be conducted. It is clear from what has been reported that the "No" and "Yes" sides will not be given equal time. Public money will spent on promoting the almost overwhelming majority view of this committee.

Chairman

Can I interrupt Mr. Allen for a moment? The purpose of today's meeting is to adduce evidence that may be beneficial to the public, and to the committee, in forming conclusions about the contents of the treaty and its positive or negative effects on the country. We are not part of a debate on the "whys" or "wherefores". The committee has agreed to give Mr. Allen an opportunity to speak at this meeting. Every other person who wishes to speak will be given such an opportunity regardless of whether he or she is on the "Yes" or "No" side. No special concessions will be made to the "Yes" or the "No" sides. Those who suggest beforehand that they will not get fair play will be regarded as objectionable.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I am sorry if I am regarded as "objectionable".

Chairman

All right.

Mr. Kieran Allen

My submission relates to the process and to one article of the Lisbon treaty. I will refer to it as the "Lisbon treaty". The manner in which the establishment here approaches the treaty suggests that it does not take the debate on it seriously. The debate should be about the content of the treaty - the details and clauses, etc. If that is to happen, the right of the Irish people to know what is in the treaty will have to be upheld. If one compares what is happening in Ireland to what happened in France, one will observe an awful contrast. In France, a parliamentary committee did not waste - or use, depending on one's view - taxpayers' money to promote its view. Copies of the proposed EU constitution were made freely available to the people of France in their post offices to enable them to evaluate the treaty. As a result, the turn out in the referendum in France was more than 70%. A deliberate strategy is being promoted by the political elite here. It involves ensuring that money is not spent on making the details of the treaty available to the people and thereby preventing a debate on the content of the treaty as opposed to extraneous issues from taking place. When I consider the type of debate being conducted, it seems to me that an attempt is being made to include many extraneous issues in the discussion and avoid considering the content of the treaty.

Chairman

Will Mr. Allen concentrate on the treaty for the benefit of this exercise?

Mr. Kieran Allen

I will, if I am allowed to make my point. I want to deal with the type of arguments being made on the treaty. The first argument being made is that if people vote "No", Ireland's standing will go down and we will endanger foreign investment. Proponents of this argument cannot explain why after France voted "No", foreign direct investment there shot up dramatically. Before the vote on the treaty, foreign investment there was €32.6 billion a year, but in 2005, the year of the vote, foreign investment was €81 billion and in 2006, it remained at €81 billion. We are not so arrogant as to claim that the "No" vote increased foreign investment, we merely claim that a "No" vote does not damage foreign investment. We ask proponents of the "Yes" side to refrain from that argument as there is no empirical evidence for it.

The "Yes" camp has claimed that the Lisbon treaty is necessary to streamline EU decision making. It suggests that with enlargement it would be very difficult to have the required decision-making structure and, therefore, the EU would be obstructed in its decision making. There is no evidence for this. The EU has stated - references to this may be found on the VoteNo.ie website:

The accession of ten new members in 2004 and of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 has not slowed down decision-making. The EU's institutions continue to function: new members of the European Parliament play an active role in its political groups; the Barroso Commission works effectively with 27 Commissioners; and the Council takes decisions [I stress] as well as before.

I ask the "Yes" side not to use the argument that the treaty is about streamlining, because the EU Commission makes it perfectly clear there is no problem on the issue of decision making.

Chairman

I wish to make a point. Today's delegations might say that all of the groups that have appeared before the committee so far have been pro-treaty, but they said and indicated they were not necessarily so. They did not set out to inform the committee of the mistakes being made by the other side. They did not address the "No" lobby for example and say it was wrong. I want today's group to address the issues of the treaty on which they think the people should be given information before they cast their vote on it, as opposed to a critique of what the "Yes" people say. It is a matter for the committee to do that job at a later stage.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I want to comment on the suggestion that all of the groups so far seem to have been on the "Yes" side. I have not decided yet and, therefore, I am sitting here hoping to learn something that will influence me one way or the other at each of our meetings. I urge the delegations not to lose the objective, which is to influence me, the others and the people. I urge them not to waste time on extraneous matters, but to concentrate on what they might do to influence us.

Chairman

Issues only. That is correct, Senator.

Mr. Kieran Allen

My first point was on the process and how the debate is being conducted. I think that is important, particularly the point about the treaty being available free of charge to citizens.

I will move my focus to one article of the treaty, namely, the protocol on the Internal Market and competition. The protocol reads:

CONSIDERING that the internal market, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted

HAVE AGREED THAT:

to this end, the Union shall, if necessary, take action under the provisions of the Treaties, including under Article 308 ...

This is an important element of the treaty. I now wish to draw the committee's attention to a concern raised by trade unionists which gives reasons, on this ground alone, for rejecting the treaty. My colleagues will deal with other aspects of the treaty, but on this ground I want to draw attention to two court cases that have taken place. The protocol is as legally valid as the rest of the treaty, and if the treaty goes ahead as proposed, the two judgments that have already been made will stand. We will also see more judgments in that regard.

The first judgment is the Laval judgment. The Laval judgment of the European Court of Justice on 18 December ruled it illegal for trade unions to take action against a Latvian company which refused to enter into agreements with the trade unions in Sweden to pay the registered rate for the building industry. This would be the equivalent in Ireland of a company coming here and agreeing to pay the minimum rate, but not agreeing to pay the registered rate for class A, B and D construction workers. The European Court of Justice ruled that the action of the trade union movement in attempting to prevent the company from undercutting the wages and living standards of Swedish workers, 89% of whose building workers were members of unions, was illegal. It did so under the articles guaranteeing open competition in the European Union. Although this case was in the offing for three years and although the statespersons in the Union were asked to address the issue, they refused to address it and, instead, have inserted this protocol ensuring undistorted competition.

Most recently, the European Court of Justice has struck down a law in the German state of Lower Saxony, which only allowed public contracts to be awarded to companies and subcontractors who agree to pay workers a minimum wage agreed by regional collective agreements. The case was brought before the court after a Polish company paid workers according to the Polish national minimum wage, which amounted to only 46.5% of Lower Saxony's minimum wage.

As a strong trade unionist and socialist, I am deeply concerned that the types of conditions being developed in Europe, which now amount to an attack on trade union rights and the right of workers to stand up for registered agreements, will be exacerbated rather than dealt with by the Lisbon treaty. On those grounds alone, I believe the people should vote "No" and establish our right to a social Europe rather than one dominated by corporations and their neoliberal agenda.

Chairman

Thank you. I invite Mr. Cole to make his presentation.

Mr. Roger Cole

While a formal date has not been fixed, it would appear that sometime in June the people of the Republic of Ireland will have the right to vote on whether they accept this renamed EU constitution, now called the Lisbon treaty. Irish people living in Northern Ireland have been denied that right, the right to vote on the issue in a referendum, as indeed have all the people in other EU states.

The reason for this is simple. An average of polls taken in all EU states demonstrates that 75% of people want to have a right to vote on the treaty by way of a referendum. However, they will not be given the chance because the French, the Dutch and many others, if given the chance, would, undoubtedly, vote "No". Our contention is that far from being the laughing stock of Europe if they vote "No", the Irish people will be cheered to the rafters if they do so, judging by all the e-mails I have received on the matter.

Our analysis is that the EU political elite essentially seeks to transfer power away from the peoples of the different countries to the EU institutions, namely, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. Our analysis is that the treaty creates a European superstate. I do not want people to just take my word for that. When speaking on the treaty José Manuel Barroso, President of the EU Commission, said:

Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empire. We have the dimensions of empire.

Ireland was previously, of course, part of a centralised, militarised, neoliberal superstate, namely, the British union. Politicians encouraged Irish people to join the various battle groups of that union and to go and take part in the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Sudan and many other parts of the world. Essentially the argument was that while they were Irish, they were also British. Now, instead of our people being considered as both Irish and British, the people who advocate the treaty now think we are both Irish and European. Again people are encouraged to take part in all the different battle groups.

