JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Apr 2008

Lisbon Treaty: Discussion with Irish MEPs.

Chairman

Today's meeting is a discussion with our MEPs on the Lisbon reform treaty.

Over the past several months the joint committee has visited the EU institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg. While they were 17 meetings in 24 hours, we were well-received by EU Commissioners and the meetings were informative.

The joint committee has involved itself in a series of outreach meetings. An order of the House was made to allow the joint committee to meet in full public session at various locations. So far the committee has held meetings in Dublin, Galway and Cork. This coming Thursday the committee will meet in Dundalk, County Louth. Public attendance at the meetings has been gradually getting better. A small crowd attended the meeting in Dublin. A medium-sized crowd attended the meeting in Galway. The attendance and participation in Cork was the best.

The majority of participants previous to the Cork meeting were supporters of the "No" campaign, who made their presence felt at every occasion. The "Yes" voters were less intent in participating in the debate. It may be a good or bad development. At the meeting in Cork, we changed the format to allow committee members to interact with speakers from the floor to qualify arguments. It was a much more satisfactory arrangement in getting to the nitty gritty of speakers' concerns.

In the course of our meetings on the Lisbon reform treaty, we have met with the social partners and various organisations campaigning for and against the treaty. The committee invited Libertas to its meetings. It is the only group on the "No" side which has not responded and declined our invitation. That is regrettable because the committee is anxious to engage with it. The invitation still stands for it to give the committee its views.

The committee has already published an interim report on the Lisbon treaty. When all outreach and Leinster House meetings are completed, the committee will compile a report with conclusions on the soundings it has heard. The final report will decide what the committee has gleaned from the views expressed by those for and against the referendum. We expect to publish the report three weeks before polling day. We will now hear from our MEPs.

Mr. Seán Ó Neachtain, MEP

Ba mhaith liom ar dtús buíochas a glacadh leis an gcoiste as ucht cuireadh a thabhairt dhúinn, mar is deas an rud a bheith páirteach go háirithe ins an bfeachtas maidir le Lisbon agus léiriú a thabhairt ó thaobh saine mar Fheisirí Parlaiminte na hEorpa conas mar a fheicimid an próiséas agus conas mar atá an tábhacht a bhaineann leis i leith — ni amháin i leith na hÉireann, ach i leith na hEorpa.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to address the committee. We have been involved in debates and meetings all over our constituencies in particular, which are rather large. It is important that we have the opportunity from time to time to address the committee and give our views as Members of the European Parliament. Given my experience, not alone as an MEP, but for eight years before that as a member of the Committee of the Regions, I confirm that we have an opportunity in this referendum to indicate quite strongly to Europe how we in Ireland perceive the ongoing development of the European project. Essentially, that is what we are participating in, through this referendum. It must be understood that it was not put together today or yesterday. It has taken more than eight years to put in place, since the Laeken Declaration. It has been compiled in a compromise manner between 27 member states and reached the stage where we in Ireland will be the arbitrators as to whether it goes forward or is stalled. From that viewpoint, we must realise we are in a very important position. That importance will be linked to our influence in Europe, as a member state — to our influence at the negotiating table of Europe, where we have had a very beneficial linkage and alliance with other member states.

I believe very strongly, based on my experience in Europe, that if we vote against the Lisbon treaty, Ireland's influence on the European project will be greatly minimised. That is a crucial point, because, especially in areas such as agriculture and the various negotiations surrounding reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, Ireland has benefited, through the alliances and links we have put together across Europe. Particularly now, as we witness the health checks the CAP is going through, especially the reforms that will apply from 2013 onwards, those issues will be discussed and debated in the coming months. The progress will be stopped and stalled if we refuse to ratify the treaty and Ireland will not be thanked for it, especially in view of the WTO negotiations.

I am on the steering committee in the European Parliament as regards WTO. I have been involved since 2002 in the various deliberations towards putting a world trade deal in place. I believe strongly in a world trade deal for the benefit of the overall economy, but from the viewpoint of European and Irish agriculture, I strongly believe Commissioner Mandelson has gone down the wrong road. He is still trying to get a deal through by dismantling the Common Agricultural Policy, as I understand it. I strongly agree with farmers who are disgruntled and annoyed at that process, but I cannot see a world trade deal coming into place because of the way Mr. Mandelson has handled the negotiations. I cannot see that at all and I do not believe it is imminent. Even if it were, there is still a great deal to be done as regards ratification, in the event, with the European Parliament, the European Council, the United States Congress and so on. It is not opportune to have a world trade deal at this time, so for us to try and influence that type of negotiation process by voting against the Lisbon treaty, would be futile and an extremely bad move as far as Ireland is concerned.

Críochnóidh mé anois. Ceapaim to bhfuil sé tábhachtach na pointí sin a dhéanamh. Arís, go raibh maith agaibh, as ucht an éisteacht a thabhairt dúinn.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on this issue of the Lisbon treaty. Those members who have been following these matters over the years will know I have been here on previous occasions talking about the European constitution, because I was on the convention which produced it. In fact, I represented the Oireachtas on that convention, in 2002-03.

From a Labour Party perspective, it is important that all of the social advances we achieved in that constitutional process, involving in excess of 200 parliamentarians from across the European Union, representing all political perspectives, have in fact been retained in the Lisbon treaty. It is curious that many of those who presented themselves as being on the left in the Netherlands and in France, who defeated the constitution, even though 18 member states had ratified it, had argued that they would get a better more socially progressive treaty as a result. We came back with a less progressive treaty than the constitution. They got 95% of what was in the constitution, not 105% or 110%, and we have the extraordinary situation now, where people in Ireland are saying we can negotiate a better treaty if we say "No". I would ask them to face some political reality. In the year 2001-02, there were 11 governments out of 15 with a social democrat input. Now, there are 17 conservative governments out of 27. The notion that Mr. Berlusconi in Italy will deliver a more progressive social Europe is political nonsense. To argue, as in particular those who claim to be on the left do, that we will do better in opposing the treaty, is complete nonsense.

What the mainstream left has achieved in this treaty is quite extraordinary. We have, for instance, incorporated a new legal base in the treaty, which helps to defend, promote and safeguard public services within member states. This is a long-standing demand of the Labour Party and of the Party of European Socialists, PES, in the European Parliament. Over several years we have been preparing a Framework Directive or regulation that would put in place a legal framework at the European level that would ensure all member states can deliver high quality public services, in accordance with their own needs, funding and traditions.

Just last week we launched a document promoting public services for a citizens' Europe, where we make the case that high quality public services, accessible to all, are at the heart of the European Union's vision of a well run society. If the EU can get public services right, it will offer a powerful example of what a citizens' Europe can mean, in practice. We have incorporated in that document the articles in the treaties which underpin our proposal as well as the text of a draft regulation. We have not produced this at the drop of a hat. It has taken many international experts and politicians in the European Parliament and member states a number of years to prepare the draft regulation. It is an example of the added value provided by the Lisbon treaty.

Apart from the legal base — Article 16 of the treaty — there is a protocol which interprets that base and makes it clear that member states are responsible for public services and may not be interfered with by anyone outside. It also makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding. Article 36 guarantees the citizens of Europe access to health services, education and so forth, and marks a strong commitment to a social Europe. The charter, the public service provisions and Article 5A, the mainstreaming article that places an obligation on the European Union to take into account the social objectives of the Union in all of its policy making and legislation, represent a significant advance for the social dimension of the Union. This is not to mention the advances made in giving a new role to those elected by the citizens of Europe, namely, Members of national parliaments such as the Oireachtas and the European Parliament.

