JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 May 2008

Lisbon Treaty: Public Deliberations.

Chairman

Good evening. The Joint Committee on European Affairs is now in public session. I extend a very warm welcome to you all. This is the sixth in a series of meetings undertaken by the committee to generate discussion and debate on the Lisbon treaty. We hold weekly meetings of this committee in the Oireachtas. As a means of generating debate and providing information on the Lisbon treaty, we decided to extend our meetings outside Leinster House. We have had meetings in DCU, Dundalk, Galway, UCC and Athlone. We are here tonight in Limerick. We did not deliberately put Limerick last, but that is how the arrangements were made, and they had to be made quickly.

This is a formal committee meeting. It is recorded and the proceedings will be used in the compilation of a report to be published in and around 28 May. We hope to address the issues about which the public have expressed concern. We will make findings and recommendations and we hope the report will be beneficial to the public. Everybody should express an opinion by voting, especially in a referendum, so we will be calling for a good turn out.

I must mention that Members of the Oireachtas have absolute privilege, but Members must also bear in mind that they cannot denigrate somebody, either personally or by way of identification of a person in a manner which would bring the privilege into disrepute. Guest speakers or members of the public do not have such privilege. In order to generate good debate, the committee has provided for members of the public to come forward after the guest speakers have made their presentations, each of which will last for ten to 15 minutes, and one of which will be for the treaty and one of which will be against it. The members of the public will take their place on the front seats, approach the microphones laid out and ask questions.

Each speaker from the floor will have about three minutes. The Chair has the right to intervene. As Frank Prendergast will testify, the Chair never interrupts; the Chair intervenes. That will not in any way erode the three minutes granted to each speaker from the floor, but we may intervene in order to clarify something.

These public meetings are one way of bringing the Parliament to the people by allowing citizens throughout the regions an opportunity to raise questions with Members of the Oireachtas and guest speakers. The joint committee comprises 17 members from both Houses of the Oireachtas. Not all members travel to each location but all Oireachtas Members have a right to attend committee meetings at all times, as have Members of the European Parliament. All Oireachtas Members in the region in question are invited to the meeting, as are the MEPs for the area, and they all, regardless of whether they are members of the committee, have the right to sit on the platform.

Sinn Féin Members, who are opposing the Lisbon treaty, have been invited to each committee meeting, as have representatives of the various groups and bodies which have set out their stall on one side or the other in the course of the debate. We have had meetings to discuss the Lisbon treaty with representatives of the social partners, Irish Countrywomen's Association, Irish Farmers Association, Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Irish Business and Employers Confederation and the Union of Students in Ireland. There has been a good debate. We have invited all groups which expressed an interest in the debate to attend meetings of the committee but not all of them have accepted that invitation. Libertas was invited at the outset and that offer was renewed in the past week. Its representatives will be welcome if they wish to participate in the debate.

We will try to ensure the meeting is as orderly as possible. I advise speakers and the audience that the proceedings are recorded. In attendance this evening are IT staff, transcribing staff, ushers and committee secretariat staff from Dáil Éireann. The same format will apply for this meeting as is the case when the committee meets in formal session in Leinster House. I thank the Millennium Theatre staff for facilitating this meeting. We are grateful for their help in organising this event.

The guest speakers will make their presentations, after which the meeting will be open to the floor. The guest speakers, both for and against, will conclude the debate. The Chairman always has the last word but the committee tries to keep me as quiet as possible. I ask speakers to remain at arm's length from the microphone to prevent any interference with the quality of the sound recording. We do not encourage cross-questioning or cross-talk in the course of the debate because it is not possible to ensure an accurate recording of such interventions and to attribute them accurately. However, we generally meet all requirements.

I welcome our two excellent guest speakers. Professor John Maguire is emeritus professor of sociology at University College Cork and patron of the People's Movement. Professor Nick Rees is vice president of research at the National College of Ireland. Neither guest has expressed a preference to be the first to speak. Professor Rees has won the coin toss and, therefore, will speak first. I will introduce the Oireachtas Members as the occasion arises once the guest speakers have made their presentations. Professor Rees has ten to 15 minutes to make his opening contribution.

Professor Nick Rees

I thank the Chairman, the joint committee and members of the audience. I am delighted to speak at this meeting in the Limerick Institute of Technology in the mid-west. The audience is small but part of our objective during the campaign must be to raise awareness of the treaty from whichever perspective we view it. I will speak in favour of the treaty. I am a Europeanist and am very much interested in European affairs.

The European Union is at a critical stage in its development. The Lisbon treaty provides much needed institutional reform to enable the future functioning of the Union of 27 member states. The challenge for Ireland and for us as voters is to ensure we support the Union at this important moment in time. The EU has faced significant challenges in recent years, including its enlargement from 15 to 27 member states, promoting economic growth and prosperity and dealing with recent economic downturns. It has also faced the challenge of promoting social and economic cohesion in a Community that has grown tremendously and in which the range of regions is immense, from the poor to the very rich, from large cities to rural areas. In addition, the EU has increasingly sought to play a larger role on the international stage.

In order to cope with these demands, the EU must reform its institutional structures, implement improved governance arrangements and ensure a certain level of competence in policy areas. The revisions proposed in the Lisbon treaty provide the basis for that. They will allow the EU to function in a much more efficient and effective manner, provide greater democratic legitimacy and facilitate a greater role for the Union on the international stage. I propose to address three broad questions. The first is why we need a revised treaty. The second is what is in the treaty in terms of provisions relating to governance and competencies. The third is why we should vote in favour of it.

In terms of why we need a treaty, it is worthwhile to reflect that the Lisbon treaty, which was agreed in December last year, contains little that is particularly new. Rather, it has been evolving since the Treaty of Nice, which Irish voters ratified in a referendum. We are now dealing with some of the leftovers from that treaty. It is important that we address these issues so that the European Union can move on effectively as a Community of 27 member states. It is also important to bear in mind that in the last three or four years, Irish representatives have been involved in the negotiations that have led to this treaty, following the rejection of the original constitutional treaty proposal by French and Dutch voters. We have had an opportunity to shape what we see today. It is not something particularly new. What is being presented to us is something of a compromise.

That said, we should not be surprised at the degree of confusion surrounding the proposal. Such treaties are often difficult to address because they are not easily amenable to public understanding. It is our job as citizens to learn about the Lisbon treaty. There is a wealth of information available. I refer the audience to the Government website, www.reformtreaty.ie, the book published by the Institute of International and European Affairs, the Government’s White Paper and the information pamphlets distributed to households. Nobody should be in the position of knowing nothing about the treaty when it comes to the referendum on 12 June.

On the second question, I will deal with what is in the treaty in terms of the key institutional issues. Broadly speaking, the objective of institutional reform is to ensure that we have a Union which can better govern itself. In other words, the 27 member states of the EU must be able to work together effectively and efficiently. It is very much in Ireland's interest that these reforms are carried out. Many of the proposed reforms, particularly those aimed at national Parliaments, will ensure it is a more democratic Union. That is a significant improvement. The idea of having a President of the European Council is extremely important to ensure that there is continuity. It is important to have a high representative, which we have had in the past, whose powers will now stretch across the Council and the European Commission, of which he or she will be vice president.

The changes proposed around matters like qualified majority voting will ensure the more effective functioning of the Union so that it can take decisions. It does not extend very much the competence of the Union into new areas. There are some new extensions about which I will speak in a moment.

Obviously, the size of the Commission has been a controversial issue for Ireland, along with the perception that we will not always have a Commissioner. However, I would argue that all states, be they large or small, have conceded this. In that sense, Ireland has done quite well to ensure in its negotiations that it will still have a Commissioner in ten of every 15 years. After all, we should bear in mind that the Commissioner is not Ireland's Commissioner; he or she is a Commissioner who is meant to serve the Community's broader interest.

So these are some of the institutional changes being proposed. Again, we could get into a great deal of the detail and perhaps some of it will arise in the questioning. I would argue that these changes will allow the European Union of 27 to function much better. Without those changes, it will not stop or grind to a halt but it will be more difficult to do things. Imagine a table around which 27 member states sit and where one must get unanimous agreement possibly on issues that may not always be of major concern. In areas like security, defence and corporate tax, it will not move to qualified majority voting. Let us be clear about that.

I have touched on the institutional changes very briefly. In terms of the policy competencies of the European Union, does this erode national sovereignty? I would argue that it does not. When we look at the competencies proposed in terms of policy areas, we can see that not all of public health is involved. It only concerns matters like disease prevention. Again, we are very aware of pandemics that can flow across borders and the risks involved. Energy security, an issue that touches all of us today, is a major concern on which we need to develop European policies. We are aware of natural and man-made disasters outside Ireland and Europe after what happened in China but imagine those disasters happening in a European context where we would need to provide a response and would certainly want to do so as we have done in the past in Ireland. Areas like sport and space policy are new areas for development.