Chairman

I do not want to keep interrupting. I am trying to keep the same format as in the other hearings whereby derogatory references were not made about those who had other opinions. Challenges were made and points were raised. It is better to concentrate on the issues in the treaty and how they will affect the people. The committee can debate who is right and who wrong at the end.

Mr. Roger Cole

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that I should quote the President of the EU Commission on the treaty. It does not seem particularly unreasonable that I should quote the effective leader of the EU on what he thinks it means.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

It must be in context.

Mr. Roger Cole

This is about the treaty. It is his description of what he believes the treaty is about.

Chairman

We will come to that. In the interests of order I ask people to keep to the issue, spend less time debating what the other side is thinking and saying, and try to address the issues in the treaty as they will affect the people.

Mr. Roger Cole

I would have thought that the decision of the President of the Commission and what he thinks is of relevance to the people. If he thinks the EU is becoming an empire I would have thought that relevant.

Chairman

That is an interpretation.

Mr. Roger Cole

It does not seem an unreasonable interpretation.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

In the context of the treaty--

Mr. Roger Cole

He was speaking about the treaty. He was speaking at a press conference held on the treaty.

Chairman

I call for order.

Mr. Roger Cole

That is what he said.

Chairman

We will proceed as we were and address the issues in the treaty which will be of benefit to the people in their reaching a decision in the referendum. The delegate may proceed.

Mr. Roger Cole

That is what I have been doing. When we talk about the effect of this treaty on Irish neutrality - which people say is an issue - our analysis is that our neutrality has already been destroyed by the overwhelming majority of those advocating this treaty. Ireland is effectively a US aircraft carrier with more than 1 million troops passing through Shannon Airport. Aeroplanes landing there are not searched. People can judge from newspaper coverage that this imperial war will last in the region for a considerable time. So far it has cost $3 trillion.

I refer to Mr. Andrew Duff. Mr. Duff is a Member of the European Parliament and is the chair, or rapporteur, of the European Union committee on the treaty. Therefore it would seem reasonable that he should know what is in the treaty. Clause 28(a), a mutual defence clause in the treaty, provides for self-defence and states:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. Commitments and co-operation in this area shall be consistent with the commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation which, for those States that are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence.

Mr. Duff has argued concerning the Western European Union, a nuclear-armed military alliance established in 1948, that its competence and former powers have been transferred steadily from the Western European Union to the European Union itself, through a number of treaties. He claims that only one remained, namely the concept of collective self-defence. He further argues that this collective self-defence, as a consequence of this clause in this treaty, has now been transferred to the European Union.

We argue that Irish neutrality has already gone. This treaty legalises something that has already happened, the complete abolition of Irish neutrality.

The other key area is the issue of defence. Instead of putting money into defending the health system, the Irish taxpayers will have to fund the militarisation of the EU. Article 28(3) provides for the establishment of a start-up fund for the EU military as outlined in the Petersberg Tasks. Article 28(2) requires that states be charged in accordance with their GDP scale of expenditures, arising from operations having military or defence implications.

Ireland will also have to pay for the administration of military expenditure which is paid out of the EU budget. The EU Council can decide unanimously to charge all military expenditure to the EU budget under Article 28(2). Ireland will have, "an obligation to progressively improve its military capabilities". As all members will know, the Irish defence budget has already passed the €1 billion mark with an Army of a little more than 10,000 personnel. The military expenditure is already the highest it has ever been. This is not out of synch. Mr. Javier Solana, the nearest equivalent to the EU Foreign Minister, said: "There is an absolute requirement for us to spend more, spend better and spend more together". He was talking about military expenditure. If those advocating that we should spend more money on military equipment subsequently say that they are in favour of a better health system, they will have a very difficult case to answer.

It also establishes what is called a "permanent structured co-operation". The treaty states:

Recalling that the common security and defence policy of the Union respects the obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty of those Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which remains the foundation of the collective defence of its members, and is compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework;

Convinced that a more assertive Union role in security and defence matters will contribute to the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance, in accordance with the Berlin Plus arrangements;

Of course, a state that is no longer neutral, as our State is, has no problem in saying that its people should sign a treaty that is in the business of contributing to the vitality of a nuclear arm military alliance. We argue that the people should not vote in favour of such a treaty.

The structured co-operation allows a group of states within the EU to form permanent military groups, to implement "the most demanding" military adventures. It is not clear whether, once established, these groups can have their own defence policies. The military operations shall be "in accordance with the principle of a single set of forces". That phrase defines an army. It is virtually impossible to deny that what is actually being established is a major military force. Members will know that the French will take over the EU Presidency in July and that they are already asking that ten of the larger states contribute at least 2% of their GDP to military expenditure, and provide 10,000 soldiers each to an intervention force. The French have made it clear that they will make defence a big issue during their Presidency.

The treaty means that we have to progressively improve our military capabilities. The secretary general of the nuclear arm military alliance, Mr. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer recently called upon NATO and the EU to pool their military to make them equally available to both organisations.

The Peace and Neutrality Alliance, PANA, was established in 1996. Our core approach since then has been to oppose the process by which this State has been steadily integrated into the US-EU-NATO military structures. This is why we regard the use of Shannon Airport as not separate from, but part of this process. We believe the structures are committed to involving people in Europe and the United States in more and more wars where defeat is the inevitable consequence. Only a few days ago 22 of the 27 states which are members of the European Union agreed to spend billions of euro and dollars to defend a shield to protect Europe from a state called Iran that has a GDP substantially less than that of Holland. The only ones to benefit from this spending will be the US and EU military industrial firms. I would not dare to suggest those involved in politics in other member states agree to this because there may be money on the side, but nevertheless the one to benefit from militarisation will be the arms industry. There is no shred of evidence that Iran will launch a nuclear attack on Europe.

This year marks the 90th anniversary of the vote by the people to stand by the united, independent democratic Irish republic. That is our tradition. We see ourselves as European in arguing that the European Union should be a partnership of independent democratic states, legal equals without a military dimension. It does not need and should not have a military dimension.

Chairman

How would Mr. Cole address the issue that arose during the war in Kosovo, whereby with the structures then in place it appeared the European Union was incapable of intervening in what appeared to be serious genocide which was condemned worldwide and where the execution of in excess of 8,000 men and women was shown on television? Does Mr. Cole believe member states collectively should stand by and say nothing in such an instance? Let us park that question, but Mr. Cole will be expected to comment on it at a later stage.

Ms Patricia McKenna

To put the Lisbon treaty in context, let me go over its history. The treaty was originally the European Union constitution which was rejected by French and Dutch voters. All EU leaders agree that the treaty is the constitution reformatted in a different way. I think it was Mr. Amato, the then vice president of the constitutional convention which drafted the original constitution, who stated that by not calling it a constitution people could not demand a referendum on it. In reality the Lisbon treaty is a constitution, as it will establish a federal EU state which will be fundamentally different from the European Union, founded on the Maastricht treaty of 1993. It will turn Ireland into a state within the new European Union. The EU constitution and laws that will be made under it will be superior to the Irish Constitution and those EU laws that may conflict with Irish laws. It will also allow the European Commission to negotiate international trade agreements. It is clear that the Commission pushes an aggressive trade agenda. This will be detrimental to those pushing for global equality and justice.

The treaty provides that for five out of every 15 years Ireland will not have a representative in the European Commission, the body which has a monopoly in proposing all EU laws. For five out of every 15 years Ireland will be out of that equation. Some may argue that so will Germany and other countries, but even Dr. Garret FitzGerald has argued that the Commission is particularly important for small countries. When one looks at some of the other provisions, one will see the reason it is more important for small countries as opposed to large countries such as Germany. If one takes account of another provision in the treaty which concerns the change in the voting system in one of the most important bodies in the European Union, the Council of Ministers, to a double majority system, under which population size will be the key criterion, Ireland's voting strength will be reduced by more than half, while Germany's will more than double.