There is a strong case for a "Yes" vote on the treaty. By no means is it a perfect document; no document negotiated by 27 member states representing approximately 200 political parties could be perfect. There are compromises, but overall it is a good document in which the essential national interests of Ireland are well defended.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to participate in this discussion. I was Chairman of the committee at the time of the convention and the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, had special responsibility for European affairs. Proinsias De Rossa was a member of the convention, as were the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, and Mr. John Bruton who was also a member of the convention's praesidium. The Dáil was represented at the convention by more Opposition Deputies than Government Deputies. The convention also had more parliamentarians than government members and the applicant states were involved. All of the convention's papers were placed on the Internet and before and after every convention meeting, the Minister, the Deputies concerned and Proinsias De Rossa appeared before the committee and listened to our concerns as representatives of the people. The so-called Chairman's draft provided guidance on our concerns for those attending the convention. Everything we wanted in the negotiations, we got. It is important to point out that 80% of the Members of Dáil Éireann were able to vote in favour because all of our concerns were addressed.

Contrast this with the way in which the Amsterdam treaty was brought about, at which time I was Minister of State with special responsibility for European affairs and negotiated on behalf of Ireland. Some 15 Ministers representing the Governments, two Commissioners and two Members of the European Parliament met behind closed doors in a series of meetings. Eventually, we reported to the European Council. There was more debate, an agreement was reached — since we could not agree on everything, the remainder was left for the Nice treaty — and the treaty was ratified by the member states. Never before has a treaty to be put to the people been prepared in such an open and transparent way. The Oireachtas was kept informed and we gave our opinions and asked on an all-party basis that those attending the convention take our concerns with them, which they did.

We must remember that almost 500 million people live in the European Union, the miracle of which is that their representatives who come from different legal systems — Napoleonic and common law, with monarchs and presidents and different parliamentary traditions — were able to agree a document on how to move forward on behalf of those 500 million people. This leads me to the question of why we must move forward. We must remember the meaning of the project, namely, peace and stability on the Continent. In Europe alone, 60 million died in the first half of the last century in two world wars that started on the Continent. At the end of the Second World War, a small number of people set up the European Coal and Steel Community — the steel with which weapons were fashioned and the coal used to fashion them. If they could control these items in a common market, they would not be able to go to war with one another.

From a union of six states has been built a union of 27, with more wanting to join. Unlike the Americans who had a blank page on which to write a constitution, we decided as we went along how much we wanted to share. The difficulty is that, irrespective of discussions on federalism, confederalism and so on, there is no precedent in political science for what we are doing. This is not a federal system. The Queen of England or the President of Ireland will not disappear. The miracle lies in how we are building the European Union by consent.

Why is the Lisbon treaty phase necessary? The Single European Act gave us the market in which we sell our products and services, making Ireland prosperous. The Maastricht treaty gave us criteria for the euro. We used to spend every penny we collected on servicing the national debt. Before we could qualify to use the euro, we needed to reduce our debt to GNP ratio to below 60% and meet the annual borrowing requirement and inflation rate targets. We were in a vicious circle, but the Maastricht treaty gave us the impetus to enter a virtuous circle.

The Amsterdam and Nice treaties were concerned with enlargement, but with what is the Lisbon treaty concerned? Recently, I asked people from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund what the world would be like between 2030 and 2050. The synopsis was that the world would be different. America may not be as powerful as it is today, just as Europe was once more powerful than it is now. China will be powerful, while India, Brazil and a number of developing countries will have made considerable strides. I hope all developing countries will improve. Russia will also be powerful, while Europe will have 7% of the world's population, which will have increased by 2 billion.

In this context, can a European Union of 27 member states that may grow to 30 or 35 — every democratic European state is entitled to apply for membership and if we desire peace and stability on the Continent, we should include them if they are capable of taking on the responsibilities — be taken seriously if we rotate the Presidency of the European Council every six months? For example, I was privileged to hold the office of Lord Mayor of Dublin, but its greatest weakness is that the holder changes every year. Do we want to change the Presidency of the European Council every six months because it is someone else's turn? The treaty proposes that someone will hold the position for two and a half years, a term that can be renewed once. Currently, four people speak on foreign affairs issues — the Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, the Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy, the high representative and a different Minister every six months. The treaty will put in place one person who will be chairperson of the General Affairs and External Relations Council who will take his or her instructions from Foreign Ministers, including Ireland's. That person will also be a vice president of the Commission and, therefore, accountable to the Parliament, a good aspect. If we continue as we are, there will be 1,100 or 1,200 MEPs. A parliament cannot be run with those numbers. Given events in the Duma, it would be chaotic. A maximum number of 751 MEPs, which should be plenty for anyone, is set. It is a sensible provision.

The last section of the treaty concerns the Commissioners. There has been much debate on a common tax base and tax rate. When we created the position of Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, did we not expect the Commissioner to busy himself or herself making proposals? There was no role for such a Commissioner, but we created a job to give something to the Hungarians. If it was not the Hungarians, they would have been given a decent job on the next occasion and we would have given this job to someone else. If we create commissioners, they will come up with ideas to justify their existence. We do not need that many commissioners. I would like to see one commissioner for each member state up to a certain number. We have agreed that the appropriate number of commissioners will be 18, although that can be revisited. What cannot be revisited is the decision that every member state will have a commissioner for ten out of every 15 years on strict rotation. Until recently, each State had two.

This treaty is a very good deal. No member state got everything it wanted but the representatives of the people of Europe came together to produce a document which governments have agreed to and the people are now being asked to ratify.

People are saying they know nothing about the Lisbon treaty but that is because the campaign has not yet started. However, this committee has been on the road, the forum has published an excellent summary document, a White Paper has been produced, the Referendum Commission has been established, public meetings are being held throughout the country and the media is reporting on the issues, although more could be done in that regard. The full campaign is not due to commence until May and the referendum will not be held until June. Anybody who wants information will be able to access it. As public representatives, we have to show more leadership by taking on the people who claim to know nothing about the Lisbon treaty or who plan to vote "No" because they think the information is not available. We need to remind them of the miracle this is if they want to be selfish or egotistical.

Certain journalists, some of whom are qualified lawyers, are saying they cannot read this basic document. Do they expect the rest of us to pamper them? The role of the media is to communicate issues to the people, yet some its members are complaining the text of the treaty is too complex. They never had so much information available to guide them. When Finance Bills and Social Welfare Bills come before us, they are accompanied by explanatory memoranda. I have never been able to read a Finance Bill on its own because it is a complicated document. We need to be more proactive and courageous by showing leadership and nailing the nay-sayers because this is an important project for the peace, stability and prosperity of Europe. I certainly will vote "Yes".

Mr. Eoin Ryan, MEP

I thank the committee for inviting us before it. The treaty is an agreement between 27 countries, so by its very nature it is not an easy read. I found it incredible, therefore, to hear a business person claim on the radio this weekend that every child in Ireland should be able to read and understand it. The challenge before us is to make it as simple and understandable as possible for those who want to know what they will ratify. I have no doubt that we can do that over the coming weeks.

Given that 27 member states are involved, compromises will clearly be necessary. The treaty is not perfect from an Irish perspective but it is a good deal for us. When one considers the bigger picture of Europe, there is nothing in the treaty that has long or short-term negative effects on Ireland either socially or economically. As a member of the European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I am constantly asked how Ireland achieved its success. When we entered Europe, we had massive unemployment rates but we are now one of the most — if not the most, successful — countries in the EU. The level of investment into Ireland has been enormous. Between 2000 and 2006, more than €46 billion came from America alone. To put that figure into perspective, it is more than twice the American investments in China and India put together. This investment was made because of the people in Ireland and because we have access to a market of nearly 500 million people. That is where our children's and grandchildren's future lies. We have to hammer home that point because the "No" camp do not have an argument against it. It is amazing that certain people say they are pro-Europe but campaign against every single treaty. They want their own Europe in which everybody agrees with them. Every country made compromises in negotiating this treaty. Latvia, Germany and Italy did not get everything they wanted but they compromised on our collective behalf.

It is important that we consider the economic benefits that have come from Europe. I am part of a group producing a report on hedge funds for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. One of the members of the committee asked me whether Ireland has hedge funds, which I thought was a joke given that Ireland manages more than €1 trillion in hedge funds. We are the biggest manager of hedge funds in Europe. People do not realise the success of our financial services sector. Approximately 6,000 highly paid people work in the IFSC to manage those funds. We are a spectacularly successful country in that regard and I have no doubt that our success can continue. However, we have to ensure that we are at the heart of Europe if we are to argue from a position of strength on issues such as taxation.