Other areas in which we are not seeing changes are taxation and defence, just to reinforce that. I am sure we can come back and talk about that in some of the questions. In a way, the policy changes in the treaty are quite minor. They are not major and do not dramatically extend the European Union's power and influence over national policy into new areas.

These are the types of changes that are being proposed in the treaty. I will not go into any more detail given the time factor. What I want to say is why people should vote in favour of the treaty. One can look at narrower national economic interests and see more money coming down the road. We are used to this in Ireland and have done very well economically since becoming members of the European Union. Think of our roads, buildings, universities, colleges and the gains we have received from that, which have been very significant over the years. We also put a great deal back into Europe and the intention is that we would continue to do so. As one of 27 members, one of the advantages of the Union is that there are many smaller states with whom we can work. We have seen that in certain areas already and one would expect that. Even around the WTO, it is very important to be able to work with other states. If we do not like a policy, we have the ability to block it, which is quite significant.

Ireland has gained economically and politically from being a part of the European Union. It has allowed us to play a much larger role on the world stage than we would otherwise warrant as a small power. The European Union has increased in democratic legitimacy through the treaty. In that way, Irish representatives will have a chance to vote, participate in the European Parliament and Council meetings and bring issues back again into the Oireachtas. We have seen a significant change since the early 2000 to 2001 period. European matters are very much a part of our national debates in our own Chambers, which is very important.

So it is important to bear in mind that we need institutional change. Generally speaking, we have been fairly pro-European over the years. We would want to see Europe on the world stage playing a more significant role and supporting areas where, for example, there might be natural disasters, providing relief, being involved in peacekeeping operations, to which we contribute, and ensuring that our own economic interests are represented by a larger block of states. It is very important for a small state to ensure that it has partners and allies in negotiations and the European Union has enabled us to do that.

The European Union needs to be given the capability to play this role. Therefore, this is really the reason I would support the Lisbon treaty.

Chairman

I thank Professor Rees. I should have said that he was vice president for research and graduate studies at the National College of Ireland and a former founding dean of the graduate school at the University of Limerick. A political scientist by background, Professor Rees was educated at universities in Great Britain and the US. He was Jean Monnet chair of European institutions and external affairs and the director of the Centre for European Studies at the University of Limerick. He is an expert on EU affairs with a particular interest in EU regional policy, external relations and UN peacekeeping activities. He has published widely in learned journals and books and presented papers at major international conferences. He is currently completing a co-authored book with colleagues at the University of Limerick on Europeanisation, Ireland and new partners for governance.

Our next speaker is Professor John Maguire, who is emeritus professor of sociology at University College Cork. He is from Dublin and arrived down here among the people. He studied at University College Dublin and Oxford. He will celebrate 30 years of residence in Cork this September, having been appointed professor of sociology in 1978 and taken early retirement in 1997. Has that poor man not travelled around the world? He wrote Maastricht and Neutrality with Joe Noonan in 1992 and published Defending Peace: Ireland’s Role in a Changing Europe in 2002. He was spokesperson for Action from Ireland, AfrI, in the second referendum on the Nice treaty. He is also patron of the People’s Movement.

Professor John Maguire

It is a great pleasure to be here and a tremendous honour for a citizen of Ireland to be involved in solemn proceedings like this. I thank the Chairman and committee for the invitation.

The Lisbon treaty is pretty long although it is not impossible to read. However, I am certainly reminded of Woody Allen who said that he took up speed reading and as a result, was able to read War and Peace in 15 minutes. He said “It’s about Russia”. I can tell the committee with no fear of contradiction that the Lisbon treaty is about Europe. There may be some discussion about how it is about Europe but I think we can be sure about that.

I apologise for rushing over points but time is short. I would like to present the Chairman and committee with a copy of my book, Defending Peace: Ireland’s Role in a Changing Europe, and on behalf of AfrI, hand over its publication, “The Lisbon Treaty, the European Military Project and Europe’s role in the world: Implications for Irish Voters”. The committee already has PANA’s document, from which I will draw. The PANA document can be downloaded now from www.pana.ie, while AfrI hopes to have its document up this coming week at www.afri.ie.

This is a solemn occasion and I will underline why it is particularly solemn. It is because we are faced with a referendum. The occasion, ultimately, is solemn certainly not because I am here and not even because the committee is here but because the public is here. Article 6 of the Irish Constitution states:

All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.

This is what we are doing here. We are engaged in a referendum. The people, the members and I are sovereign because we are citizens. It is not an election. It is for the people and me as citizens to judge whether what we are getting in this debate are the ideas and arguments that are of the essence or whether we are having persons and parties. It is the ideas and arguments that ultimately matter. It is for the people to judge whether, for example, the change in recent years whereby the Referendum Commission has stopped giving the arguments of each side and puts forward what it deems to be a balanced judgment is an improvement. Are these bodies, all of which act in the people's name, doing a good job? It is for the people to judge whether there has been an adequate debate.

It is for us all, as citizens, to judge whether our representatives are doing a good job when we are told, as is often the case, that there is no alternative to the Lisbon treaty, particularly when there is. It is outlined in the alternative report of a group of eight members of the Convention on Europe, which includes the statement: "The draft EU constitution was never drafted through normal democratic methods". Something seems to be wrong. It is bizarre that one of the eight signatories to the alternative report was the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, who is responsible for organising the referendum. There is an alternative; namely, a Europe of the democracies. I can show this three-page document to people after the meeting and if I do not have time to support my statements, my e-mail address is [e-mail]. I would be interested in speaking to anyone or any group represented.

In 1972 I voted "No" and campaigned against entering the EEC. I was not campaigning for a narrow Nationalist or isolationist Ireland. At the time I stated I would happily join any larger entity were it a larger democracy. I was worried that our joining the EEC would amount to an abdication by the political establishment of its responsibility to create an Irish and wider democracy. Unlike some, I accepted that the vote went the other way - that was democracy - and I got on with life. In 1986, without having become a euro-anorak or the like, I became worried when the late Raymond Crotty had to go to the High Court and the Supreme Court to insist on the recognition of the consequence of Article 6, namely, that the citizens are sovereign. We do not have referenda because he won a legal lotto. Rather, it is because he won an argument in the Supreme Court.

I was particularly worried by the issues beginning to emerge in a shadowy way but we were all accused of being paranoid. It is interesting that Professor Rees in his provocative comments stated the changes being planned were not large. The changes are never large, but we only discover what we have landed ourselves in afterwards. Many significant changes have been made in the area of so-called defence, which has a great deal to do with warfare, and security. I am speeding over the points, but I can give references to the treaty if people wish.

The European Union has a developing military structure. This is not just my opinion, but that of the European Parliament. In a resolution passed in November 2006 it stated: "The EU is on the way to developing into a Defence and Security Union". Not only has the Union a developing structure, it has battle groups, one of which comprises Ireland and two NATO countries. These groups are designed to carry out certain tasks that are open-ended in a strange way. I do not know whether the Oireachtas would be prepared to consider legislation that stated the penalties for speeding should include X, Y and Z. Certain tasks are included and we are not told what is excluded, but Article 43 refers to the waging of war; that is, "peace-making". The European Defence Agency was the European armaments agency. We were told that arms policy had nothing to do with the Nice referendum or Ireland. However, Ireland became a member of the European Defence Agency in 2004 without a vote of the Government. The Lisbon treaty gives it formal status and commits us to increased spending on what is politely called "defence".

Ireland is committed to compatibility with NATO in the European defence strategy. There will be a discussion of the clause relating to the special character of certain countries, an alleged reference to Ireland's policy of not being a member of military alliances. Article 42 of the Lisbon treaty, as found on page 54 of the version found on the Department of Foreign Affairs website, commits us to compatibility with NATO. This matters because the changes in the European Union were crafted under the attentive eye and hand of a former NATO Secretary General, Javier Solana, who will morally be the high representative under the treaty. During the process Ireland went along with some of the actions that many believed were precluded by the Constitution. For example, the intervention in Kosovo, which is often lauded as a great humanitarian action, was declared illegal by the Secretary General of the United Nations. Ireland endorsed it in an EU statement which falsely claimed that all other means had been tried. Many experts, as quoted in my book, Defending Peace: Ireland’s Role in a Changing Europe, have stated the intervention permitted rather than prevented the slaughter of Kosovars. Prior to the intervention, UN observers had been removed from Kosovo in order that bombing could occur. Other means had not been tried.

I apologise for moving so quickly, but one must do so. Why is it that in this carefully devised NATO-compatible policy, against the adoption of which we have never raised our voices, the United Nations is respected, referred to and mentioned in Articles 3 and 42 and Protocol 10, whereas the only place it is recognised as the supreme body in this area and to which we have a fundamental legal obligation is in a declaration? The Government White Paper states declarations have no legal force. Why have we not raised our voices? We are always told to become involved. I want to be involved and to have a Government which raises its voice against NATO, an aggressive, nuclear-armed pre-emptive alliance.