The reason I am linking these changes together is that the European Commission has a monopoly in proposing all EU laws, but during the period when Germany and other large countries are out of the equation, the Commission will always take into account whether Germany is in favour of a decision, because if it is not, it will have a blocking minority with one other large country and a number of small countries. The Commission knows there is no point in pushing ahead with a measure that the larger countries will not support, whereas if it comes up with proposals for other laws, it does not really matter if Ireland is in favour because with 0.8% of the vote in the Council, unless it has the support of a significant number of small countries as well as the larger countries, it will not happen. I think that is the reason Dr. Garret FitzGerald has always argued that it is important for small countries to have a representative in the Commission. While it is argued that the Commission is not supposed to represent national interests, the reality is that is has represented such interests to a certain extent. There has always been that contact between the member states and the Commission. I criticised the former Commissioner, Mr. David Byrne, for lobbying on behalf of the late Mr. Kevin McHugh who owned the Atlantic Dawn to obtain a licence for it in the European fleet. Personally, I thought that was a mistake on Mr. Byrne’s part. It was a minor example of the link between the Commission and national parliaments.

Chairman

I also was a great believer in that theory, but it was never the intention of the Commissioners to be the national representatives. They were always the representatives of the Commission, the driving force of the European Union. As we have heard that argument many times, I will not comment on which is the better view——

Ms Patricia McKenna

The Chairman will not comment.

Chairman

I know what the original intention of the Commission was. It could be argued that the larger countries with a Commissioner on a constant basis - in some cases two Commissioners - might have greater influence than some of the smaller countries.

Ms Patricia McKenna

Dr. Garret FitzGerald argued that it was very important for smaller countries to have a Commissioner. We will lose the right to a Commissioner for five out of every 15 years, which is substantial. While the Nice treaty provided that after the Commission reached 27 members, there would be a reassessment, it did not state that for five out of every 15 years we would be left out of the equation. There was a possibility when this was being negotiated that the Commission would not have to proceed with this, a view that it should have allowed for each member state to have a Commissioner. I know that Ireland fought for the right to have a permanent Commissioner but that it did not win the argument. Now it seems it does not matter as much. However, it is something worth fighting for and we should have continued to fight for it. To be honest, we should have expressed the view that we did not think it was a great development. It is interesting - few people have pointed this out - that the original wording would have allowed member states to propose their own Commissioner but now they can make suggestions, which is very weak. Whether I would ever be in favour of who the Government would propose as a Commissioner, it is interesting to examine why the wording was changed in such a way in order that member states can only make a suggestion and do not have the final say on who their Commissioners will be.

The other issue is that Ireland's voting strength in the Council will be seriously weakened in favour of the larger states. The European Union will have the power to make binding laws in 32 new policy areas which include crime, justice, policing, public service, immigration, energy, transport, tourism, sport, culture, public health and the EU budget. Although the Government is opting out of the area of justice and home affairs, when we vote on the treaty, we will be voting for Ireland to be part of that area also because the Government has said we will opt in at a later stage. These are new policy areas where voting in the Council will be of crucial importance.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is being sold as something worthwhile but we must examine it in its entirety and consider the explanations, which had been included in the original constitution. The European Court of Justice will be the forum of last resort in deciding rights. It has already made it clear in a number of cases, including the Laval (Vaxholm) case, that the fundamental rights recognised by it are not absolute but will be considered in relation to the social functions. Consequently, restrictions can be imposed on the exercise of those rights, particularly in the context of a common organisation of the market. In another judgment the court stated restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights, particularly in the context of a common organisation of the market. These so-called fundamental rights will not be fundamental but will be decided by the European Court of Justice which has a notorious track record in putting the interests of big business before those of ordinary people and before basic rights. By voting for the treaty we will copperfasten the Laval (Vaxholm) judgment of the European Court of Justice.

The Lisbon treaty will make it illegal for governments and trade unions to enforce pay standards which are higher than the minimum wage for migrant workers. At the same time it will give the European Union full control of immigration policy. This combination threatens the pay and working conditions of large numbers of Irish people. A new treaty is needed to set this judgment aside. The Laval judgment concerns both Irish and immigrant workers. The case was originally concerned with the exploitation of foreign workers and the fact that they were not given the same rights as indigenous workers in certain member states. It declared that immigrant workers were not entitled to receive a decent wage. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is being sold as a human rights charter when it is far from it. Allowing the European Court of Justice to decide our rights is worrying. People should take a much closer look at this development.

I was a Green Party Member of the European Parliament and served on the Parliament's environment committee for ten years. In certain areas of environmental policy the European Union has been much more progressive than Ireland. Some words on climate change have been added to the treaty which give no extra legal powers to the Union to pursue climate change measures. If the treaty is not passed, the Union will not abandon its current climate change policies. Provisions for climate change measures in the treaty refer only to the international level. There is no provision for measures to be pursued within the Union. The treaty is being sold as a measure which will improve the conditions of climate change. This is not the full picture. The environment article contains no new laws to enable the Union to pursue--

Chairman

There is nothing in the treaty.

Ms Patricia McKenna

There is nothing new in the Lisbon treaty. Climate change is being used by representatives of the nuclear industry to justify its expansion. It is argued that nuclear power is free of CO2 emissions. With many others, I disagree. There is a legally binding protocol in the Lisbon treaty which will bind Ireland, with other member states, to the EURATOM treaty.

Chairman

Is this a new introduction?

Ms Patricia McKenna

There is a legally binding protocol in the Lisbon treaty.

Chairman

Was that protocol included in previous treaties?

Ms Patricia McKenna

The EURATOM treaty is already in place. However, the new protocol has been attached to the Lisbon treaty and a protocol is a legally binding instrument. The EURATOM treaty binds member states to creating the conditions necessary for the speedy establishment and growth of the nuclear industry and to facilitating investment required to develop nuclear energy facilities. While nuclear power stations may not be built in Ireland, it is possible that the climate change argument may be used to expand the nuclear industry at European taxpayers' expense and facilitate investment in the development of the nuclear industry in other parts of Europe. With the interconnector, we are part and parcel of that programme. Ireland should have demanded an opt-out from this protocol, given that we do not support the concept of nuclear power.

Chairman

Ms McKenna's time has expired. In view of the long introductions, we tried to facilitate her but one hour has elapsed.

Ms Patricia McKenna

I will make one final point. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, says there is no mechanism whereby our taxation system can be changed without our consent. However, Article 2.79 of the Lisbon treaty proposes an important amendment to Article 113 of the consolidated EU treaties which makes harmonised company tax laws across the European Union a mandatory requirement, although it must be done by unanimity. The first five-word amendment states such harmonisation must take place if it is necessary "to avoid distortion of competition". The effect of this amendment would be to open the way for any individual country or business to take a case before the European Court of Justice alleging that, for example, the 12.5% rate of company tax in Ireland, compared with the 30% rate in Germany, constitutes a distortion of competition. It would then be open to the court to apply the European Union's internal market rules on competition matters, where majority voting applies, to issues of company taxation. The court could require member states to harmonise their company taxes over a specified period.

Chairman

Without the permission of member states.

Ms Patricia McKenna

Will the Chairman let me finish? This is difficult. I am in the middle of a sentence.

Chairman

I am being tolerant.

Ms Patricia McKenna

I have been interrupted three or four times.

Chairman

I ask Ms McKenna to qualify that statement. I will ask the same questions of the other side.

Ms Patricia McKenna

If the Chairman had allowed me to finish the sentence, he would have got the answer to his question.

Chairman

Correct. Let us have the answer.