A campaign has begun to confuse people about tax harmonisation and the common consolidated corporate tax base, CCCTB. I was delighted that the Commission clarified today that the treaty will not result in changes to tax harmonisation. The CCCTB is a separate issue and, regardless of whether we ratify the Lisbon treaty, it will remain a challenge to us. It is a tax base and has nothing to do with tax rates. Countries are beginning to question whether it is a good idea. Ten countries have already declared against it and I am certain a further five will join them. By next year, the CCCTB debate will have collapsed because the idea of a tax commissioner does not stand up to analysis. It would not be good for Europe and would definitely be bad for competition.

We have to show leadership by telling people that the proper place for Ireland is at the heart of Europe, making decisions that are good for us and for the EU.

Mr. Colm Burke, MEP

I thank the Chairman for inviting me to this meeting. This is my first time to address the committee. Further to the comments of Mr. Mitchell, MEP, on leadership, I attended my seventh public meeting last night in an effort to provide people of Ireland South with information. I am surprised at some of the negative opinion that has been expressed. When we joined the EEC, 1 million people were at work in this country, a figure that has since increased to 2.1 million. We seem to have forgotten that the export of our young and well educated population has ceased. We have played a major part in terms of the way we developed our economy but Europe has also played an important role in that 80% of what we produce is exported and, with its population of 490 million, Europe is now our biggest market.

I found the issue of sovereignty formed part of the debate, and that the Lisbon treaty would affect it. Up to 1973, a large part of our export market was dictated by the UK. That changed from 1973 onwards in that we were able to access a larger market. In real terms it was from then onwards that we really got our freedom in such matters as productivity and being able to get the market price for what we produce. We were not dictated to by one country.

The issue of sovereignty does not stand up. Ireland has done very well under the European Union and will continue to do so. It is important we bring out the "Yes" vote. We as politicians have a part to play in this in giving leadership.

Some of the issues being raised are incorrect or inaccurate. To give an example, I went to get my hair cut five or six weeks ago to find my hairdresser was voting "No" because she was advised that if she voted for the Lisbon treaty, the European Union intended bringing in a new regulation which would restrict the number of children she could have. I am not joking.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

What was the number she was quoting?

Mr. Colm Burke, MEP

I circulated the Charter of Fundamental Rights to all hairdressers in Cork city and county. I saw the leaflet she was referring to which discussed demographic change. The next line stated: "As you know they introduced this in China, and as you know in China one is restricted to having one child per family." That is how the issue is interpreted.

In Clonmel this weekend I was handed a leaflet outside a church which indicated the European Union would interfere with how we raise and educate our children, as well as legislation dealing with prostitution and hard drugs, abortion and euthanasia.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Was that in the church?

Mr. Colm Burke, MEP

It was outside the church. That was being produced and distributed outside churches in Clonmel and throughout Tipperary at the weekend.

Chairman

Who were the authors?

Mr. Colm Burke, MEP

It was Cóir. There is much misinformation which is of the type to frighten older people. I have found over the past three to four weeks in meeting people that many older people have already made up their minds because of much inaccurate information. Young people are looking for information and it is important we get it out to all the population. Young people, in particular, are seeking information and are very enthusiastic about Europe. It is important we keep that enthusiasm and give leadership.

I will finish with an issue that has not really been raised in the debate so far. I know Mr. De Rossa referred to it in dealing with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is a very important document. There are a number of issues referred to in the document, such as caring for the elderly. How do we look after our older population and their fundamental rights? There is also care of people with disabilities, which is fundamental. If people are voting "No" to the Lisbon treaty, they are also voting "No" on those issues. That is the reason it is important we get out a "Yes" vote and give the leadership to ensure the "Yes" vote is delivered on the day.

Not everything in the treaty is exactly what we want but we are a population of 4 million in a total population of 493 million. The level of compromise we have had to make has been very small compared with the net benefits we will get. I thank the Chairman for giving us the opportunity to meet the committee today.

Ms Marian Harkin, MEP

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to be here with the committee this afternoon to give some of our thoughts or reflections on the Lisbon treaty. Mr. Burke, MEP, may be interested to know that his hairdresser in Cork was not alone in getting the leaflets to which he referred. I spoke in a school in Longford just last week where one of the students told me such leaflets had come through her door. I told her it was off-the-wall stuff and, very wisely, she told me she knew it was but that I would be surprised at how many people would pay attention to it. That was from a 17 year old student. That is another issue we may return to later.

I wish to spend a few minutes talking about why I believe we should vote "Yes" for the Lisbon treaty. A reason that probably comes top of the agenda for me is that it will give more power to the European Parliament. As it stands with the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, about 60% to 65% of the legislation is co-decision. After the decision on the treaty, more than 90% of all legislation will be co-decision. Many people speak of a democratic deficit. We elect our MEPs and they are the people who represent us in Brussels. If their power in decision making is increased, the power of the citizens is made greater. For me that is the number one reason we should vote "Yes" to the treaty.

As far as national parliaments are concerned, their role also is enhanced. There is much argument about this but the bottom line is that if half of national parliaments object and either the Council or European Parliament agrees by simple majority, the legislation is shelved. That is if the objection is made on the grounds of subsidiarity. That power for national parliaments was never in place before and it does not amount to national parliaments operating on their own, as that could not happen. It is in conjunction with either the Council or the Parliament. That amounts to greater power at national level.

We also have the citizens' initiative. This is a small but important step. Perhaps I could be corrected on this but I do not know of any member states in the EU where citizens have the power at least to petition the Commission, in this case to introduce legislation. It does not mean the Commission must listen but at least it gives people an avenue to making their views known. To me, that is an important step in participatory democracy which I support.

Many have said that no document is perfect and I agree with that. None the less, Ireland has kept its red lines. I would consider some of those red lines to be issues which have been mentioned. For example, Mr. Eoin Ryan, MEP, spoke of the taxation issue. When is a veto not a veto? Is it when Ulick McEvaddy says so? I was flabbergasted to hear last week on "The Pat Kenny Show" that a veto was not a veto because he said so. I was shocked by that.

I was shocked further when at the weekend, the Small Firms Association, which represents 4,000 or 5,000 businesses employing people throughout Ireland, issued a statement suggesting that we vote "Yes" to Lisbon and not a word was reported. They are the people who create the jobs in this country, yet a wealthy businessman was able to say a veto was not a veto because he was wealthy. Perhaps there were other reasons of which I am not aware. I found it shocking and this must be challenged. This is an opportunity to do so and I am glad to be able to put it on the record.

Once it is clear that the veto stands, we hear about enhanced co-operation. Anyone who reads their European treaties will know that provision exists already and the Lisbon treaty will not change that one way or another.

As I have stated, we have kept our red lines on issues such as neutrality, with the triple lock. The abortion issue was raised and nothing is changed by the Lisbon treaty, which is clear for anyone who wants to look at it.

Another point sometimes raised by the "No" campaign is that Ireland is losing influence. The reality is every 350,000 Irish people have one MEP, whereas every 800,000 Germans have one MEP. In the Parliament, our vote counts as much as a German MEP's vote. It is the same with the Commission. We have one commissioner for 4.3 million Irish people, whereas 60 million British people have one commissioner. We have kept our influence where it matters.

There are two other points I wish to highlight. The idea has been put out time and again that this is a self-amending treaty. In other words, this means we will never have to come back to the Irish people again. I brought a document with me which has just three or four sentences but it is worth reading because it is directly from the treaty. The relevant statement deals with Article 48, and if there are to be any changes, there is an "ordinary revision procedure". The very last sentence reads: "The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements." We know what that means in Ireland. The simplified revision procedure, which is another mechanism, states the decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. That is black and white. It cannot be more clear.