What are the implications of the mutual defence clauses which include Article 24? They are technical, but deserve serious discussion. What is the "specific character" of our defence policy? Ireland has never been mentioned in the treaties in this respect. We do not want to know what is occurring, any more than we want to notice that the peace process is leading to investment in Raytheon, the producer of mechanised Hellfire missiles, in Derry, the landing of troops at Shannon Airport for an illegal war, Shannon Airport's involvement in appalling renditions or the Government's failure to know whether it has been so involved.

These are some of my concerns, but I am also concerned by the overall nature of the European Union's democracy. It does not live up to its claim in Article 3 to function on the basis of representative democracy. It has often been stated that, if the Union applied to join itself, it would be refused. After the treaty, that will still be the case. I am concerned by the entrenchment of neo-liberal ideology, particularly under the aegis of the European Court of Justice, given, for example, the Laval judgment of December 2007. I am concerned by Articles 206 and 207 which commit the Union to engaging in a certain style of negotiations with other countries which AfrI argues could be unfair to many poorer countries. I am not a terribly worried man, I am a passionate European. I want an Ireland that raises its voice and tells others what we have learned in a very bitter history, particularly over the past 100 years, that wants to know what is happening and is prepared to say that we should have a Europe of reflection, an engaged Europe and one that realises its enormous material, cultural and political wealth, befitting it to ease back, lower the pressure and open its heart and mind to the world rather than enshrining NATO as the core of its new defence concept.

Chairman

I thank Professor Maguire. We have had an interesting introduction from both sides, covering the changes to the EU structures, as explained by Professor Nick Rees, the changes in the strength of the Commission and changes in representation in the Commission, changes in parliamentary structures and the degree to which parliamentary accountability is dealt with in the course of the treaty. We have also had a number of other points from Professor Nick Rees and discussion on the battlegroups, a deepening of military structures, rapid response forces, Article 42, the UN and the alternatives, the nuclear alliance, Shannon Airport and the Laval judgment.

We are approaching the audience participation section of the meeting. Those wishing to participate should approach the front seats. We will call on members of the committee to respond and will take the questions of a number of speakers together.

Mr. Leo Tolstoy would have been proud of the performance of Professor Maguire.

Professor John Maguire

Thank you.

Chairman

Does any member of the committee wish to participate while awaiting audience participation?

Deputy Noel Treacy

Is cúis mor áthais d'uilig bheith anseo i gcathar stairiúil Luimnigh um thráthnóna. Táimid an-bhuíoch gur tháinig daoine anseo um thráthnóna chun páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht an-tábhachtach seo faoi chonradh Liospóin.

Chairman and colleagues, it is a great pleasure to be in the Limerick Institute of Technology and it is a particular pleasure for Oireachtas Members to be present alongside our colleagues, Deputies Jan O'Sullivan and Kieran O'Donnell. We thank them for hosting us and having us in the treaty city. This is an important debate. I listened to both guest speakers and thank them for their contributions. I endorse everything Professor Rees said and will respond to the issues raised by Professor Maguire.

He referred to democracy and alluded to a fear he has about the democratic operation of the EU. If we think back to the start of the past century and move through that century, we see that Europe was involved in two serious world wars. After World War 2, the great leaders and visionaries of the European operation, in the heart of mainland Europe, Monnet, de Gaulle, Schuman and others, came together to ensure that never again would Europe be in such conflict. They created the European Coal and Steel community to ensure that we could do business together. That was a commercial trading operation, ultimately moving into a political operation, becoming the European Economic Community. The six founding fathers started a European project in 1957 that has been one of the greatest projects for democracy, peace and prosperity that the world has known.

Ireland was fortunate, along with our big neighbour the United Kingdom and Denmark, to join in 1973 after a referendum. The Irish people voted by more than 80% in favour of joining. Almost 1.2 million people from a small population at the time voted in favour. The referendum contained a caveat that future treaties would not be binding without a referendum of the people, fulfilling the constitutional article to which Professor Maguire referred, that the people are the sovereign powers of the nation and, under God, they decide the mandate for operation.

That sustains democracy and, when one looks back to mainland Europe, Spain and Portugal were not democracies. Rather, they are young countries like Ireland and are part of the democratic operation. As the EU has expanded from six to nine, to 15, to 25 and now to 27 member states, all the countries in eastern Europe, that were repressed under Communist regimes and where citizens had no rights, wanted to join the democracy of the EU. We must recognise that, within the treaty we are voting on, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a major statement about the power of the people vested in the people. The charter refers to human dignity, the right to life, the right to integrity of the person, the prohibition on torture and inhumane and degrading treatment, a prohibition on slavery and enforced labour, the right to marry, to found a family and guaranteeing that the laws of marriage shall be the domestic laws prevailing in each member state. That is democracy at its best, which is what the EU and this treaty are all about.

Professor Maguire referred to a worry about militarisation of the EU. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have serious responsibilities as citizens of sovereign states of the EU to all of our citizens. We can think of Ireland and how the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and the Northern Ireland First Minister, Dr. Paisley, opened the Boyne visitor centre two weeks ago, bringing an end to 800 years of conflict. We can consider my student days in the 1960s and early 1970s when serious atrocities were committed in Northern Ireland. As young, enthusiastic students and mature citizens we yearned for a third party to intervene and bring sanity to the conflict. We looked to the EU but it had no legal right to intervene and make a contribution. This treaty gives us that right in the future.

Let us consider Bosnia Herzogovina and Kosovo, which are one and a half hours from here, and the major genocide that took place. Europe, Ireland and the world stood idly by because no one could intervene. There was no legal right for the EU to intervene but this treaty gives us that right in the future. Within our competence and capacity, we can come to the aid of other people in Europe. We are not mandated to do so; we may do so but do not have to do so. The position of Ireland is perfectly clear, and we cannot move on any aspect of military activity under the triple lock, except under the protocol we inserted for the second Nice referendum whereby, unless there is a request from the UN taken from a decision of the Security Council and a decision of our sovereign Government and unless a majority of Dáil Éireann votes in favour of moving troops into a peacekeeping situation.

Since Christmas, the Dáil has debated Chad and whether it was wise to send Lieutenant General Nash. We voted it through as a result of the request from the UN and the decision of the Government. We made a decision on the contingent that would go after another debate and, under the triple lock mechanism, we voted that through. Only at that point could we activate operations. As citizens and as a sovereign Government, we have a responsibility to our people and our army. We cannot just send our troops into a situation in any part of the world, be it at the request of the UN or as part of European battle groups to bring peace to a particular part of Europe. The word "battle group" may worry people but we can substitute the words battalion or platoon for it. These are soldiers working together for peace. We have a serious responsibility to ensure that when we send our soldiers into an area, they have the same facilities, technology and resources as any other army, not just in Europe, but elsewhere in the world. We would be shirking our obligations to the Army if we did not discharge that responsibility. That is why, as the economy has grown, we have invested more money in the Defence Forces, and in research and innovation and technological development to assist them. We are part of the European Defence Agency in order that we can remain up to speed with the best technological solutions and supports for the Army.

There is no need to worry about democracy in or the militarisation of the European Union. It is a peace project which is the best in the world. The treaty on which we are voting has been negotiated by 205 elected parliamentarians across Europe, only eight of whom dissented from the final agreement. When one arrives at consensus for 27 member states, with only eight dissenting voices, one can be sure democracy has been well served.

Chairman

I thank Deputy Treacy. I now call our first two participants from the audience. I ask them to give their names and those of any organisations they may represent.

Mr. Philip Norden

I am representing myself. In his introduction the Chairman encouraged the people to turn out in numbers for the referendum. The point in having a good turnout is that the rest of Europe has not been invited to hold a referendum. Only the Irish people have been given the option to vote. Even if everyone here was to vote, 4 million out of 500 million would be a very poor turnout. The rest of the European peoples are not being given a democratic vote. If the members of the committee intend to prepare a report for the Parliament, this point should be noted. The rest of the European peoples are going to be ignored. There have been campaigns in Britain, France and other European countries to have a vote but the people are not being given that option.

I cannot see how any Deputy who is committed to the right to vote, from which they gain their power and money, can sit there, with a clear conscience, knowing that this is the only country in Europe in which the people will be given a vote. Furthermore, the European constitution was rejected in two countries, France and the Netherlands. The peoples of those countries were given a vote and the constitution was rejected. Following this, the document was changed slightly. However, approximately 95% of what was included in the constitution is now contained in the Lisbon treaty. How can one then say we are improving democracy? If all of the committee members are committed to democracy, how can they sit there and say the treaty is great? They all appear to be advocating a "Yes" vote and should disclose whether they are for or against the treaty. I simply cannot see how anyone can be committed to democracy while ignoring the rest of Europe. That is a very important point that should be recorded and reported.