Ms Patricia McKenna

It is extremely frustrating to try to do this. The European Court of Justice could require member states to harmonise their company taxes over a specified period but governments would still decide the actual rates. The Lisbon treaty would clear the way around the present unanimity requirement on matters of company taxes. This five-word amendment had to be inserted for some specific reason. It was not simply inserted as window dressing. It is clear it has a purpose. Nevertheless, it is not mentioned in the Government's booklet describing the treaty nor in the national forum's summary guide. Why is it not mentioned? It is of fundamental importance to the taxation issue debate and needs to be analysed. I find it puzzling that a reference to the amendment is not to be found in either of the booklets funded by the taxpayer.

Chairman

I thank Ms McKenna. That was a thorough examination of the issues from the point of view of the visiting delegation. I ask members not to confine themselves to negative reaction to the points raised. It is important that we have an objective review of the treaty and its implications.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome the delegates and thank them for their thorough presentation. This exercise helps us to form our opinions. Some of us have already formed an opinion, as have the delegates, but it is nevertheless welcome to hear their views, as it encourages public debate about the Lisbon treaty.

I have a couple of questions for the delegation as a whole and other, more specific, questions. Will the delegates explain what their organisations do? How many members do they have and what are their structures? Though this question is less relevant, will they indicate if they are members of any political party, movement or grouping? Will the first speaker, Mr. Allen, explain from where he drew his information on foreign direct investment, FDI? Representatives of the Irish Business and Employers Federation, IBEC, appeared before the committee and provided evidence of continuing foreign direct investment in support of a "Yes" vote. I place the views of IBEC above those of the "No" campaign on the grounds that the former has access to people who understand the workings of FDI. Perhaps I am wrong to do so and Mr. Allen has a particular insight into the subject. If so, I would welcome his comments. I am not sure that the particular situation in France, to which he referred, justifies a suggestion that there is no empirical evidence of the benefits of the treaty in respect of FDI, when IBEC has made a strong case to the contrary.

Mr. Cole raised a couple of issues relating to neutrality and contended that our neutrality had already gone, a point on which I disagree with him. Why is he so negative if he believes the treaty does not affect the issue of neutrality?

Chairman

We will take questions and the delegates can respond as appropriate.

Deputy Joe Costello

I join Deputy Dooley in welcoming the delegates whom I compliment, as they have a track record of speaking out against the treaty and have honoured that record by attending today. I have much less time for Libertas which funked an invitation to attend the last meeting of the National Forum on Europe, which I attended, to have its say. It has done the same in respect of this meeting, a forum which presents an opportunity for those who are genuinely interested in the issue to advance their views. I applaud the delegates for taking that opportunity and doing so in a comprehensive fashion.

Mr. Allen and Ms McKenna made similar points on the organisation of the internal market and the protocol which seeks to prevent distortion of competition. My understanding is that the protocol deals with the corporate sector. The last thing needed in an internal market is the operation of monopoly capitalism. One does not want to see a large corporate sector monopolising the market. This section has often been used against members of the corporate sector, Microsoft being a case which comes to mind. It was fined between €2 billion and €3 billion for attempting to distort the market, which is not in the interests of a country such as Ireland which exports 90% of its product and needs an undistorted market. I do not, therefore, see the connection they make with the Laval judgment, as it concerns a different issue. It was made largely on the proportionality of the trade union's action, rather than the principle. Will the delegates clarify their views on this point? The court judged the action taken over the activities of the Laval company to be disproportionate and excessive.

Will Mr. Allen say how he views the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Ms McKenna said the charter was of no great consequence but it will be legally binding, which was not the case in respect of the purposes of any court decision in the past, being merely a declaration. It is specific on workers' rights and the right of the trade union movement to organise and engage in collective bargaining, etc. All new legislation coming from the European Union must reflect these aspects of the charter and be proofed against them. Does Mr. Allen not see that the Lisbon treaty will enhance these areas, which he believes are somewhat neglected?

I take a different view on neutrality than Mr. Cole, as I did when Labour Party spokesperson on defence when we debated the battle group legislation. Mr. Cole saw that legislation as a major step towards a European army but I do not see it that way at all. I see it as extending the capability of the Irish Army and ensuring it is more modern and up to date. There is a basic flaw in the argument that our neutrality has gone and that the European Union is the major cause. In fact, the whole ethos and purpose of the European Union was to establish peace on the continent, because of the destructiveness of the wars which had been conducted. Because of this, it decided it would only embark on military missions, known as the Petersberg Tasks, which had the backing of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and were in accordance with international law. It is very difficult to understand Mr. Cole's criticisms of the European Union's intentions in the context of a framework which has been in place from the beginning of the European project and reflects the way the Union is going. Surely its history of helping to get rid of dictatorships and totalitarian states, allowing them to join a peaceful and democratic union, shows the benefits of that approach. The Lisbon treaty holds to those ideals.

Ms McKenna talked about a European superstate. Does she not agree that we have granted the powers the European Union enjoys through successive treaties? In Ireland, that has involved referenda, as it will in the future. What specific aspects of the treaty change the Union's present status, as an entity which is not a superstate, to something which is a superstate? Ms McKenna opposed the previous treaty on the same lines.

Are the delegates in favour of the European Union as it stands? Were they in favour of any of its treaties? If they were, which ones did they support? Is this the straw that has broken the camel's back?

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I also welcome the three speakers and offer apologies on behalf of Deputy Creighton who could not speak but listened to the observations made. I have one question for each of the speakers about their contributions. I will do my best to focus on the substance of the points made and I will be grateful for a response to each question I have.

The nub of Mr. Kieran Allen's contribution was that this treaty will accelerate a process of aggressive globalisation that will undermine the rights of workers and their representatives in the trade union movement. The specific point I would like to put to him relates to Article 136 of the treaty which states that the Union shall have as its social policy objectives "the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, ... proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion." That seems to be the kind of statement that acts as a bulwark, a defence against many of the forces Mr. Allen outlined. I would like his response to that point.

Mr. Roger Cole's contribution focused on the military dimensions to the treaty. He was of the view that it will accelerate progress towards a military superstate. I put it to him that in the case of military activity, and particularly in regard to our neutrality, there is a clear veto in terms of what our country will participate in. Specifically, Article 27 of the treaty provides that any joint activity must not prejudice the specific character of any member state. Again and again Ireland has either threatened to use the veto or has used the veto to ensure that any activity across the European Union that is perceived to be incompatible with its status as a neutral country does not go ahead.

Ms Patricia McKenna proposed that what we have in the treaty is a common European constitution. A constitution involves having an army, a police force and institutions to which one swears loyalty in the same way as one swears loyalty to Bunreacht na hÉireann. This treaty does not involve any of those. How does Ms McKenna reconcile that with her view of this as a constitution? Ms McKenna also stated that the interests and roles of smaller countries would be threatened and undermined by the treaty. However, the development of the yellow card, orange card and red card system recognises the votes of smaller countries in many different institutions. Is that not a process that will ensure that our interests as a small country and our ability to articulate those is protected and enhanced by the treaty?

Senator Feargal Quinn

I also welcome our three guests. I decided not to make a decision on this until I had heard all sides. I, therefore, came here today hoping to be influenced. I am delighted to have this opportunity to ask some questions.

I did not quite understand Mr. Allen's point regarding competition being distorted. I checked this and the treaty includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted. Am I to understand that Mr. Allen wants competition that is distorted? I do not understand that and I would love to have it explained because I am a great believer in competition. When I look back and remember the airlines and telephone systems we had 20 years ago and the benefits we had when we introduced competition into those marketplaces, we must give some credit to Europe. Perhaps I have misunderstood the question of distortion. I believe the objective of competition that is not distorted is of value. I would be very pleased to hear Mr. Allen's response.