The final part relates to a situation where a change from unanimity in voting to qualified majority voting is sought. It states, "If a national parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification the decision referred to shall not be adopted". That is crystal clear for anyone to understand. I read in a newspaper today that this is supposed to be a self-amending treaty but that is simply not the case, which this document makes clear.

Mr. Ó Neachtain has spoken about agriculture so I will not repeat what he said. A point rarely made but worth making is that both the people of Spain and Luxemburg voted "Yes" for the failed constitution. Everyone speaks of the French and the Dutch but they do not mention that other countries voted in favour of the constitution.

The issue I am about to mention has been raised in newspapers on a number of occasions and I have also heard it raised at public meetings. All MEPs will be aware that I am speaking of the vote in Parliament on the report on the Lisbon treaty. The European Parliament was asked whether it would respect the outcome of the Irish vote and the Parliament did not accept the proposition. This fact has been used by many in the "No" campaign to suggest the Parliament would not respect the outcome of the Irish vote. This is like asking Sligo County Council to approve the Estimates for Kerry County Council or asking the European Parliament to respect the outcome of the Irish general election. There is no connection between the two and I was surprised at those who put down the amendment. Do they feel there should be a connection between the two? Are they suggesting the European Parliament should have that kind of power? If so, I do not agree with them because Ireland is a sovereign state that makes its own decisions. The perspective of the European Parliament on the outcome of the Irish vote means nothing.

I agree with all of the speakers so far that we must show leadership, take the initiative, take on those putting out false information and, more importantly, give positive arguments for saying "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty.

Chairman

A number of very interesting points arose in the course of that contribution and I am sure members are anxious to comment. Deputy Breen will be followed by Deputies O'Rourke, Costello and Creighton.

Deputy Pat Breen

I will be brief because many people wish to speak. I will not go through the treaty in detail because we have frequently done so previously.

This afternoon's meeting is similar to meetings we have had around the country; we are really talking to ourselves because most of the people in this committee support the "Yes" vote. This brings me to the tactic of how to get the message to the people. A poll last weekend showed that 34% of people support the treaty and 31% do not, but the interesting element of the poll was that 80% of people still do not know what is in the treaty.

A few weeks ago we held a meeting on the same day Mr. Pádraig Walshe led 10,000 farmers in Dublin. Would the MEPs agree that Mr. Walshe's tactics regarding the World Trade Organisation talks are high risk and have damaged prospects of the Lisbon treaty passing? I spoke to a number of farmers over the weekend and their theory seems to be if one is not sure, one should vote "No". Is this the message that exists regarding the treaty?

Questions were asked last night regarding the Nice treaty at a meeting I attended. We are all convinced there will not be another Lisbon treaty if we reject it. However, some misinformation suggests that if we reject the treaty we can get a better deal, as we did with the Nice treaty. I have a number of questions but my primary one is how will we get the message to the people of Ireland that this treaty is good for us? It is very hard to counteract some of the negative tactics used by the "No" campaign.

I congratulate the MEPs because I know they are doing a good job for us in Europe and they send the message that we are part of Europe.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I thank all the MEPs for attending this meeting and as I listened to them speak I thought they made a fine, feisty lot. I expect this is because they come from a small country and must have their voices heard. They gave a very good account of how they are combatting indifference, to use the kindest word, and obstructive people.

I was very taken by what Mr. Mitchell, MEP, said. I was at a party last weekend and I met friends, including well-heeled men and women, who simply shrug their shoulders and could not be bothered trying to understand the treaty because they believe it is too difficult. These people make a lot of money and are very well-off, so fair dues to them. They have good families and a nice place in life but they feel the treaty is too much for them. They are luxuriating in indolence because this is a hugely important matter. I became the most unpopular person at the party for lecturing everyone but I did not know what else I could do. Mr. Gay Mitchell put his finger on it because his words immediately reminded me of Saturday night.

I was very shocked at Ulick McEvaddy. I do not wish to point at him because I know him from my time in the Department of Public Enterprise and he is a good man. I think he wanted the treaty explained line by line, for slow learners, because this is how he spoke about it. He spoke as if he should have a personal tutor at his shoulder to go through it all line by line. This was so ridiculous that it is hardly worth mentioning.

However, we may be slightly overplaying the suggestion that Ireland will be the holy show of Europe if it rejects the treaty. Whatever about us being holy, it is suggested that to reject the treaty would be a disaster and that we should not dare do so. I do not think such an approach is good. So what if the rest of Europe views us in a certain way? We should not constantly wag fingers, though I do not suggest that this is what the witnesses are doing. I am referring to what I have read, including suggestions that rejecting the treaty will spell disaster and that we will be the show of Europe. We must plot our own course and the opinions of others should not be a factor. We must do what we want with regard to our approach to Europe.

Yesterday I listened to a radio debate on "Morning Ireland". Deputy Dick Roche was involved, as was a man named John McGuirk, from the Libertas group, for the "No" campaign. Mr. McGuirk said his group does not like the way the agricultural policy is put forward because, apparently, the Queen of England receives money for set-aside land. I call that democracy. She is a citizen of Europe and if set-aside money is available to her for her agricultural acres she will get it. I thought it was ludicrous that it was the only argument he could present, which he did twice.

The more simple the message regarding the treaty, the better. We know Europe has been good for Ireland but we cannot persist with this line of argument because one is only as good as one's next trick. When something is given it is received and then it is deemed gone. Young people like to hear about the past; about wars, peace and how college fees are paid. That is fine.

I say to people that the treaty represents a general tidy-up around the edges to straighten the path to integration, the accession of more countries and more open, comprehensible laws. I do not understand one aspect of it. Perhaps we can be helped by the accumulation of feisty wisdom here. Ms Harkin spoke about this matter, the citizen's petition of 1 million signatures. When we say that to people there is a hollow echo. They laugh at first, then they exclaim about the million people. We all know about the internet and how it is possible to get a million people at the click of a mouse.

Scotland has a petitions committee which works very well and has evoked legislation from the Scottish Parliament. Here, the Seanad has a petitions committee because we went to Scotland, looked at what they were doing and came back and set it up. We have not had any success in the following regard yet but the Scottish Parliament has produced legislation based on petitions put forward by fishermen who came to the Parliament to question an anomaly within the law. It works very well.

I have been saying to people that there is a method of petitioning the European Parliament by getting a million signatures. The reaction is, "No thanks". Ms Harkin and her colleagues must realise that this will not work. There must be another way of getting people to petition the Parliament other than by acquiring a million signatures. It is the one aspect of the information we have received that I cannot come to grips with so perhaps I may be helped by the accumulated wisdom here.

The poll at the weekend was good for us all, good for the soul and mind. It fairly woke us up and let us know that we are not nearly there, that there is plenty of time for further slippage. There have been great developments this week. The commission is excellent. It will produce its 300-page booklet and we will have that and much additional information. If anybody or any group says that it is all too much, that it is not possible to understand the treaty, they should get their heads knocked fast. They can understand it if they wish. They would understand it very well if they were not getting their REPS payments, or if they were not getting their college fees paid. They cannot be bothered because life is too comfortable.

Mr. Colm Burke produced a document that he found outside the church. I have seen the same document in a church. Perhaps somebody picked it up from outside and brought it in. I have seen those documents in churches. It is very wrong. People must be very careful about what they do and say and how they follow through in this particular debate. That was an amusing story Mr. Burke told about his barber or hairdresser. Or perhaps it was a coiffeur or coiffeuse?

Deputy Joe Costello

I welcome all the MEPs who have come to give us their views. As Deputy Breen said, we are all speaking here to the converted. I presume all the MEPs were invited, including those with opposing views.

Chairman

All were invited.

Deputy Joe Costello

Representatives are here from all the political parties in favour of the treaty. Ms Harkin is very welcome as an Independent MEP from Sligo and the north west. Others were invited as well so we could have had the "No" views here if they had deigned to give their time to this parliamentary forum. We would have welcomed them.