I hope there is a good turnout for the referendum. For ordinary people, the way the Europen Union is heading and has been for some time, with not just one large leap but a series of jumps, was not anticipated. It is not what they want the Union to be. We are all in favour of free trade, free travel and the rest but we are heading towards what could be regarded as a federal style of government, with the Union as the federal head and the member states as provinces. In that instance, there would be no opportunity to vote for the heads. Ireland would become a small province on the western side of Europe. We would not have a democratic vote to elect the top people. We can vote for our local and national Parliaments but we would not have a democratic vote at the higher level. That would be handed over to the politicians. I am, therefore, against the transfer of power from a democratic Ireland to a federal structure, with the Union at the top.

On the issue of taxation, there is provision for indirect taxes to be changed. The clear example for Ireland would be water charges in schools. When that system was introduced, the Government just put its hand up and said it was European law and that it could do nothing about it and that it was correct. We cannot do anything about it now because our power has been taken away. That will continue over time in a gradual erosion of our democratic power. We are transferring it to this new body which is being set up, for the first time, as a legal entity. We will all become citizens of the European Union rather than just of our own nation. For the first time we will hold dual citizenship.

Direct taxes can also be changed through the self-amending clause. If the Taoiseach agrees at EU ministerial level to change the system of direct taxation, it can be done. If the Taoiseach decides to vote with the rest of the European Union at that level, they can then choose to apply the majority voting rules to the direct taxation provisions. Of course, the Taoiseach would have to come back and face the people but it is still a possibility.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Norden. We will come back to him later if we have time. We will hear the next speaker and then look for a response from the platform.

Mr. Denis Riordan

I am not representing any organisation.

It is stated on pages 2 and 3 of the Lisbon treaty that the President of Ireland designates our plenipotentiaries. Where in the Constitution or under Irish law is the President authorised to appoint plenipotentiaries to negotiate treaties that are repugnant to the Constitution which the President is sworn to uphold?

We have already surrendered much of our sovereignty. With the introduction of the euro, we could no longer adjust our interest rates or monetary policy. We have conceded sovereignty in several areas and will make further concessions with the granting of additional competencies to the European Union; for example, in respect of customs, the establishment of competition rules for the functioning of the internal market, monetary policy and common commercial policy. We must note that these are exclusive competencies being given to the Union. This represents a further erosion of our sovereignty.

Article 5 of the Constitution states Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state. As long as that provision remains, we cannot secede sovereignty to an external body, notwithstanding the fact that the people are voting in a referendum in which they will be saying the State "may" rather than "shall" adopt the treaty. Under Article 29, the Government is empowered to negotiate on the international scene. Under Article 28, it is required to abide by the Constitution. Notwithstanding the fact that the people could say the Government "may" adopt the treaty, it is not constitutionally entitled to sign it. This is based on Article 5 of the Constitution, notwithstanding what Professor Rees said about Article 6.

Under the existing treaties, the European Union has the power to make laws that have primacy over Irish law and are binding on this State, yet Article 15.2.1° of the Constitution states: "The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State." The European Union claims it now has the power to make law for this State notwithstanding that clear constitutional provision. As long as these provisions are contained in our Constitution, we have no power to adopt European laws.

Article 48(7) of the treaty states:

Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

Again, although parts of the treaty may provide for unanimous decisions, this clause provides that the Council may adopt a decision authorising it to act by a qualified majority. National parliaments are to be consulted but they will not be able to stop the EU from making a particular legislative act.

Provision is made for a popular petition requiring millions of signatures. What is the likelihood of someone like me being able to obtain the number of signatures required or cover the costs involved?

Chairman

With the benefit of modern technology, it is believed that it would be very easy to get 1 million signatures. In fact, it may be too easy to get them.

Mr. Denis Riordan

The treaty does not set out how those signatures will be verified. Presumably, if I turn up at the Commission with 2 million signatures, I have to be able to verify they are correct and accurate and that I have not signed 2 million names by myself. Modern technology is not an answer.

Chairman

The provision is there. A series of questions have been raised which members will want to answer.

National parliaments have significantly greater power under the Lisbon treaty than they ever had before. Some would even say they have too much power, depending on the attitude of a particular parliament. In the Oireachtas, 33 Members are now participating in European affairs. They have the right to discuss matters with a Minister before he or she attends Council meetings and can vet all regulations and directives emanating from Brussels. If they do not agree with a proposal, the appropriate Minister can be advised accordingly and the Parliament has the right to refuse its approval.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank the contributors for asking these very pertinent questions. We hope the turnout will be good because it is a referendum, which is the way we conduct our business. It is true that the rest of Europe will not have the opportunity of voting in a referendum. This is a sovereign country and we conduct our business in our own fashion. It is up to the other 26 countries to conduct their business in a manner pertinent to their constitutional requirements. When the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, visited Ireland, she explained that the idea of a referendum was alien to the German constitution. A referendum is not possible within the legal ambit of Germany's constitution. I am glad we approve all treaties by referendum. That is the way it has been for the past five treaties and we will do the same in every future treaty, regardless of the claims made by certain "No" organisations that this is in some way a self-amending treaty.

The constitutional treaty was rejected in France and the Netherlands. However, it was approved by 18 countries including several which approved it by referendum. As the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, noted, the substance of the constitutional treaty is contained in the Lisbon treaty. I am happy with that substance, which to my mind is substantial. Some have claimed that the treaty does not contain much but it certainly contains a lot from my perspective as a member of the Labour Party. It states categorically the values and principles of the European Union. The Charter of Fundamental Rights sets out the rights and freedoms of men, women, children and workers. Similarly, the relationship between member states and the rest of the world is set out in the context of democratic principles and international law. The solid principles on which the EU is founded are reflected in this treaty.

The social clause is a new provision, however. In 1973, we joined the common market of the European Economic Community, following by which we ratified the Single European Act in 1986. The emphasis was on an economic community, a common market and the eurozone. This is the first treaty with a strong emphasis on the social model. We are to have a social market as well as a common market. A new social clause is inserted into the treaty which specifically provides that every law introduced subsequent to the ratification of this treaty must be considered for its impact on employment, social inclusion and the community. For the first time, all new legislation coming from Europe must be defined in this way. That is socially proofing all legislation from it. To top it up we have the Charter of Fundamental Rights, also a very strong body of law and the basis on which cases will be decided in the European Court of Justice. There are new challenges in the eradication of poverty on a global scale, to which there is a firm legal commitment, as well as to the sustainability of the planet. These are very important issues dealt with in the treaty. Therefore, it is substantial.

The treaty will not make us a small province or federal state of the European Union, or remove our democratic vote; the opposite is the case. The European Union has come from being a combination of six countries to 27. To do this one needs to make the institutions more efficient, transparent and accountable. That has been done; therefore, the treaty will not change the institutions other than to make them more transparent and accountable. The European Parliament, which comprises directly elected Members, will have more powers. When the European Union was established, there was no parliament. Only in 1979 were the first Members of the European Parliament elected. With this treaty the Parliament will have approximately 95% of co-decision making powers. Its directly elected Members will have many more powers. For the first time they will be responsible for putting together and implementing the budget.

Somebody said this was a province of the European Union. For the first time national parliaments will have a key role in the framing of all European Union law. In the past the European Commission drafted legislation and sent it to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers came back with it and national parliaments had no say in the matter. Under this treaty, every piece of legislation, as it is being drafted, must be sent directly to each of the national parliaments which have to come back and tell the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament what they think, which areas they want amended and whether it infringes on subsidiarity and proportionality. There is a new power; therefore, it is opposite to the argument that the treaty takes away the democratic vote. It gives more powers to national parliaments.

As I do not want to go on unduly, I will finish with a point on the taxation system. I thought we had put to bed the issue of direct taxation, the idea that our taxes could be changed and that if the Taoiseach went to the European Union, he could change the system. That is the meaning of our veto. There are a couple of red-line areas that are subject to the veto, one of which is taxation. Ireland was the first country to put together this system of corporation tax which we use to attract direct foreign investment. We have said to the European Union time and again that this is an area in which we will retain a veto. This is provided for in the treaty and was included in the previous treaties. There is no way the Taoiseach will go to the European Union and say we are removing that veto. This is one of the arguments made by Libertas and Mr. Ulick McEvaddy - that we would lose the veto or that it has already been removed. Recently the Referendum Commission categorically stated there was no impact on our corporation tax rate. The section referred to, section 48, referred only to indirect taxation, not direct taxation. It is important to be clear on what is in included in the treaty as distinct from what people who have not seen or read the treaty might say is contained in it. The content of the treaty is good.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. Before Deputy Michael McGrath comes in, I want to mention the first question on why we are deciding for the rest of Europe. As Deputy Costello said, we are not deciding for it but for Ireland, a sovereign state. The word "sovereign" is important because we are deemed to be masters of our own destiny, we are our own bosses. Comparisons are often made with the Scottish and Welsh assemblies. They are not sovereign parliaments but assemblies and do not carry the same weight as, nor should they be compared with, a sovereign parliament.