I will tell Mr. Roger Cole about my son-in-law. I have a French son-in-law whose family's house is in Soissons about 80 km north east of Paris. It was destroyed when the Germans passed through on their way to Paris in 1870. It was rebuilt shortly afterwards. It was destroyed in 1914 when the Germans again decided to visit Paris. It was rebuilt in the 1920s from war reparations. In 1940 it was destroyed not by the Germans, who occupied it very quickly, but by the Americans who bombed it because it was occupied by the Germans. I mention it to draw attention to the fact that in that period, from 1870 to 1945, there were three wars. We have not had a war since 1945. I would have thought that one of the real benefits of Europe has been the peace that has been achieved in Europe since then. Mr. Cole had some concern about the words "collective self-defence". He seemed to be opposed to collective self-defence. I would have thought collective self-defence is exactly what we would want if we were ever attacked. I would like to think we had allies who would come and help and defend us if that ever happened. We in Europe did ourselves harm by not protecting the people who were massacred in Kosovo, in the Balkans and the former Yugoslavia. Whether it is in Darfur or somewhere else, we must have an army to preserve peace. Perhaps Mr. Cole could touch on that.

Ms Patricia McKenna's contribution was very useful. I am very interested in the point she made that rather than proposing our own Commissioner, we may make suggestions. I had not heard that. If, as Ms McKenna says, there has been a change which is not included in the reform treaty booklet that was issued by the national forum, I would be concerned about that. I was not quick enough to take a note of the exact points Ms McKenna made on taxation. She referred to a five-word amendment. That concerns me a great deal. Those two areas are ones that influence Ireland to a great extent. In those two areas I learned something and I would like Ms McKenna to clarify them so that I can examine them in detail.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I too welcome the delegations to the committee. A number of speakers have used the Lisbon treaty as a platform for criticising pre-existing European structures and positions. Deputy Costello made that point very well. I will focus on a few areas. The meeting began with a debate about the public meetings the committee intends to hold. I defend the Chairman. I also defend the protocol and standing orders that have been drafted. They are balanced and fair to both sides of the argument. We went to great lengths to ensure that was the case. Notwithstanding that, I defend our right as elected representatives with a mandate from the people to speak openly and set out our opinions and views on this important issue when we attend those meetings. It is unacceptable to suggest that the Chairman must ensure there is equal air time for both the "Yes" and the "No" side when we hit the road and hold meetings in the public domain.

On neutrality, it has long been argued that Ireland will somehow be coerced into participating in aggressive EU military missions. There is no evidence to support that argument. It has not happened to date and it will not happen in the future. Irish neutrality is constitutionally secure. We have the triple lock mechanism. Last night I attended a National Forum on Europe debate in Cork at which the issue arose. Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP, spoke for the "Yes" side and Ms Kathy Sinnott, MEP, spoke for the "No" side. The EU law lecturer intervened and made it clear that from a legal point of view Irish neutrality is copperfastened and that there is nothing in the Lisbon treaty that compromises Irish neutrality.

Ms Patricia McKenna spoke at length about the loss of a permanent Commissioner. It is not so long ago that countries such as France and Germany had two Commissioners and others, including Ireland, one. Under the Lisbon treaty, every member state will be without a Commissioner for five out of every 15 years. Looking at it objectively, this is a much greater sacrifice for countries, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, with large population blocs. These member states were at the heart of the formation of the EU and have been the key economic drivers of the Union. They are willing to make that sacrifice and to share the position of Commissioner on a strict rotation basis with smaller member states. It is a significant sacrifice. While it is true that the Government fought to secure a permanent Commissioner for Ireland, the final outcome is one we can promote and defend. Every member state would prefer to have a full-time Commissioner but the sacrifice the larger states have made inspires confidence in me that this is a good deal for Ireland.

The consolidated corporate taxation base has been discussed at length. Again, this will remain an issue where unanimity is required and Ireland will retain a right of veto. It has been suggested that the European Court of Justice may be able to change that arrangement. However, who is to say what that court, our own Supreme Court or any other court will decide on any matter in the future? That has nothing to do with what is in the Lisbon treaty. The treaty does not undermine our independence on the issue of taxation. It would be a complete distortion of competition if a common corporate tax rate were to be imposed throughout the 27 member states. It is a key determinant of competitiveness that we as a country can stand apart by having a low corporate tax rate. Other countries are beginning to reduce their rate in line with ours, but it is not something the EU can impose. It would be a complete distortion of competition to do so.

The matter of other member states not holding a referendum has been raised. If there was a requirement for every member state to put the treaty to its citizens, the EU would be accused of dictating to sovereign states on how decisions should be taken. It has been made clear by the Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communications Strategy, Ms Margot Wallström, who attended a meeting of the committee some weeks ago, that the EU must respect the decision-making processes in each of the 27 member states. Each state must deal with the treaty in accordance with its own constitutional parameters. We are putting it to the public in a referendum but that is not the requirement in other countries. It is a matter for each state how ratification is achieved, in line with its constitutional and democratic procedures.

This is an important debate and we are going about our business in the correct manner. It is important that we have a frank exchange of views and that the voters can make their decision based on honest information. I agree that this information must be publicly available. I am sure the general understanding of the treaty will improve greatly in the coming weeks. Today's debate will contribute to that improved understanding.

Chairman

Several important issues have arisen in the course of the presentations. Members have posed relevant questions and the answers to those questions will assist the committee in coming to a decision at a later stage. Mr. Kieran Allen referred to the possibility of distributing copies of the constitution. I assume this was a reference to the reform treaty rather than to the Irish Constitution. I understand a copy of Bunreacht na hÉireann was delivered free of charge to every household some years ago. It is for the Government to decide whether it would be practical to distribute the text of the treaty to all households. It is a lengthy document

There was a suggestion that Ireland's standing within the EU will decline if the referendum is lost. That is not necessarily the case. Reference was made to the provisions regarding improved decision-making and protection for competition. Mr. Roger Cole spoke about the transfer of powers to the EU. There was a reminder of the reference by the President of the Commission, Mr. José Manuel Durão Barroso, to an empire. I note the observation that this comment was made in a different context.

Issues have been raised regarding neutrality, defence, structured co-operation and integration. Ms Patricia McKenna mentioned the initial French and Dutch responses to the treaty. I assume the intention on this occasion is to secure ratification of the treaty by a different method. The various member states have different methods of approval. Some put the matter to the people in a referendum and others do not.

Ms McKenna also mentioned negotiations in respect of trade and global justice, with reference to restrictions on the Commission. It is a question of what the Commission's role is supposed to be as opposed to what we think it should be. I ask whether it is in the interests of smaller countries that individual Commissioners should be identified with a particular member state. In those circumstances, is one Commissioner more powerful than another? Ms McKenna also spoke about the loss of voting strength and referred to climate change.

That encompasses the range of issues that have been raised.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I thank Deputy Michael McGrath for acknowledging that the committee will not be giving equal time to the "Yes" and "No" sides. We will give serious consideration to that. Our case is that public money would be better spent in producing a consolidated text of the treaty, with the amendments to existing treaties clearly highlighted--

Chairman

That is not a matter for Mr. Allen. That is an issue for another forum.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I am stating my opinion.

Chairman

I do not want to get into a debate as to the views of the other side. Our objective is to ascertain the opinions of the presenting groups on the treaty itself and, in so doing, to bring into the public arena information that will be of benefit to citizens in deciding how to vote in the forthcoming referendum. On the allocation of time, there is no procedure whereby a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas can be bound by any decision in that regard. We intend to give fair and adequate time to all sides to make their opinions known and to help the public in coming to a decision. This is not the correct arena for getting down to the other type of argument.

Mr. Kieran Allen

An element of my concern related to the process and I have made that point. At the least, the budget for these meetings should be available to the public in advance.

Chairman

There is a procedure for dealing with that and that procedure will be adhered to. In the normal course of events, the office of the Houses of the Oireachtas produces and publishes its budget on an annual basis. That will be done in the normal way.