Regarding the leaflet which Mr. Colm Burke saw and which Deputy O'Rourke commented upon, I was at a funeral in the Pro-Cathedral yesterday. I picked up quite a number of documents on a table inside the door. Two were from the organisation Cóir, one was a canvassing leaflet that referred to a "godless society", meaning that of the European Union and the Lisbon treaty. On the front page was the statement that Pope Benedict XVI is opposed to the Lisbon treaty. The second document was the newspaper, Alive!, which had eight separate articles opposing the treaty. It attacked the three major parties, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour. Another document was issued by Libertas in an A5 sheet. These documents were all grouped together in the Pro-Cathedral, which is the premier church of the archdiocese of Dublin. I believe that the Archbishop should have something to say about such use of the church.

Senator Mary O’Rourke

The committee should invite him here.

Deputy Joe Costello

Perhaps we should do that. It is an area that must be looked at and it is important that we raise the issue. It is good that the Referendum Commission is on board at last. One of its first actions has been to dispel some of the myths. It is to be hoped that from now on we will get fairer representation in the media. I have a question for Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, who has done much work on the difficult issues such as workers' rights, particularly in terms of the decisions by the European Court of Justice on the Laval, Viking and Rüffert cases. The trade union movement has concerns about precedents that might have been established and which seem to have gone against workers to some extent. Perhaps Mr. De Rossa might clarify that.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I apologise for arriving late. I am delighted to have an opportunity to meet the MEPs at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs. We are conscious that the sitting days do not often suit MEPs although there is one MEP who seems to be present at almost every meeting. Otherwise it is difficult for those who are in Brussels and Strasbourg to be here and I appreciate that so many of them have come here to discuss this extremely important topic.

I refer to some of the remarks that Ms Harkin, MEP, made regarding statements by prominent businessmen regarding the Lisbon treaty. I completely agree with her that the claim that the Lisbon treaty is "unintelligible drivel" is in itself drivel. It comes from people who have endorsed previous treaties and offered support to those that were equally complex and difficult legal instruments. It is disingenuous of those people to create fictitious arguments against the Lisbon treaty when we all know that their motivation are entirely different.

The weekend poll was timely. It was better to have it now rather than later. As Deputy O' Rourke said, it was a wake-up call. We must now see a considerable amount of leadership in this campaign from the Government parties, specifically from the Fianna Fáil Party. I urge the Fianna Fáil MEPs here to make that case to their party leadership because it is essential that all the major political parties in the State get out to canvass, not only Fine Gael and the Labour Party. There must be a concerted effort to have this crucial treaty passed by the people.

As to the WTO negotiations and our discussions following the farmers' protest last week, I wish to put on record that it is incontrovertible that the interests of farmers and those who have benefited and continue to benefit from the Common Agricultural Policy will effectively be destroyed by a successful "No" vote. I would like to hear the views of the delegation. Such a course of action by these groups amounts to shooting themselves in the foot and they would be reducing their clout and influence at a European level, especially given the upcoming CAP health check towards the end of this year. I do not accept that stating this is in any way scaremongering or hyping up the potential impact of a "No" vote. A "Yes" vote is in the interest of all farmers and I believe they will make the correct decision when they vote on 12 June.

On the citizens' initiative I disagree somewhat with the views of Ms Harkin, MEP, in regard to the obligations that will be placed on the Commission. The citizens' initiative is a positive development and this is the first time such an initiative will be legally binding. The Commission will be obliged under the proposed treaty to respond to an initiative of the citizens of Europe. This not the case at present as the Commission can note and ignore such proposals if it wishes. There have been examples of petitions containing 1 million names in matters concerning disability. This mechanism will be elevated and gathering 1 million signatures from across EU member states will have an impact. The Commission would not get away with ignoring any such initiative if it was legally challenged. It is not the case that it should listen to such a petition, rather it will have to listen.

There was an issue brought to my attention today by a member of the Libertas campaign which points the finger at the Irish Members of the European Parliament. I have full confidence in the way the delegation represents Ireland abroad, but there is an allegation by the "No" campaign which will be promoted over the course of the next weeks that many of the delegation have voted in favour of tax harmonisation in the European Parliament. I know this is not the case but I would like the delegation to state this on the record, so that rather than allowing the myth to be developed by Libertas over the next few weeks, we can hammer it on the head at an early stage. It is almost suggesting treachery and it is not untypical of Libertas to come up with such baseless and unfounded allegations, but I would like to hear from the MEPs on this matter. I thank the delegation for its hard work serving the people of Ireland in the European Parliament and for promoting the Lisbon treaty. I hope that together we will ensure the treaty is ratified.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

One of the main strands of the treaty that we are discussing is the additional powers that will be given to the Parliament in which the delegation works. As a citizen, let alone a Senator, I was impressed by the variety and passion that the delegation has brought to bear in discussing the issue. I am confident — Deputy O'Rourke used the word "feisty"— that this country's interests will be represented by this delegation in the future in the Parliament.

Given all that has been said it is difficult to add much that is new, so I will make two brief additional points. The establishment of the Referendum Commission will be a superb antidote to many of the lies being spread about the Lisbon treaty and its content. I was happy that one of the first statements the commission made referred to the Lisbon treaty, our tax competitiveness and the changes that will take place in the country in future if the treaty is ratified. If those clarifying statements continue to emerge in the coming weeks it will be good for the debate and, just as important, it will be a significant aid in having the treaty ratified.

There have been claims made offering reasons this treaty should be rejected. There is an article in one of today's newspapers by one of the delegation's colleagues stating the treaty should be rejected so that our negotiators can be sent back to the table to get a better deal for us. That statement is either one of frightening political naiveté, or shows a degree of cynicism that is breathtaking. We have an obligation to our constituents and in the work we try to do here to be relentless in pointing that out. Such statements and the impressions they create will do significant harm, not only to this treaty but to the work we try to do in getting a better deal with the European Union for our country and the people we represent.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I apologise for missing the earlier part of the meeting. I welcome the MEPs and I know each of them has been trying in recent months to advocate what is in the treaty. I am sure they find this job frustrating. I was at a public meeting last night where one member of the audience said that he believed if we voted "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty it would add nine cent to the cost of a litre of petrol. He may well be correct and the price may rise nine cent, but it shows the barriers that one has to cross.

Normally in politics we criticise the media but I wish to acknowledge the role The Irish Times has played in promoting the debate among the public. It has set an agenda that other organs of the media should follow and take time to explore, as opposed to waiting until the week before the referendum and then claim that this issue has not been raised or well debated.

The delegation, its colleagues and the Fianna Fáil side of the House could produce large amounts of information and statements on the issue that we have put out in recent months.

The editorial in today's edition of The Irish Times calls for clarity on the treaty. The MEPs must find it frustrating when there is a front page article in The Irish Times, and this is a sting in the tail, which refers to the issue of tax. The Referendum Commission has said that tax is not an issue, which is something that has been articulated by politicians for many weeks.

One of the difficulties for the public when it hears a debate between the "Yes" and "No" sides is that it does not get all the nuances. It does not follow the issues as closely as politicians. Often it gives credence to both sides of the argument. Do the MEPs agree it is good the Referendum Commission stated it will reserve the right to interject in the debate as issues arise?

Notwithstanding the call for clarity in the editorial in the The Irish Times today, the edition also had an article littered with untruths and inaccuracies which any reasonable person would acknowledge. This is a dilemma for a newspaper that is providing more information than any other media outlet. It is calling for clarity one the one hand, yet publishing an article full of misinformation on the other. Would MEPs agree it would be helpful that if the Referendum Commission discovered misinformation it felt was being propagated over a period, whether from the “Yes” or “No” side, it could seek to clarify the detail?

I try to refrain from criticising members of the "No" campaign individually and hope I can continue to do so. Bearing that in mind, I congratulate Mr. Ulick McEvaddy. He should go into the Guinness Book of Records if he has read the document four times. I read it once, but I do not know if anyone has read it four times. If he did read it attentively once, he would have noted that taxation, the matter causing most concern, was not an issue. The first five words of Article 113 clarify this point.