The idea that the Lisbon treaty is self-amending has been mooted on a number of occasions. It is not a self-amending treaty. In the event of there being changes to those proposed during the course of this referendum, under the Constitution, there will have to be another referendum.

My last point is important. Each EU member state has its own options for ratifying the treaty. Some countries such as Ireland held a referendum. The French and Dutch held referenda and lost but the general agreement is that they lost due to disaffection with domestic politics. The wisdom of holding a referendum in that instance is an issue on which one must make up one's own mind. We know the story. That is why we have consensus politics in this country on the issue. All Dáil parties in favour of the treaty are represented on the platform. Those opposed to it are also entitled to be represented on the platform but chose not to attend any of our meetings. That is their choice. Our next speaker is Deputy Michael McGrath from Cork.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I thank our two speakers, Professors Rees and Maguire. I got to know Professor Maguire some years ago when I had the privilege of being lectured by him in sociology as part of my UCC commerce course. He was an outstanding lecturer.

I would like to address some of the points raised by the two members of the public. It is important we answer the questions posed. The Chairman and Deputy Costello have dealt with Mr. Norden's point on the other 26 member states not having a democratic vote among the people. The important point is that it is not for us, as a sovereign country, to dictate to other autonomous nations how they should conduct their affairs and make decisions affecting their constitutions and systems of government. They have chosen the representative democracy road of the elected representatives through their national parliaments making the decision to ratify the Lisbon treaty. That is an equally valid--

Mr. Philip Norden

The point is that the treaty was rejected in the referendum.

Chairman

I mentioned at the beginning that if speakers wished to return to the platform, they may do so, but the speaker was in possession of the floor.

Deputy Michael McGrath

The approach we are adopting in Ireland, putting the treaty to the people, is better because of the constitutional provisions as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Crotty case to which Professor Maguire referred. That is a preferable road but it is not up to us to dictate to other sovereign countries how they should conduct their affairs.

Mr. Norden referred a lot to democracy and claimed what we were doing was undemocratic. Some 160 of the 165 voting Deputies in the Dáil, the exception being the Ceann Comhairle, are in favour of the treaty. Mr. Norden asked us to put our cards on the table and I am happy to do so. I am a member of Fianna Fáil and will support the treaty in the referendum on 12 June. We are all elected by the people and have adopted a position on the treaty. Not one person who voted for me 12 months ago has come to me since and said they disagree with my position and want me to change my mind. The people ultimately will make their decision on 12 June.

On the move towards federalism, I have consistently heard that argument in debates on past referenda. Many of the opponents of Lisbon went against every single European treaty and Professor Maguire had the honesty to acknowledge that he opposed our membership of the EEC back in 1973. Many people have consistently opposed European integration and what some of us regard as the European project.

This treaty will not introduce a federal state. It is independent and sovereign states working collectively on issues of mutual concern. Certain competencies are being transferred to the European Union, which is a good thing. Working collectively, we are much better equipped to deal with challenges that do not respect borders. They transcend international barriers and Ireland, working on its own, will not have the same impact as 27 states working collectively.

The issue of direct taxes has been dealt with. It is a fantasy to think a Taoiseach would go to Brussels or Strasbourg and sign away our right to a veto on the retention of our low corporate tax base. That will not happen.

Mr. Philip Norden

It can happen. That is the point.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Many things can happen but that will not. We should deal with reality.

Mr. Denis Riordan made a number of points about laws coming from Europe and signing away our sovereignty. The concept of shared sovereignty has emerged since 1973 and it has been an overwhelmingly positive experience because of the issues mentioned, such as global warming, energy supply, environmental legislation and employment rights. These are issues where Europe has been to the fore in delivering change and has forced our hand to act in many instances. That is positive. Europe has been among the leaders in the world with many of those issues.

I wish to deal specifically with a few of the issues raised very briefly as they were important. Mr. Riordan suggested that Article 48.7 provides that the European Council can decide to change from unanimity to qualified majority voting decisions in certain areas. He did not go on to point out that two paragraphs below that, it is indicated that national parliaments can veto that within six months. It is quite clear that any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or second subparagraph - the one referred to by Mr. Riordan - must be notified to the national parliament, and if the parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to will not be adopted.

Professor Maguire dedicated much of his time to the area of common foreign and security policy, particularly the common security and defence policy. He put forward the notion we will be forced to participate in missions we do not wish to participate in. Article 28A(c)(4) makes it quite clear that any decision relating to a mission, again, will be taken with unanimity.

The argument has been put out for many years that Irish men and women will be forced to participate in a European army that will be sent to the four corners of the globe to take on wars and battles in which we do not wish to be involved. That will not happen. It is clear that any decision adopted must be done unanimously through the European Council. As Deputy Treacy articulately outlined, our constitutional provisions and the triple lock mechanism are relevant. The Referendum Commission has given its independent analysis of our neutrality being maintained.

Professor Maguire also referred to NATO and indicated that somehow we would be bound by NATO missions and would have to participate in them. Article 28A(c)(7) makes it quite clear that commitments and co-operation in this area of common foreign and security policy will be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for those states who are members of it. These are the important words as we are not members of NATO. We do not intend to become a member so that section is not relevant to Ireland.

It is important to specifically address those points. I would gladly take any further questions.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. We will now take two more questions from the floor before bringing in some more of our speakers from the platform who have not yet spoken.

Mr. Frank Prendergast

Go mbeannaí Dia dhaoibh, a Chathaoirligh agus a chairde, agus fáilte go Luimneach don chéad uair. I am Frank Prendergast from the Labour Party in Limerick. I am a passionate European.

Some of us are old enough to remember the downfall of Nazism, communism and apartheid within our own lifetimes, three of the most awful tyrannies in human history. Arising from the first of those, we had a vision of two French Catholic statesmen and civil servants, Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet, who decided the French and the Prussians should not fight any more. They put forward the vision of a Europe that would be united politically and economically among its people and would influence world affairs in so far as it could. It would put an end to all wars among its people. It is now 63 years since an international war took place in Europe and we are never likely to see one like it again. Instead we have seen what I believe is the greatest single human political development in history. It is the coming together of 27 nations and historic peoples consisting of 500 million citizens. They are not brought together by tyrant, emperor, king or monarch but through voluntary support of that vision.

Ireland has benefited enormously and exponentially since its entry in 1973. At the time I was a trade union official and have been 40 years in that business. I voted against my party - the Labour Party - and against the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I said it on John O'Donoghue's programme, "Seven Days", which came from Ennis. I went against all my own people because I felt that Ireland's place was in the mainstream of European history.

Events have borne that out. We have an enormous contribution to make, politically, philosophically and culturally, to the welfare of Europe. I saw last night that our farmers alone have received €14 billion from Europe since entry. Legislation has also benefited the trade union movement and industrial relations as well as bringing about equality and protection for women. Every trade unionist in this country in favour of jobs should vote "Yes".

The Union is based on a Catholic sociological principle of one of the encyclicals of subsidiarity, which is surely the essence and kernel of all democracy if protected. I enter a caveat, despite supporting the concept, that there is no reference to God in the constitution. Every European nation acknowledges the existence of God and our background is Christian. Even Muslims and those of other religions acknowledge God. I was very disappointed that, apparently, none of our people raised that question when the issue was being discussed.

It is an inversion of democracy, in France of all places where Rousseau propounded the concept coming up to 1789 that democracy should prevail, that the French liberal view of Combes in 1903 blocked the reference to God on this occasion. I regret that and I am sorry that people are almost afraid to mention God in the world in which we live. I am not passionate but I feel very strongly that it should have been included. People and groups, including farmers and those connected to hospitals, have reservations about voting "Yes" to this. I am chairman of the Shannon Airport marketing consultative committee and I feel we were viciously betrayed by the Government on the issue of Aer Lingus using the airport. However, this is not the time for settling such scores - they relate to politics and this treaty is about statesmanship. An Irish seanfhocal says "muna mbíonn ach gabhar agat, bí i lár an aonaigh leis"- even if one only has a goat, one should be in the middle of the marketplace. To paraphrase Churchill on another occasion: Ireland, some goat, some fate.

We must rely on the vision of Robert Browning, the great English romantic poet: "A man's reach must exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for?" The vision must always be finer than the view and on this occasion vision should prevail. As a member of the Labour Party and an Irishman, I hope Deputy Bertie Ahern is successful if he is a contender for a major position in Europe. For all our sakes I wish him well. I wish the committee every success in its endeavours.