Mr. Kieran Allen

Having made my point about the process, I will deal with the detailed questions that were asked of me. I am a member of the Socialist Workers Party. Regarding foreign investment, the figures--

Deputy Timmy Dooley

To clarify, is Mr. Allen representing the Socialist Workers Party or the body referred to in the documentation he has provided?

Mr. Kieran Allen

VoteNo.ie is a website set up by individual members---

Deputy Timmy Dooley

It is not, therefore, an organisation with a membership base.

Mr. Kieran Allen

It is not strictly an organisation. It is a website.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Does Mr. Allen represent himself or the Socialist Workers Party today?

Mr. Kieran Allen

I was invited here as an individual and as editor of the website. I am merely being up-front in informing the committee that I am a member of the Socialist Workers Party.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I appreciate that.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I am proud to be a member of the Socialist Workers Party.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

That is fine. I just wanted to know who Mr. Allen is representing today.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I was invited here as an individual.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Does that mean Mr. Allen does not represent anybody other than himself?

Mr. Kieran Allen

Deputy Dooley asked the basis on which I was invited. I was not invited as a representative of the Socialist Workers Party.

Ms Patricia McKenna

We are supposed to be talking about the Lisbon treaty but Deputy Dooley keeps pushing this issue.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I will get to Ms McKenna in due course.

Chairman

A question was asked and it is up to Mr. Allen whether he answers it. He need not do so.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I have answered it. I am a member of the Socialist Workers Party--

Chairman

The question the member asked is whether Mr. Allen has a mandate from a wider group--

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Does he have a mandate from the Socialist Workers Party? It is fine if Mr. Allen is presenting his own views. He should just say so.

Chairman

- -such as a national partnership or something like that. That is the question he is asking. Mr. Allen is entitled to answer it.

Mr. Kieran Allen

May I answer the question?

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I do not represent a national partnership. I was invited here as an individual who edits a website. I have come here in that capacity. I was asked to make clear my political affiliation. I am a member of the Socialist Workers Party.

Chairman

All right. Move on.

Mr. Kieran Allen

Can I move on to the rest of the questions?

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I was also asked about foreign direct investment. I was asked to outline my evidence. It comes from the OECD's annual report on foreign direct investment, which gives clear and comprehensive figures. I could have given figures for other countries, but I decided to confine it to France. I question the suggestion that this evidence is somehow of less importance than a statement made by IBEC, which has a vested interest in promoting the type of Europe that weakens trade unions. IBEC did not condemn the actions of Irish Ferries, which was allowed to stay as one of its members. I do not think IBEC has a direct interest in the type of Europe I want to see. It is clear that it will use all sorts of arguments, just as the Government is doing. The Government has said that the withdrawal of US troops from Shannon would weaken US investment. Similarly, it is being argued here that if we vote "No", foreign direct investment will flee. By how much will such investment decline? Where is the evidence-based research to back the assertion that foreign direct investment will leave here if we vote "No"? By how much will it be reduced? We need to be given such figures. I have attempted to give figures based on a particular case.

Chairman

I do not think any member of the committee said that.

Mr. Kieran Allen

Great. Therefore, we can remove that argument from the debate. We can agree that the issue of foreign direct investment has no relevance to the question of the Lisbon treaty. That is a step forward.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Is Mr. Allen prepared--

Chairman

Mr. Allen presented that argument.

Mr. Kieran Allen

No.

Chairman

It did not arise from the side of the room where the members of the committee are sitting. We are trying to work for the benefit of the people. Implicit in what Mr. Allen is saying is that somebody from that side of the room somehow indicated that there will be a reduction in foreign direct investment in the event of a "No" vote. Nobody did that.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I did not say that this argument was made by anybody on the other side of the room. I was refuting an argument that has been used by the "Yes" camp.

Chairman

It has not been used here.

Mr. Kieran Allen

We have now made progress.

Chairman

Good.

Mr. Kieran Allen

The "Yes" and "No" sides can agree that the issue of foreign direct investment has no relevance to the Lisbon treaty. That is a good step forward.

Chairman

We agree that it has no relevance, as presented by Mr. Allen.

Ms Patricia McKenna

Will we be allowed to speak, or should we just leave? It is ridiculous that the Chairman keeps interrupting.

Chairman

No.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I am trying to answer the questions asked. I have been asked seven or more questions.

Chairman

The purpose of this exercise is to glean information that will be of benefit to the people as they try to come to a decision.

Ms Patricia McKenna

Did the Chairman heckle the "Yes" side like this when they were here?

Chairman

Ms McKenna is the person who started to introduce extraneous matters. We will move on.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I have approximately eight questions to answer.

Chairman

Go ahead.

Mr. Kieran Allen

Perhaps I will be allowed to move on. I was asked about the protocol. I will give a straight answer to Senator Quinn's question about competition being distorted. I am in favour of a system of distortion of competition. I am in favour of state intervention and strong trade unions. Such things distort the purity of the market. If the committee wants to know why I think pure competition does not work, I suggest that members should consider what is happening to the financial sector of the world economy at the moment. The pure and undistorted competition from the sub-prime markets is leading to a global financial crisis. I am totally in favour of state intervention; restrictions on the movement of capital, which may be defined as a distortion of the market; and a return to the consensus of the past - decent intervention——

Deputy Michael McGrath

Mr. Allen is anti-EU.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I am not anti-EU. I am answering Senator Quinn's question.

Chairman

I ask Deputy McGrath to allow Mr. Allen to make his case.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Mr. Allen is anti-EU because he is against the movement of capital.

Chairman

We need to get an accurate response.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I ask the Chair to let people reply without--

Deputy Michael McGrath

Mr. Allen should put it on the record that he is anti-EU.

Chairman

No. The answer needs to be as accurate as possible.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I will move on to the next point. I am surprised that the Labour Party is now in favour of a system in which competition is not distorted. A great deal of the intervention in which the EU has engaged has not been aimed at companies like Microsoft - that case is just one example of intervention. It has also aimed its intervention at state industries, such as when Aer Lingus was privatised. The Labour Party and Fianna Fáil obviously took different views on the privatisation of Aer Lingus. It was argued that Aer Lingus had to be privatised because the EU would have questioned a state investment in the market. I have a real problem with that.

I think Deputy Costello is wrong on the Laval judgment. The judgment explicitly mentions the issue of competition rules. It is not a question of the disproportionate nature of the trade union response to that judgment. I would like to clarify a linguistic matter - the action that led to the Laval judgment was referred to as a "strike blockade". That does not mean people were physically outside the Laval premises. It means that unions refused to supply building workers to a company that was not paying the registered rate for the construction industry. I totally applaud the actions of the union in that case. I deeply regret that the provisions of the EU and, in particular, the provisions of the Lisbon treaty on not distorting competition, will lead to more judgments of this nature. Have any of those who support the "Yes" campaign explicitly and publicly condemned the Laval judgment? I have not seen any statements to that effect. If members are sincere in their support for workers' rights, they should condemn the judgment.

I was asked whether the "No" camp should take into account the fact that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will give us more rights. The articles explicitly state that the charter adds nothing further in terms of competency. I will give the committee the exact quotation later if we have time.

Chairman

We have to be out within two hours.

Mr. Kieran Allen

It does not add to the competencies of Europe. I challenge the "Yes" side to name one specific right that the Charter of Fundamental Rights gives the Irish people which they do not already have. We have a right to strike and so on.

Chairman

How would Mr. Allen view the charter if it provided for rights and entitlements which had not been in place previously?

Mr. Kieran Allen

I would have to look at it in the context of the wider treaty. I have yet to hear, from the point of view of clarification, one additional right that the Irish people will be getting from the charter.

Chairman

Is it beneficial to the European debate?

Mr. Kieran Allen

I see it as packaging. It does not give us anything we do not already have.

Chairman

It was drawn up prior to the Lisbon treaty.