Mr. McEvaddy says that the treaty is a complex document and makes a comparison between it and the American and Irish constitutions. Every other week the Supreme Court adjudicates on the Irish Constitution, as does the American Supreme Court, in each case trying to put a construction on basic, simple language. The fact that this is a complex document will, hopefully, prevent or minimise the need for recourse to the courts to interpret what the document means or does not mean. Although the language used in the document is complex, its message is simple. It is about reform and making the European Union more efficient in the interests of the citizen. Many of the things that the "No" campaign claim will come to pass if we vote "Yes" will, in fact, probably come to pass if we vote "No".

I have noticed one point about virtually all the "No" campaigners, with which I am sure the MEPs agree. In everything I read there is a preamble stating the European Union is good for us and that we have done well out of it——

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

We love it.

Deputy Billy Timmins

Yes, they say, "It is great". I was at a public meeting in Greystones last night. As it was a Fine Gael meeting, there were not that many "No" voters at it. If there were, they were not verbal in their declarations. I remember being in the same room four or five years ago during the Nice II referendum campaign and the same issues put forward for why we should vote against the Nice II treaty are being put forward again. To me, neutrality is definitive — it can be lost only once. If we lost it back in 1973 or four or five years ago, we are hardly going to lose it a second, third or fourth time.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Billy Timmins

I wish I had as vivid an imagination as Eoin Ryan, MEP, but I do not.

Has anyone heard the "No" campaigners? Notwithstanding the fact that they advocate a "No" vote in every referendum, has any of them actually called for us to withdraw from the European Union? Incidentally, for the first time, the treaty includes a provision by which a country may withdraw and draw up a separate agreement with the Union.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I warmly welcome our colleagues and thank them for coming from the European Parliament. I thank them also for their outstanding representation of our country and their work in the Parliament on our behalf. We deeply value it. I apologise for being late — I had a prior commitment that I had to attend to; therefore, I could not be present to hear all of them.

There is a serious challenge ahead for us as democrats. We are here both as European and Irish legislators, and every day work for the common good and in the interests of the people. No matter what the myths are, we have to operate on a factual, legal basis under the Constitution. Our colleagues in the European Parliament have to do the same. We try to make laws in the common good, but are constantly bedevilled by people who try to undermine the European project on the basis of lies, myths and innuendo that have no basis in fact or law.

I accept what Deputy Costello said about leaflets. I have been in churches and call myself a reasonable Christian with a positive attitude to life and society and to the future as well as the past. I have seen the documents in various churches and cannot understand how churches can be used in that way. It is outrageous and something we will have to examine. More particularly, I cannot understand how individuals can control the media to try to destroy a project that has been so good to the country and receive such coverage in doing so. The media are not looking for us to appear on the news or major programmes or give us the coverage that other individuals receive. Those individuals have no mandate. While we respect their rights as citizens to put across their points of view, they have no mandate from the people. They may have covert agendas, supported by external operations outside Europe trying to destroy the European project. It is important we get that message across to the people.

I am not a lawyer, but I understand the English language and have been a proud legislator for the past 26 years. I find the language used in the proposed Treaty of Lisbon much simpler than that used in the past. I notice also that there are right-wing groups covertly involved in public meetings, not saying a lot but apparently worried about the future and the monster that is the European Union perhaps having a terrible, latent impact on the future of the universe, never mind the country. I tell those people, if they do not have time to read the Treaty of Lisbon, to read the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in which the right of the individual is guaranteed and sacrosanct, in which the laws of each member state on marriage and so on are copperfastened, and in which we as individuals and the traditional value systems of the country are protected. If they read it, there should be no doubt about what is happening and how we should work together.

The big challenge for us is to ensure we work together to secure the right result on 12 June. It is a big challenge for us as individuals, parliamentarians and members of political parties and we must ensure we leave no stone unturned in mobilising all the people.

I listened with great interest to Deputy Creighton. She can be assured that the leadership of my party is active and committed. In my constituency alone we have had three public meetings in the past seven days. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael Kitt, and I addressed the first one a week ago; Sean Ó Neachtain, MEP, addressed the second last Friday night and received a rousing response, while last night the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, addressed the third. My party is leaving no stone unturned.

Today I make a special appeal to the Irish Farmers Association. It is unbelievable for it to line up with Libertas to undermine the treaty. Libertas came out yesterday against the Common Agricultural Policy which is vital, not just to farmers but to all the citizens of the land. As we become a net contributor to the European Union, the balance of payments and transfer of resources from the Common Agricultural Policy into the country will be vital to give sustainability to the economy and us the cushion and protection necessary to take account of the international marketplace, international fiscal policies and the impact of decisions taken throughout the world. I appeal to the IFA to come out in a positive manner to support the Union and the Lisbon reform treaty and ensure we copperfasten, within the treaty, the Common Agricultural Policy. I am confident that, with the elected representatives in this country and the European Parliament and the people who represent us at the Commission, we can manage the World Trade Organisation trade talks separately from the Lisbon treaty. The talks are not dealt with in the treaty — they will be dealt with separately.

The challenge for us as democrats is to ensure democracy and common sense prevail and that, working together, we inform citizens that in the interests of the nation the Lisbon treaty is vital, not just to this generation but to many generations not yet born.

Senator Phil Prendergast

I welcome everyone to the meeting. Many of the points have been covered, but I join other speakers in commenting on the use of churches to promote a "No" vote and negative literature. It gives that literature a certain credibility. I have spoken to a few older people in day-care centres who were worried that, if such literature was placed in a church, the church was in favour of it. We must come out strongly to negate that idea because it is gaining a certain degree of credibility. My son came home last weekend and told me to fix it because people would believe what was written on the Cóir leaflets.

Many of my other points have been covered by Deputy Creighton. Did Libertas refuse our formal invitation to come here, or did it not answer?

Chairman

Ignored. Libertas failed to respond.

Senator Phil Prendergast

That is a shame. We will have to invite its representatives again and ask that they give some credibility to the format we have proposed and the forum we have provided around the country in order to hear people's views and ensure a fair debate. I attended the meeting held in Cork last week which, as the Chairman noted, was well attended. There was great interaction and it was very fair. At the end of the evening everybody went away with a fair analysis of the process.

I am delighted to see the MEPs who have contributed today. If I had been dithering to any degree of not knowing where I was going on the Lisbon treaty, the context in which it was put by their contributions would have left me in no doubt. I was in no doubt but their points were very good. I am sure that if they were included in a document and the credibility of each contributor was noted, it would assist our case. However, we will have to take a more proactive approach to the "No" side on its putting out false, misleading and confusing information and setting out mad ideas such as Colm Burke's hairdresser thinking she would be limited in the number of children she could have and linking the possibility of abortion being introduced in this country. Such an idea causes serious concern. Linking the church is key. The church is held in high regard by a large segment of the population and there is a chink that is being exploited by the "No" side. A certain idea is being put out almost subliminally and it is having a negative effect. It our duty as a committee to balance it. We should, as has been suggested, invite the clergy in for a discussion on the issue, as well as on how the church is being used as a tool to put forward a viewpoint that is not reflective of its views.

Chairman

A number of points have come up. Before I bring in Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP, and colleagues who also want to speak again — I understand some of them are in a hurry — I want to make a few comments.

It appears that Libertas and Sinn Féin have a common interest. Both were invited to participate on the platform, together or separately, and both refused. In the case of Sinn Féin, it indicated it would turn up but did not show. In the case of Libertas, it was given a follow-up invitation in the absence of a response to previous correspondence. It indicated it would not appear but would respond to points. My opinion is that they are afraid to appear before the committee but want to skulk in the shadows and make allegations to do as much damage as possible.