Mr. Patrick Mannix

My name is Patrick Mannix and I am a student of history and politics at the University of Limerick. It is my privilege to speak this evening before the Chairman, Members of the Oireachtas and the guest speakers. As a young person, I am delighted to voice my opinion on this matter. We speak of democracy. It is great that young people can have their voices heard on this matter, which is of great importance. It is good to see the committee move outside Dublin to discuss this in Limerick, which is, in a way, the original treaty city.

My question is open to all members of the panel. Will Ireland's neutrality further ebb away if we vote "Yes" to this treaty? I wish to discuss the triple lock system and hear the opinions of members of the panel on it. Will this system be enough to maintain Ireland's neutrality? Deputy Treacy mentioned that there is no need to worry regarding military aspects of the treaty but this causes me to worry. The Government said categorically that no US troops were using Shannon Airport but there were. So who should we believe? What are the opinions of members of the panel on this?

Chairman

I thank Mr. Mannix and call on Senator John Hanafin, from Dublin and Tipperary.

Senator John Hanafin

I am from Tipperary and working in Dublin. I thank Mr. Frank Prendergast and feel he has done a great service tonight. He accurately put in historical context the growth of Europe, the reasons behind the European project and the wonderful experiment that it is. He was clear and fearless when he said it is one of the greatest political achievements and I share his view. I would love to have seen a reference to God in the constitution and I believe man is never stronger than when he is humble before God - I share Mr. Prendergast's view on this matter. The Irish Government made a request in this regard. It makes reference to a Christian ethos but, notwithstanding that, I would have liked a more specific reference. This will not stop me voting "Yes". Mr. Prendergast's contribution gave historical and social context and I thank him for it because it was beneficial to young people. As a student of history, I felt Mr. Prendergast got this exactly right.

Regarding the triple lock, it exists because Ireland is a neutral country. There must be a UN mandate, an EU mandate and a mandate from the Irish Government. I notice that the "No" campaign has thrown many shadows and whenever a light is shone on these shadows they disappear. One of these shadows suggests that we are co-ordinating our military in terms of materials and equipment. We are, rightly, sending troops to Chad to assist the people of Darfur. What if French troops use a different kind of petrol in their engines to us or if they use a certain type of wireless that means we cannot communicate with them? Of course we need to co-ordinate. It is unfortunate that late in the second millennium there was a genocide in Europe, in the Balkans, when we thought such things would not happen again. This is something that could and should have been avoided. Before Ireland joined the EU it sent peacekeepers to the Congo and Cyprus. We have a proud tradition in this regard and at the moment 10% of our military capability is used in peacekeeping roles.

As chairman of an anti-drugs group, I have an interest in justice and co-operation and I am conscious that there is not a co-ordinated effort across Europe to track and tackle drug lords. Limerick, like other cities, has difficulties in this regard, but many of the people who supply it with drugs live on what is known as the costa del crime. As a State, we usually hit back at such people in Ireland by using the Criminal Assets Bureau to take their money and by using our laws to put them in prison. Without co-ordinating, how can we do this if a person lives offshore? If the Criminal Assets Bureau goes to Spain to find out the assets held by a criminal, the representatives of the Criminal Assets Bureau will be arrested, not the criminals. It is easy to hop off to Spain nowadays so we need integrated and co-ordinated justice. Given the triple lock, our military alliance and the social and historical context we have received, it is imperative that we vote "Yes" to this treaty.

Chairman

I thank the Senator and call on Deputy Noel Treacy. I will call on local colleagues at the end.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I endorse what Senator Hanafin said regarding Mr. Frank Prendergast, our former colleague. I do not think any man could have expressed things better than him in his own city. As a politician who served with him in the national Parliament, I believe Mr. Prendergast is one of the finest politicians of his generation. We thank him for his leadership, comradeship and vision over the years, not only as a citizen but as an outstanding trade unionist and politician in the past.

Mr. Mannix suggested that words uttered by me may not mean the same as those words uttered by another person. I wish to state that our neutrality is strong today and will be stronger than ever. As Deputy Costello mentioned earlier, we will pool a certain amount of sovereignty to create European sovereignty. As Irish citizens and members of the EU we have dual citizenship and sovereignty. We are not giving away the sovereignty of this island but are giving a small percentage of it, at particular times, in the interest of the common good, which is critically important. Our neutrality is protected, as we have said, by the triple lock. It was enshrined in the second Nice treaty and is included in the Lisbon reform treaty. This cannot become law, in Ireland or Europe, until it is copperfastened in this treaty, so it is critically important that we vote "Yes" on that basis.

I congratulate Mr. Mannix on his contribution, which we deeply value, and wish him well in his studies and his future career. He spoke of US troops using Shannon Airport. Ireland is an island and a sovereign nation and one of the first things we did after gaining independence in 1922 was join the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We could not stand alone as a little nation without mobility and opportunity for our people to do business and to leave our shores and for others to come to our shores. For far too long we exported our best and our brightest to build economies around the world. With the assistance of the European Union we have been able to harness the intellectual capacity of our own people, build up a new economy, double our population, drive opportunity and give comfort to the parents of the modern nation that the children they raise will have an opportunity to work on this island. Membership of the ICAO confers a responsibility on us to provide services to aeroplanes that arrive from other sovereign nations. We can refuse them, of course, but they will go on to the UK or Germany and get the services they require there. The business that Shannon has got from the United States has been phenomenal. If we refused to provide these services, it would be similar to a situation in which we, as a sovereign Republic of 26 counties, said to somebody in Cavan, Monaghan, Louth, Sligo, Leitrim or Donegal that it is okay for him or her to cross the Border into Northern Ireland but he or she cannot buy petrol there and must buy it in the South. Common sense must prevail and business must go on. Services must be provided.

We are not involved in any military operation but we respect the right of others, as sovereign nations, to decide their business. We should consider the Unites States and its contribution to our country. A total of 42% of Americans are proud to claim Irish heritage. That is 42% of the population of the most powerful country in the world. In this country, 150,000 jobs have been provided as a result of foreign direct investment from the US. In the sector which supplies services and products to these companies, another 150,000 jobs have been created as a result of the original 150,000. With 2.2 million employed, the USA has provided 300,000 of those jobs. They were giving us those jobs long before we reached our current capacity. That partnership has resulted in international recognition for us, a small country, and global respect as a result of being able to match the biggest and the best and punch above our weight because we are a member of the EU. We are a sovereign, neutral nation and we will remain so.

Chairman

I will bring in two more speakers from the floor and then Deputies O'Sullivan and Breen will respond.

Mr. Patrick Kennedy

My name is Patrick Kennedy. I wish to draw the Chairman's attention to the sign that states that no applause is allowed, but we will move past that, as the Chairman is chairing the meeting and not me.

I wish to respond to the comments made by Deputy Treacy. He will also agree, I think, that human rights are an important issue. I do not want to digress from the issue of the Lisbon treaty, which is what we should be discussing, but it is a fact that rendition flights have taken place and unfortunately they may have gone through Shannon. I respect the US and I am in admiration of its success and that of Irish-Americans. I mean no disrespect to the Deputy but I emphasise the fact that we uphold and should continue to uphold the Geneva Conventions on human rights and other international human rights agreements. I will return to the issue of the treaty but I wish to point out that it is not acceptable that Ireland, as a peace-loving nation that has contributed on an unimaginable scale to this world and its history - I am a graduate in history and politics at the University of Limerick, as was the person who spoke before me - should refuse to say or do anything about Camp Delta, Camp X-ray or whatever else the American Government would like to dress it up as. It does a great disservice to Irish-Americans not to say anything about this and to refuse to inspect, as a sovereign nation with a sovereign police force, flights coming through Shannon. I apologise for going off on a tangent and I do not mean any disrespect to the Deputy.

Chairman

Mr. Kennedy is using up his valuable time.

Mr. Patrick Kennedy

I understand that. I want to engage with Professor Maguire, who unfortunately has not had much of a chance to speak, as many of the previous speakers have been against the treaty. I am in favour of the treaty, probably to the relief of many members of the committee. Would Professor Maguire consider that the ongoing negotiations that preceded this and other treaties not just at Commission level but also at Parliament level are evidence of greater democracy in the European Union and its frameworks? This is an ongoing process. As I remember from my own studies on the European Union at UL, it is important, for example, that the Council is now going to meet in public. While that seems only a small matter, it is always good to be able to see representatives in public. I hope this will not be a rare occurrence and that what is happening now, especially in the area of foreign affairs, will be done for the benefit of the Irish people. We are pooling our sovereignty overall--

Chairman

If Mr. Kennedy could keep a greater distance from the microphone we would be able to hear him better, as the recording is distorted.