Mr. Kieran Allen

Yes, but it is now incorporated in it. I do not see it as adding fundamentally to the stock of legal rights already enjoyed by the people.

Chairman

Does it not introduce safeguards?

Mr. Kieran Allen

I do not think it adds to the safeguards we already have.

Chairman

Fine.

Mr. Kieran Allen

When Deputy Costello made his specific point about the right to strike, he should have quoted the full clause which also provides for the right to work and the right to conduct business. Such rights would be in conflict during an industrial relations dispute. Conflicting rights are adjudicated on by the European Court of Justice, which recently delivered a very anti-trade union judgment. I do not see how it can be argued that additional rights are being provided.

Chairman

I have a particular interest in the charter because I was one of its authors.

Mr. Kieran Allen

Good.

Chairman

I have to move on because we have to be out of this room by 4 p.m. I do not want to rush Mr. Allen. Six members of the committee contributed to this debate over the course of 20 minutes.

Mr. Kieran Allen

I was answering the questions I was asked.

Chairman

I am not telling Mr. Allen anything. The meeting has been on for an hour and a quarter, so he has done very well. We will come back to him again.

Deputy Michael McGrath

That is not 50:50, Chairman.

Chairman

I know. That is the point I am making. I will return to Mr. Allen if he wishes to respond to the issues raised.

Deputy Michael McGrath

The Chairman will have to start the stopwatch.

Chairman

I ask Mr. Cole to respond.

Mr. Roger Cole

Deputy Dooley asked about my role within the Peace and Neutrality Alliance. I joined the Labour Party in 1967, which is some time ago now. I left the party in the 1970s, following the expulsion of Mr. Noel Browne, to become the general secretary of the new party of which Mr. Browne and Mr. Matt Merrigan were, in effect, the leaders. I rejoined the Labour Party in the 1980s and have been quite active since then. I would like to think I am a reasonably good friend of Deputy Costello even though we do not agree about everything. I have been actively involved in the Irish branch of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for most of my political life. In 1996, a number of people who were involved in that organisation decided to establish the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, which is a broad-based alliance of 34 different groups. The second largest trade union, Unite, which has 70,000 members, has recently affiliated. A number of trades councils, such as the Dublin Trades Council, which recently arranged the largest major march in relation to the peace process, and the Cork Council of Trade Unions are involved in the alliance. Some solidarity organisations, such as the Latin America Solidarity Council and Action from Ireland, are members of the alliance. Missionary groups like the Irish Missionary Union and Pax Christi are also involved. A number of political parties, including Sinn Féin and the Green Party, are affiliated to the alliance. A wide range of people, who do not always agree about everything, are involved. They agree on the five core objectives of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance. To put it simply, we believe in democracy and that Ireland should have its own independent foreign policy. That policy should, primarily, be pursued through a reformed United Nations. We are reasonably representative. For example, we played a key role in campaigning against the Amsterdam and the Nice treaties. What we sought then and what we seek now is a legally binding protocol, one the Danes already have, that will exclude us from the militarisation of the European Union. We are not being particularly demanding as somebody already has that. If it is acceptable for the Danes, it should be acceptable for us to get the same.

What I have to say on neutrality will probably answer a few questions. In 1907 when Europe was divided into different blocs, the Hague Convention defined in international law the legal rights, duties and responsibilities of a state that wished to be neutral. One of those conditions was that a state that wished to be so regarded could not allow its territory to be used by other states in a war. In 1939 when de Valera said the Irish Republic should stay neutral, he quoted the particular article of the Hague Convention to justify Ireland's neutrality. More recently, the Swiss ambassador said the reason there are no US troops landing in Zurich airport is because Switzerland is a neutral state and, therefore, cannot allow its territory to be so used.

As more than 1 million US troops have passed through Shannon and planes landing in Shannon Airport are not searched and bring people to torture chambers, we contend that it should be obvious that Ireland cannot be described as neutral under any circumstances. Our international secretary brought this issue to the High Court, which decided that this part of international law is not part of domestic law. Therefore, if the Government wished to destroy neutrality, it was not the job of a judge to interfere with that. That is a decision for the Oireachtas and the Government to decide. They have done that and we are no longer neutral. We are an integral part of Bush's war machine, which has the support of the overwhelming majority of the advocates of this treaty.

I thought the Chairman's question on Kosovo was a good one because it demonstrates a point we are constantly trying to make, namely, that we cannot talk about the Lisbon treaty in isolation from everything else. The issue of Kosovo is important because, in that case and completely against international law, NATO decided to go to war with Yugoslavia. Whether that was right or wrong, it was against international law. In other words, they did not have a UN mandate to go to war. This set a bad precedent which was repeated in the case of a decision of the US, Australia and the UK to go to war against Iraq. That was also an illegal war.

Chairman

There is a difference there, but I want to encourage Mr. Cole in his argument.

Mr. Roger Cole

The legal situation is that a state or a number of states have no legal right to go to war against another state. That creates a precedent. For example--

Chairman

I would like Mr. Cole to address the issue for the benefit of the committee. The two situations are not the same. In one situation we have Iraq and I take the point with regard to the legality of that and so on. However, in the case of Kosovo we are talking about a place on the Continent of Europe, on Europe's doorstep at a time when Europe was evolving. The combined membership of the European Union at the time felt incapable of intervening or influencing the situation in a meaningful way. Mr. Cole knows the various historic reasons for that as well as I do. What does he suggest the European Union could or should have done in such circumstances? In the event, Europe did nothing, and the result was a disaster. We should be conscious for the future of the need to try to protect human rights and avert genocide of that nature and scale again.

Mr. Roger Cole

If the Chairman did not keep interrupting me, that is the kind of argument I am trying to make.

Chairman

I only interrupted Mr. Cole once.

Mr. Roger Cole

I have no problem with the Chairman interrupting me, I do not lose any sleep over it. The issue is that states must maintain their commitment to international law. Once states decide to act otherwise, as in the case of the NATO states when they invaded Yugoslavia, they destroy any concept of international law. That is what happened in Iraq.

For the sake of argument let us take for example the situation in Tibet. As far as the Chinese are concerned, Tibet is part of China, but there is significant unrest there. People could say we should invade China on the grounds that the Chinese are treating the Tibetans badly, but that is against international law. That would be a dangerous route to take. I do not believe Ireland should participate in wars that are clearly against international law. That is a core position.

Chairman

What about the deployment of Irish troops overseas?

Mr. Roger Cole

The Chair is changing the question.

Chairman

I am not.

Mr. Roger Cole

The Chair asked about the issue of Kosovo. That issue is one where a number of NATO member states, in contravention of international law, invaded another country, because in their opinion it was not a particularly nice place to live if one did not support the government there.

Chairman

I will not interrupt again.

Mr. Roger Cole

The problem is that once one accepts that principle, one destroys the core position. What happened is that the whole rationale of international law --

Chairman

No, that is not the issue. However, I do not want to interrupt again because Ms Patricia McKenna wants to make a contribution also. The issue is this --

Mr. Roger Cole

I am sorry I will not get the opportunity to finish mine as the Chairman keeps interrupting me.

Chairman

I do not accept that complaint. One hour and a half was allowed for this discussion, but we will not go the route of arguing about it. The question at issue is simply whether an institution like the European Union should do nothing in the face of the kind of atrocity to which Mr. Cole referred. I remember the time in question without any degree of fondness. We know the reason there was no cohesive approach within the European Union because of the various histories involved. The question that arises is how do we deal with that in the future. I note the response Mr. Cole has given, but the point is that this is something the people of Ireland and every European country will have to consider at some stage.

I ask Mr. Cole to conclude his remarks because Ms McKenna is the final speaker and we need to move on.

Mr. Roger Cole

I have not finished yet.

Chairman

With all due respect, we must conclude. By virtue of the Order of Business of the House, we must finish. We cannot remain here.