A couple of other issues arose in the past few weeks in which members might be interested. Some are suspicious because, with the exception of Sinn Féin, there is all-party consensus and it has been very easy to create suspicion. However, there has been no reference to the fact that employers and trade unions sat here side by side and were in favour of the treaty, although they also had reservations. The assumption that because there is political consensus there must be something wrong is an argument that bears further analysis. Consider all the other groups which came along. The IFA was in favour of the treaty but had reservations because of Commissioner Mandelson's proposals.

Regarding the WTO and the CAP health check, if the Lisbon treaty had been passed five years ago, we probably would not have the problem of runaway CAP reform. I cannot understand how it can be suggested we should postpone dealing with the loophole. I was previously strongly opposed to the change in the system, whereby each country had a Commissioner, but I have changed my mind on the issue. I now realise that the new proposal is better from the point of view of smaller countries.

During the course of our meetings Holland and France have been mentioned. This is a sovereign, independent state. We do not have to imitate any other state. We have the right to come to our own conclusions. We should not have to run after any other country. We have been at the centre of the European Union, in the front line, in the euro zone from the outset. There is no way we should apologise to anybody.

It appears it is now possible to print anything — it does not have to be verified or verifiable — and it becomes national policy. It might be better to invite representatives of the churches where such information is distributed. It is something about which the churches should also be concerned and with which we need to deal.

I have a list of names: Mr. Eoin Ryan, MEP; Mr. Seán Ó Neachtain, MEP; Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, and Mr. Colm Burke, MEP. I will then call Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP.

Mr. Eoin Ryan, MEP

Mr. Ó Neachtain wants to go ahead of me.

Mr. Sean Ó Neachtain, MEP

Before Deputy Creighton came in, I made the point that the influence of farmers would be reduced. That has again been made clear by the Chairman and Deputy Treacy. I cannot understand why they would go to such an extent as to reduce the influence they have at the negotiating table in Europe where they have particular allies in the French who might have rejected the constitutional treaty if President Sarkozy had not made it the central plank of his campaign for the Presidency that he wanted the treaty to be approved. If we reject the treaty, we will lose that allegiance and be considered as having let the side down.

I am very perturbed by the Cóir leaflet campaign. The leaflets have been delivered to every house in the city of Galway. The word "cóir" means "just" in my language. There is nothing just about this organisation. It should replace the "ó" with "o". The word "cóir" would then become "coir" which means "crime". That would be a more fitting name for the organisation. I tried to Google "Cóir" but it is lost in cyberspace. The leaflet is obviously not an authentic document. I agree with Deputy Timmins that the independent electoral commission should intervene in such instances. It is disgraceful that dubious organisations hiding behind the churches or in cyberspace are allowed to do this kind of thing because the misleading information is having an effect.

Deputy Noel Treacy

Hear, hear.

Mr. Sean Ó Neachtain, MEP

The message should be loud and clear that this cannot be allowed to ensure the project about which everyone spoke so glowingly will not be in any way diminished by what I would go so far as to say are illegal interpretations.

Táim an bhuíoch don choiste as an gcuireadh bheith anseo. Go raibh míle maith agaibh. Tá brón orm go bhfuil orm imeacht chuig ócáid eile anois, ach tá súil agam go mbeidh muid in ann castáil le chéile arís go luath.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

I will be brief.

Deputy Creighton asked a question on taxation. I cannot be sure how I voted in every vote in the parliament. All I can say is that I turn up and vote. I attend every committee meeting and every parliamentary session. I am a member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. With Mr. Eoin Ryan, the other Irish Member on that committee, I have opposed, tooth and nail, any suggestion by the Commission to introduce a CCCTB, a common corporation tax rate. The Fine Gael delegation as a group votes according to my advice because I am its member on the committee. I cannot rule out that we missed one or two votes. I do not think we did, but I want to make it clear that we are systematic. Lest anyone has missed the point, some of those who spend their time trawling through the records are the very ones who do not turn up for committee work. They turn up to vote in some plenary sessions in order to be seen. They need to ask themselves some questions. If they are so concerned about this issue, why are they not in Parliament doing the job they were elected to do and opposing this? That is a fair retaliation for some of the comments made.

The word "military" is bandied around as if it were a dirty word. Deputy Timmins has had a distinguished career in the Defence Forces, an organisation to which we owe a great debt of gratitude. The committee will be considering a report from Mr. Colm Burke, MEP, on the situation in Chad where members of the Defence Forces are risking their lives to bring humanitarian aid to a region. "Military" is not a dirty word. We need to grow up in that regard. The militarisation of Europe and the issue of common defence does not arise in the treaty. It repeats provisions in three other treaties we have already agreed. If there is to be a common defence in the future, there will be a further referendum. If we get the right terms for that, Fine Gael will support it. If we do not, we will not. We have set out our position in a document called Beyond Neutrality.

On the issue of sovereignty, I take the view that we had not become truly sovereign until we joined the European Union. Our population dipped below 3 million people. No country had embassies here worth talking about except the larger countries. Every country in the world now wants to have an embassy here but not because we are nice people. They want our ear because we have a say at the single biggest political and economic bloc in the world.

When we were so-called sovereign before we joined the European Union, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer set our interest rates and the value of our currency. It is now done by the European Central Bank, taking into account the needs of all the euro members, and we have a member on the European System of Central Banks. We have been able to diversify our economy. Incidentally, our biggest export when we were so-called sovereign was not agricultural product but people.

Deputy Noel Treacy

Hear, hear.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

Our biggest export now is a diversification of financial services, information technology for business purposes which is more than the United States, pharmaceuticals and all that goes with it. That is where we got our sovereignty and authority to make decisions for ourselves. I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to comment. I am travelling to Brussels and therefore will be unable to stay for the end of the meeting.

Chairman

Thank you. I call Eoin Ryan, MEP.

Mr. Eoin Ryan, MEP

I will deal with two questions. On tax harmonisation, those in the "No" campaign are trying to confuse people. Tax harmonisation is not on the agenda. The Referendum Commission nailed that question today but they will probably not believe the commission in that respect. They will not believe anybody because they do not want to.

The other aspect is CCCTB, which is a common consolidated corporate tax base. It has nothing to do with tax rates and the "No" campaign is trying to imply that it does. Regardless of whether we vote for the Lisbon treaty, CCCTB will still be an issue in Europe next September. At the outset many people voted for it and many countries agreed with it. That is not the case now. Approximately ten or 12 countries have publicly stated they are against it and another six or seven are against it privately but do not want to declare that yet. The CCCTB issue will not get through because not enough countries will vote for it. The "No" campaigners are trying to say that CCCTB is tax harmonisation. It is not but part and parcel of the "No" campaign is to confuse people. They have done a reasonable job in that regard so far, but if we all continue to argue against it we will defeat them.

I saw the leaflet Deputy Joe Costello spoke about with the reference to the Pope. I was so amazed by it that I rang the number and asked them to indicate where the Pope said we should not vote for the Lisbon treaty but they hummed and hawed about it. I told them the contrary was the case but they told me he was misquoted. Their argument is that the Pope was misquoted in saying he was in favour of the Lisbon treaty. We now know what we are up against in that regard.

As far as the campaign is concerned, I have attended a number of meetings. I will attend one tonight and another on Thursday. People are getting into gear about this campaign.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I will be as brief as possible. Somebody asked whether any of the "No" campaigners had argued for a withdrawal from the European Union. I have been doing some research on the Sinn Féin website and it has a document on its website which states explicitly that the question of withdrawal from the European Union cannot be ruled out. It also contains other statements which are contrary to its current position.

Mr. Eoin Ryan, MEP

Is that their members in the European Parliament?

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

It also argues that it wants to recover Ireland's economic sovereignty, which presumably means withdrawal from the euro. Curiously, it also argues that the euro must be extended to Northern Ireland. I am not sure if Sinn Féin knows where it is going on this issue but its position is a cynical one and no weight should be given to what it has to say.

With regard to voting in the European Parliament, Sinn Féin actually voted against the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Parliament. They also voted against the European Union providing aid for reproductive services in the Third World. A total of 900,000 women a year die because of the absence of adequate maternity services in the Third World and they voted against it. They never explained the reason but they voted against it. If Sinn Féin wants to get into the game of examining who voted for what, I will do my job just as well as anybody else.