Mr. Patrick Kennedy

I beg your pardon. We are pooling our sovereignty and discussing issues as many nations, but when we consider European issues we must, while understanding sovereign and territorial issues among our people, consider a borderless EU as a European community. I am sure Professor Maguire would like to address this issue.

Based on the comments of many of the speakers who preceded me, except for the person immediately before me, who spoke so eloquently, a lot of people seem to be alienating those who oppose the treaty. They are being portrayed as being against this or against that. It seems those campaigning for a "Yes" vote have not engaged sufficiently. Ultimately, there seems to be a lack of understanding of how the EU works, how its bodies function and how it was created. If that was not the case, a gentleman who spoke previously would not have asked about the President appointing plenipotentiaries. While some members may snigger at that question, it is an important question that has previously been clarified through European legislation. I do not think enough people have a sufficient understanding of the EU and how it functions. This is unfortunately reflected in the ongoing debate on the Lisbon treaty and will also be reflected in the vote itself.

Mr. Ciarán O’Driscoll

My name is Ciarán O'Driscoll and I am also a student of history and politics at UL. I have one simple question for the panel. I come from the town of Castletownbere in west Cork, which is a close-knit fishing community. What are the specific references to fishing policy in the Lisbon treaty? Will it safeguard the fishing industry, which has been one of the hidden failures of Ireland's participation in the EU?

Chairman

I thank Mr. Kennedy and Mr. O'Driscoll for those questions. I call Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, who is of course in her native corner of the country.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan

I join in welcoming the committee to the treaty city. I am not a member of the committee but am here as a Member of the Oireachtas, as Members are entitled to attend all committee meetings.

My two colleagues from the Labour Party, Deputy Joe Costello and my predecessor in this seat in Limerick, Mr. Frank Prendergast, have eloquently expressed the reasons I am also in favour of the treaty. I refer in particular to the emphasis placed by Mr. Prendergast on the origins of the EU - the tyranny that existed in Europe in the earlier part of the last century, the conflict among European countries and the importance, which is really revolutionary, of overriding all of that in an agreement which has now resulted in 27 countries becoming members of the EU. It is important to put the treaty in this context because values are important in all of this.

In addition, the main reason I am strongly in favour of the treaty is the point made by Deputy Costello, namely, that in essence it rebalances the Union, whose emphasis has largely been on a market, in favour of social cohesion and the rights of individuals, groups and communities. In a sense, it makes for a more rounded Europe, which I welcome.

I will not detain those present as I am not a member of the committee. However, I would like to address the issue raised by Mr. Kennedy about extraordinary rendition flights. Those present may be under the impression that we at this table are all of the same view. I am not of the same view as Deputy Treacy, although I respect him very much, with regard to rendition flights. We should inspect these aeroplanes. I have protested at Shannon Airport on a number of occasions with regard to its use for military flights, about which I hold a different view. We do not agree on all issues but I do not believe our neutrality will be affected by the Lisbon treaty. The text states clearly that there are other neutral states in Europe besides Ireland and that there are states in Europe which are members of NATO. The treaty respects this and does not change the position. I do not believe the treaty threatens our neutrality in any way because there is the triple lock mechanism and because we retain our sovereignty in foreign and military policy issues.

I thank everybody for coming to Limerick, particularly the other members of the committee.

Chairman

I thank Deputy O'Sullivan and call Deputy Breen who is also a fraternal delegate as he comes from County Clare.

Deputy Pat Breen

I apologise for my late arrival. I was detained on Dáil business and did not leave Dublin until 5.15 p.m. It took me almost four hours to reach here because of the volume of traffic coming out of Dublin.

I was sorry to miss the beginning of the meeting but will make a point in regard to what Deputy O'Sullivan said about rendition flights. I am a member of the Council of Europe. As the audience will know, the Swiss lawyer and former judge, Mr. Dick Marty, carried out a full and comprehensive report on rendition flights. I spoke to him at length on many occasions in Strasbourg about the Irish position. He made it clear that he did not see Ireland as playing a major role in rendition. He said he did not believe any prisoners were transferred through Ireland. He mentioned that some flights travelled on a westbound journey but not with prisoners on board. That was his view after producing a comprehensive report on extraordinary rendition.

The other point we must remember regarding what Deputy Treacy said is that Shannon Airport has been used for military flights by 35 countries for over 50 years. It is not simply the Americans who use it, although we are very quick to talk about them. We should make it clear that although there is a war in Iraq and that, in consequence, troops have moved through Shannon Airport, our understanding is that most of the flights were commercial, with troops on board.

We should not mix up this issue with the Lisbon treaty. There has been misinformation. It is only in the past few weeks, since the four main political parties have launched their campaigns, that the debate has begun to take shape and people are now starting to ask questions. As I travelled to Limerick tonight, I could see the posters put up by all sides, the "No" and the "Yes" campaigns. We are in for a lively three weeks of campaigning on the treaty.

There is no doubt that 90% of what was contained in the constitution is included in the treaty. The structure of the European Union has been in place since 1993 and the Treaty of Maastricht which was later amended by the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice. Mr. Peter Sutherland has said this is one of the most minor treaties to be put before the people. It is complex but concerning policy, it is minor.

Some of the previous speakers brought up the point that Ireland was alone in holding a referendum. Approximately ten countries have ratified the Lisbon treaty so far, one being Poland, one of the Soviet bloc countries, that entered the European Union in 2004. The Polish Parliament, representing all its political parties, ratified the treaty on figures of 80% in favour as opposed to 20% against. The French and the Dutch defeated the constitutional treaty. However, about two months ago France ratifed the Lisbon treaty at the Chateau of Versailles and the parties which strongly opposed the constitutional treaty did not vote on this occasion. They abstained. The same can be said of Denmark which has a very open society. The treaty will be ratified by the Danish Parliament. If they had grievances, bearing in mind that they have opted of treaties before, they would have objected by virtue of being such an open society.

I am delighted to be here. I was not here for the questions posed at the start of the meeting but will take up Mr. Prendergast's point about God. It is true God is not mentioned in the constitution but for the first time the treaty provides for an open, regular and transparent dialogue with the churches.

Other speakers have made the point that people do not understand how the European institutions work. The European Union has worked well, particularly for Ireland. We have done very well out of our membership of the Union. We have a total of 960 foreign companies employing almost 1 million workers. We enjoy free health cover when we travel from country to country. Irish is now an official language of the European Union. Average wages have increased from being 60% of the EU average in 1973 to 138% today. We have built almost 500 kilometres of motorway with Structural Funds. I would say, however, after my journey from Dublin tonight that we need some more. That will happen in the near future. We can see for ourselves the amount of money coming from the European Union for these projects.

Another matter that is topical - I do not know if it has been mentioned - is the using of a veto at the WTO talks. These are two separate issues and should not be linked together. Ireland will have a veto in respect of any agreement that Commissioner Mandelson makes at the WTO talks because it has to be referred to the Council.

The misinformation will be dealt with in the next three weeks as the main four political parties get their campaigns under way. It would be suicidal if we in Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, the Labour Party and the Green Party were to send wrong information to the people who put us in these privileged positions. I look forward to the rest of the campaign in which Fine Gael is looking for a "Yes" vote. Ours is very much a pro-European Union party, affiliated to the largest political grouping in the European Union, the European People's Party. All eyes in Europe will be on Ireland in the next four weeks.

Chairman

The meeting is coming to an end. The audience has been a very good one, with plenty of participation from the floor. We will take four more speakers.

Mr. Edward Horgan

I am international secretary of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, PANA, and also a former United Nations peacekeeper. I am an expert on UN reform and international peace and it is in that capacity that I speak.

I wish to raise two issues - trust and the rule of law. Before the first Treaty of Nice, Fianna Fáil made solemn promises that it would not take Ireland into Partnership for Peace. As soon as it became a party of Government, it took Ireland into it under the guise that it was a humanitarian organisation, which it clearly was not; rather, it is an organisation which is part of NATO which has been involved in some alleged humanitarian missions, including Kosovo, a war which was waged with UN approval. Now we have NATO troops, including seven Irish Army officers, in Afghanistan, again involved in the spurious so-called Petersberg Tasks.

We talk of common foreign and security policy and Ireland's role in it. When the Iraq war began in March 2003, European Union states, particularly Britain, Spain and Italy, in contravention of the UN Charter and of European Union rules, engaged in the war in Iraq with the United States. Ireland allowed and invited US troops through Shannon Airport without a UN mandate.

The Fianna Fáil Government and the Taoiseach, a month before the war started, again made a solemn promise that Ireland would not allow US troops through Shannon Airport without a UN mandate. Within a month that was ignored and the Dáil voted to allow US troops through Shannon Airport. So much for their triple lock. There was no UN mandate and the triple lock was smashed with a sledgehammer and thrown out the door as we participated in a war in Iraq that has so far cost in the region of 1 million lives. Of course, these lives are not important. They are only Iraqis and there are jobs at stake. As Deputy Noel Treacy might imply, therefore, are jobs at Shannon Airport and in the mid-west more important than the lives of 1 million Iraqi people, possibly 250,000 of whom were little children?