Mr. Roger Cole

The Chair interrupted me and did not give me the opportunity to answer the questions of others.

Chairman

We allowed an hour and 40 minutes for the arguments to be made. Six speakers from this side got 20 minutes.

Mr. Roger Cole

With respect, my contribution was quite brief.

Deputy Joe Costello

I shall have a cup of coffee with Mr. Cole later.

Mr. Roger Cole

I shall finish quickly with Mr. Costello's questions.

Chairman

Go ahead.

Mr. Roger Cole

This is about the nature of Europe. Who wants war between Germany and France? Nobody in his right mind would want a war between them. Anything that can be done to ensure the two will not go to war again must be done. Why should the Deputy suggest that anybody who advocates a "No" vote is in favour of a war? He could not suggest that. Nobody I know in favour of a "No" vote wants to go to war. The two notions are not tied together.

This is my problem with the concept of Europe. Committee members must have heard about the French war in Indo-China, the French war in Algeria and the French war in Suez. The concern is not so much their wars within Europe, but their long-established habit of going away and beating the shit out of people outside of Europe. In other words, these are imperial powers who were beaten in the last century. Now they think that if we all get together, they can do it all over again, except this time it will be a European affair. That is my concern.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Rubbish.

Mr. Roger Cole

It is not rubbish. The Deputy must know enough, people must know enough--

Chairman

That is enough.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Mr Cole has undermined his entire contribution.

Chairman

I hoped that--

Mr. Roger Cole

The Chair hoped France was not an imperialist state.

Chairman

We will have a debate on the Franco-Prussian war at a future time.

Ms Patricia McKenna

Senator Donohoe mentioned national parliaments and the yellow card, that idea that an objection can be made. It is true that there is a provision whereby, within eight weeks, one third of national parliaments can object. The problem is that while they may be able to object this does not mean the Commission must drop what it is doing. It can note the objection but there is no onus on it to drop the legislation even if one third of national parliaments object within that eight-week period.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights was mentioned. The problem is that the European Court of Justice will decide our rights. While the Charter may be legally binding nonetheless that court will decide and there is much concern regarding some of its recent judgments. Although the treaty will have the EU acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights, a pre-condition in the text states: "it shall not affect the competences of the Union or the powers of its institutions". In other words, to take the example of the interests of the market, if any human rights conflict with the interests of the market then those rights will not be fundamental.

Several people mentioned our neutrality and whether it is already gone. There are several points to note within the treaty, for instance the mutual defence pact which is similar in wording to the NATO mutual defence pact, Article 5. If we wanted to take ourselves seriously as a neutral country we could have taken an opt-out from that mutual defence pact. The current EU Presidency has said that is exactly what it is, as indeed have others.

Deputy McGrath mentioned the debate last night. Mr. Joe Noonan, the Cork-based solicitor who was one of the solicitors responsible for the success of the Crotty case on foreign policy aspect, has very clear arguments relating to the impact of the treaty on our so-called neutrality and particularly the mutual defence pact.

Another aspect of the military issue is the expansion of the Petersberg Tasks to include combatting terrorism and possible pre-emptive military actions against perceived threats. This is akin to pre-empting actions that may never happen in order to give justification to military action.

One of the things that concerned me when I was in the European Parliament was the presence of the European defence agency or armaments agency which did a great deal of lobbying from the early 1990s until the Amsterdam treaty. It was then established as the European Defence Agency and incorporated into the treaty. The actual provisions given to the European Defence Agency state that "the European Defence Agency shall contribute to the regular assessment of participating Member States' contributions with regard to capabilities, in particular contributions made".

Considering what is behind this defence agency, the European armaments agency is deciding policy. It will be in its interest to push for member states to engage. There is a clause in the treaty stating that member states have to increase their military capabilities. It is worrying that the people who decide what member states will do are the companies that will benefit financially. Mr. Cole covered most of the military aspects. There is no way these arguments can be dismissed as being nonsensical.

I return to the key questions which Senator Quinn mentioned, one in relation to the Commission. Up to now, the treaties provided that member states would propose their Commissioners. That wording has been changed to read that "they can make suggestions". What is the purpose of this change in wording? "Propose" is a strong word whereas if persons or states merely "make suggestions" it is not always the case that they are acted upon.

The tax question is very important. Senator Dooley mentioned IBEC. IBEC has not raised this issue at all and does not refer to it. For Senator Quinn's benefit, it is Article 2.79, an amendment to Article 113 of the consolidated EU treaties, and its wording is, "to avoid distortion of competition". Clearly those few words had to be inserted for a reason. It is worrying that there is the possibility that a member state, or a company will be allowed to go to the European Court of Justice and argue that point. There is no other reason for putting the amendment in. It is something this committee should examine, and it should be analysed by the Government regarding the impact of this amendment. It is significant.

There were other questions that I did not think relevant. What organisation do I represent? The committee itself made the decision to ask us to come here and the members know who we are. Everybody knows that I am a member of the Green Party.

With regard to equal air time, Deputy McGrath mentioned honest information. I know that this does not concern only the treaty. It is a referendum issue and in a referendum amendment takes place. It could be the treaty this time, it could be the referendum on children next time. It is about amending our Constitution and the only people who can do that are the citizens. That is why in the McKenna judgment and the Coughlan judgment the Supreme Court will--

Chairman

I do not want a resumé of the McKenna judgement. We know about McKenna and about other judgments as well.

Ms Patricia McKenna

I just wish to make a point if I may--

Chairman

I want to make another point.

Ms Patricia McKenna

I think it is unfortunate that the Referendum Commission---

Chairman

There are strict divisions--

Ms Patricia McKenna

- -did not yet give out the "Yes" and "No" arguments. That is all. The Chairman can heckle away.

Chairman

There are strict divisions that separate the Oireachtas and the Judiciary. We do not wish to go there, if that is alright with Ms McKenna.

Ms McKenna made a point regarding a proposal to go in a direction which would not be in the interests of the member states. If the Commission proposed to do that - I believe it was Senator Donohoe who mentioned the right of the member state to challenge and use the yellow card - Ms McKenna said that it can proceed regardless, in certain circumstances.

It cannot. That was clear. I refer to what Commissioner Franco Frattini said when the committee met him some time ago. He said emphatically that such was not the case. There is also an orange card that can be waved in a particular direction at a particular time and there are no circumstances in which a member state can have its rights trampled upon to that extent. I bring that point to Ms McKenna's attention.

I thank all the delegates for coming here. The purpose of the exercise was to get the views, and the basis for the views, held by members who have been publicly identified with the "No" side of the campaign on the Lisbon treaty. The groups of people met by the committee so far, including the national partners, were people, some of whom had been on the "Yes" side, some who had not committed themselves and others who have to commit themselves.

We respect their right to address the committee and to ask questions. The process the committee is going through will be beneficial. The delegates' views will be beneficial. The committee thanks them for submitting their views and I thank the members of the committee for remaining throughout and for engaging in the debate. That is what is most likely to be of benefit to the people concerned.

Ms Patricia McKenna

The Chairman made one omission in his summary of our arguments. He forgot to mention the tax issue which I raised. It needs to be put into the minutes so that this can be investigated by the committee.

Chairman

The consolidation and harmonisation of taxes?

Ms Patricia McKenna

With regard to the amendment that I mentioned earlier; that is correct.

Chairman

That issue has also been dealt with by the committee. I should not tell Ms McKenna all these things, obviously, because the committee has yet to produce a report. However, it met initially with five Commissioners over a 24-hour basis and a clear undertaking was given, already indicated in the European treaty and treaties, that no progress can be made in this particular direction without unanimity.

Again I thank the delegates for attending. We will incorporate their views and consider them in the context of the report to be produced prior to the people being asked to vote in the referendum. I am sure everyone will be satisfied with the result.