On the specific question asked of me regarding Laval, I will not go into that in any detail but there are three recent cases from the European Court of Justice concerning companies providing services and taking up contracts from one member state, delivering the service into another member state and not complying with the industrial relations practices and pay agreements that exist in the state in which they are providing the service. The European Court of Justice has found that they are entitled to do that. Using shorthand, the basis of that decision is inadequacies in terms of what is known as the posting of workers directive and also the implementation of that posting of workers directive in the member states concerned.

There is a need for gaps to be closed in national legislation, including in Ireland, in terms of implementation of the posting of workers directive but the directive itself needs to be amended. Those are legislative matters which both the European Parliament and the national parliaments must address. Saying "No" to the Lisbon treaty on the basis of those judgments, however, is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face because the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to which I have already referred, explicitly makes it a legal obligation on the European Union to respect the rights of workers, collective agreements, the right of workers to act collectively and so on. In saying "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty we strengthen our hand in making the case for a better balance between the rights of service providers to provide services in different member states and the rights of workers to have decent pay and conditions.

Mr. Colm Burke, MEP

I will address one issue raised with me. It is important that we understand the Christian ethos of the European Union. I have been attacked because God is not mentioned in the treaty. My response to the person was to ask when they last called on their elderly neighbour only to find they had not seen them for six months.

Regarding development aid, many people do not realise that in 2006 the European Union gave €6.8 billion in development aid. That was for specific projects trying to help Third World countries improve the lives of the population of those countries. Between now and 2013 the EU will give approximately €22.4 billion in development aid. That is the European Union's Christian ethos. We are giving assistance to countries but also setting clear goals regarding the way that money is used whereas China and other countries provide arms in exchange for oil or other raw materials taken from those countries. We are going in with specific objectives. Many people forget the positive measures the European Union is taking in that area and that is a message we should send out to the public.

Ms Marian Harkin, MEP

I will make a few brief points in response to some of the questions raised. Deputy Creighton spoke about the citizens' initiative. The Deputy is correct that it is in the treaty and it is important but I did not want to oversell what might or might not come from it.

Deputy Timmins and several others asked a question about the Irish Farmers Association. Nobody votes in a vacuum. The IFA is using this as leverage, as it is clear that the Lisbon treaty and the WTO are not connected. I have spoken to individual farmers and they are very unsure. However, I believe they will vote for the treaty. Farmers understand better than anybody else how important it is that Ireland is in a strong negotiating position. They are anxious about the WTO negotiations but they are also clever enough to know that the two are not connected. They are using them as leverage, which is a human thing to do. On polling day, many farmers will certainly not wish to be on the same side as Libertas. Deputy O'Rourke said that John McGuirk brought up the issue of the Queen of England today but that was purely in the context of trying to explain the comments of Libertas leader, Declan Ganley, about the CAP being a weapon of mass destruction. I am sure Irish farmers would not wish to be aligned with such an organisation.

I am well aware of the misleading information on leaflets in churches. I am delighted the issue was raised today because I believe the churches would not wish to be used in this way. Given that the issue has been raised, it will probably be dealt with. My last comment is about the Referendum Commission reserving the right to interject in the debate. It already did so today when it clarified the position on taxation. In the same newspaper I read a quote from one of our MEPs. It was in bold type and states: "Article 48 gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties without recourse to an intergovernmental conference or a new treaty." The Referendum Commission should comment on that. The idea that this is a self-amending treaty is utterly without foundation and the Referendum Commission should address it. It is a core issue in the debate.

Chairman

Mr. Brian Crowley will have the chance to make his opening and concluding remarks in the same speech.

Mr. Brian Crowley

Thank you, Chairman. I am so logical when I speak I need only speak once; no clarification is required. I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the invitation to this meeting. I will be brief, as my colleagues have adequately covered all the points. I wish to mention four key areas. The first relates to the farmers and the WTO. Three weeks ago I had a meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy and it was made adamantly clear that not only is Ireland against a bad deal or Peter Mandelson going beyond his negotiating remit but the French, Polish, Lithuanian and other governments are against it.

The reality is that the world has changed totally with regard to food supply and food security in the past six months. Thailand is stopping the export of rice, although it was the second largest exporter of rice to the European Union. Argentina has stopped the export of certain food products while Egypt is giving its people subsidies to allow them to buy bread. India has altered its position with regard to the G20. There is a changing dynamic. Many of the arguments the farming organisations and individual farmers have been making about the WTO and offering as a reason to vote against the Lisbon treaty are now dissipated. Last night I had a meeting with a group of members from three co-operatives in north Cork. Again, there was a long and heated discussion but they left the room satisfied that the risks are fewer than they had been led to believe.

The second issue is taxation. This treaty does not change taxation. Unanimity is still required. All that is required is Malta, the smallest country in the EU, to oppose a change and the change cannot proceed. That is not to say Belgium and Holland could not have a joint tax system should they wish it, but they cannot impose it on other people. That is the reality and anybody who says otherwise is lying. Anybody who tries to distort the position by quoting Article 137, Article 113 or the like is telling lies. A representative from Libertas or Ulick McEvaddy mentioned Article 137 and the distortion of competition. That relates to the existing operation of the internal market, not any new powers being given.

The third issue is the question one often hears: "If the French and the Dutch rejected this, why are we voting on it?" The reason is that it is a different document from what the French and the Dutch rejected. It is a new treaty that amends previous treaties. It is complicated because it must refer to previous treaties, not replace them. The fourth issue is the distribution of literature in churches. Members will have seen that one of the local priests in west Cork, Fr. Gerard Galvin, wrote to The Irish Times and other national newspapers complaining about the type of material contained in some of the magazines and literature being distributed, not by the church authorities, within the churches. Parishioners were handing them out inside the church, unknown to the church authorities. Fr. Galvin stopped it in his church and insisted there would be no campaigning for any side within the confines of the church. People were welcome to do what they wished outside the church gates but not inside the church. Many of our colleagues in different constituencies have already spoken to their local priests about this and the priests are becoming aware of what is being distributed and are taking action on it.

Deputy Timmins mentioned something earlier that is worth repeating. Many years ago there were a number of cults in California predicting the end of the world. In the years before the millennium, in particular, they made that prediction. From 1962 to 1983 one woman predicted the end of the world 19 times. She was so successful as a sales person that thousands of people believed her even though she was proven wrong every time. I have heard some of the arguments from Sinn Féin and others who have, since 1973, opposed our membership of the European Union. At every stage they have used the same opposing arguments — that we would lose our neutrality, culture, language, our right to make decisions for ourselves and our ability to protect agriculture and our other vital interests. They have been wrong on each occasion over 35 years, yet the same lies and scaremongering are trotted out again and again, and given credence by media and other people. Yet if elected public representatives, who must put themselves forward for the approval of the public to keep their jobs, were proven to be wrong on a single thing they uttered on a previous occasion, they would be gone.

Over a period of 35 years a generation of people has been allowed to continue with the same lies and innuendo. What is even more galling about these so-called defenders of Irish interests is that they put forward no alternative. They have not said: "Reject that and we will do this instead". They know they will never have to make a decision. The reason they will never have to make a decision is not only due to the combined strength of the social partners and the mainstream political parties but to the wisdom of the people. Every time the question has been put to them, they have, with one exception, given the correct answer on the positive aspect of where Ireland needs to go. Ireland is an island in the Atlantic Ocean. Our choice is whether we wish to remain at the heart of Europe. It is up to us to ensure we do.

Chairman

Thank you. That brings this part of the discussion to a close. I thank our MEPs for their attendance and for cogently expressing their views. As Deputy O'Rourke pointed out, they are a feisty bunch and well able to represent us. We are glad to be represented by them. They are neither absent nor silent. I call Deputy Noel Treacy.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I suggest the committee go into private session to examine the mechanisation of the operation.

Chairman

We will do that in a few minutes.