On the issue of neutrality, subsequent to 20 March 2003, the Taoiseach and Ministers, and members of the committee on the podium, have stated frequently that Ireland is a neutral state and its neutrality is not affected by the Lisbon treaty. The High Court ruled - Mr. Justice Kearns in April 2003 - that Ireland was not a neutral state, that one cannot be a neutral state and allow a significant number of armed troops on their way to war through one's territory. That is the Hague Convention. It is very specific. It is international law. We are in gross breach of international law and it is fraudulent for an Irish Government, Ministers and TDs to claim still that we are a neutral country. We do not have to be a neutral state. We have the right not to be a neutral state, but it is fraudulent to claim that we are when the High Court has ruled in Horgan v. Ireland that we are, in fact, not a neutral state.

We are told that EU battle groups are not an EU army in spite of all the indications to the contrary. Now we have more than 400 Irish troops serving within an EU battle group in Chad and the Central African Republic. We are told that this has a UN mandate and Government approval and that under Petersberg Tasks, it is peacekeeping. It is no such thing.

As an expert on the United Nations, an expert on peacekeeping and a student of history and politics, I can tell the committee that what is happening in Chad and the Central African Republic is a cynical operation by the French in neocolonialism. Chad is ruled by former General Idrissa Deby, who is a military dictator representing a tiny minority of the Chadian people. Likewise, the Central African Republic is a French-supported dictatorship. The French Army helped to prevent the overthrow of Chad by rebels last year. In the meantime, there is now a danger of a war between Sudan and Chad, and Irish troops, together with the French, are very much in danger of becoming directly involved as participants in a war and in preventing the possibly justified overthrow of General Idrissa Deby. They are not peacekeeping in Chad. They are contributing to the problems in Chad.

They are not protecting the people of Darfur. Ireland should be promoting the ending of the genocide of Darfur by the United Nations. It is doing just the opposite. By helping the continuation of the refugee camps in Chad, they are perpetuating the genocide which is ongoing as we speak. Tens of thousands of women have been raped in Darfur and up to 300,000 people have been killed, yet we are doing nothing about that. We are using the mission in Chad as a fig leaf.

One must remember that the French participated, directly or indirectly, in the Rwandan genocide in Operation Turquoise in which in 1994 they helped the Government of Rwanda to escape from Rwanda into the Congo where they then precipitated another war in the Congo causing the deaths of up to 4 million or 5 million people. This is the sort of rubbish in which we are getting involved and we are calling it peacekeeping. It is not peacekeeping. It is post-colonialism, neocolonialism.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Horgan.

Mr. Edward Horgan

I am not quite finished.

Chairman

You have gone way over your three minutes.

Mr. Edward Horgan

It is hugely important that these things--

Chairman

You have also referred to a number of issues that have already been replied to by other speakers. There are three more speakers I want to call, in fairness to them. You have covered a good number of issues, many of which do not relate to the treaty at all.

Mr. Edward Horgan

They are directly related to the treaty--

Chairman

They are not.

Mr. Edward Horgan

- -and I am calling on people to vote against the treaty on the issues of humanity. How do we justify helping to kill 200,000 children?

Chairman

All right. We will reply to that. We will come back to that in just a moment. I call our next speaker.

Mr. Séamus Ryan

My name is Séamus Ryan and I am unaffiliated. Dia dhíobh, a Chathaoirligh, a Sheanadóirí, a Theachtaí Dalá agus a dhaoine uaisle. I welcome the committee to Limerick. It is marvellous that the members have come this far down the country. In fairness, most of them might have been coming down the country in any case. There might only be one or two members of the committee who would be from Dublin.

I disagree with Mr. Frank Prendergast. He might consider me caught by the devil's greatest trick into believing that he does not actually exist. I disagree with the belief that God should be included in the Constitution. I do not believe He should be. God, as defined by us in Europe, is primarily from a Judeo-Christian tradition. Europe has moved on, certainly since the time of Monnet and his associates, who set up and moved for the European Coal and Steel Community. We are now a multicultural, multi-religious group.

I have two questions. The first is for Professor John Maguire. With the triple lock system and our membership of the Nordic battle group, how is it that the "No" campaign, fractured though it is, puts forward the idea that we are moving towards a military position for Irish troops and the Irish military?

Second, there have been rumblings recently about the private provision of public services as mandated by European directives in the future. I would just like my concerns assuaged in that regard.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Ryan and call the next speaker.

Mr. Tommy Canavan

My name is Tommy Canavan. I am a graduate of law and European studies in the University of Limerick and I am not affiliated to any group in particular. I have a question and a brief comment. I am wary that the comment may be misconstrued and therefore I should state at the outset that just as Professor John Maguire alluded to this solemn occasion, I, too, am privileged to be here on such an occasion. I would support any exercise of democracy. It should be exercised in the strongest way possible.

This leads me to my question, which is frequently asked. One sees it on the briefing material. Why are we having a referendum in Ireland? Immediately, when one observes that Ireland is the only country in the European Union that is having a referendum, it raises questions on why we are the only ones and what are the other countries doing. I would like the members of the committee to elaborate on that.

My comment is, I suppose, structural and possibly ideological in nature. I would like the committee to elaborate on the stipulations in Bunreacht na hÉireann as to when, why and how we conduct our referenda on European affairs. As the committee members may have guessed at this point, I am a supporter of the Lisbon treaty. I will be voting "Yes" on the date in June. I am conscious of the fact that, possibly not for this particular treaty but certainly at some occasions in the future, we may have referenda when they are possibly a disproportionate response to the issues with which we are faced at European level. Immediately, once sentences like that are uttered, what comes to mind are the questions of democracy and letting the people have their say.

In the event, hypothetically, that we did not have a referendum, would that be undemocratic? I do not believe it would be. Democracy is well served in this country. Obviously, when one compares it with countries around the world, we elect our representative to represent us on a local level and, by proxy, on a national level, and they go on to represent us in Europe. When it comes to certain issues, I believe they take those in the interests of the country, as they are elected to do. Because of that, I suppose in many ways it is a question of substance and it is a matter of opinion whether the substance of the treaty is more important than regular decisions taken at European Council level. Does it require a referendum? That is a proportionate question and in some ways a matter of opinion.

I wish to make another point in terms of the widening and deepening of this debate and the widening and deepening of the European Union. A connected point is what would be the negative effect of a "No" vote. What is the problem with presenting decisions of this country with a referendum? Recent media articles suggest that people are ill-informed. When they are ill-informed or uninformed, they will vote "No". In my opinion that is extremely dangerous. If something is put before the people and they are asked them to vote on it, without being informed, possibly by virtue of the fact that they have not engaged or because the representatives did not engage them, either way they will vote "No". If they vote as a result of a misunderstanding, it is a very dangerous situation. The alternative, as is the case in most other European countries, if not all, is that the elected representatives make the decision. In other words, those people who are voted in, have the time and are employed to read the material can make the judgment for the people.

In a hypothetical situation, if people were to reject some other treaty in the future on the basis that they did not understand it, then at a critical juncture of the EU it might be denied as an institution the opportunity to reinforce its own institutions and make itself stronger. I believe that to be the deepening argument rather than the widening and the accumulation of more countries.

Will the committee elaborate on why we have the referendum? Will it contrast with other countries which, I proffer the argument, have faith in their elected representatives to make the decisions for them without having to go to the people, albeit a very important and rational exercise which we will do in the children's rights referendum? Obviously, it is very important. I am not denying the fact that a referendum is a good way to go but it must be, I believe, a proportionate response to the decisions faced at a European Council or European level.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Canavan. I have some other written questions that I will read to the committee because some people were too shy to come to the platform. I never associated Limerick people with shyness.

Thomas Kirby says re the proposed new Presidency of the Council of Ministers, the next time Ireland is involved in this process it will be co-presiding with two other small countries. We may advance some small country goals in this grouping but we would not be able to moderate the plans advanced during the Presidency of a large country. There are several answers to that question which, I am sure, he will get from our guest speakers. I know the answers but I will not intrude on their territory.

John O'Reilly and Marian Conlon ask how Professor Maguire would vote if the 1972 referendum were being held now.

Miriam from the HSE asks whether the child protection laws will be enforced. That is a good question, the answer to which is readily available. She also asks how it will change from the current method, whether trafficking in children will be stopped and how sex offenders will be monitored and prosecuted.

Thomas Kirby asks what procedures exist for resolving a situation where there is a dispute as to whether an area of policy may be referred for qualified majority voting or retained as a matter to be decided by unanimity. Could it be finally decided by the European Court or by the Heads of State? We know the answer to that already.

We are coming to the end. I will have a few words to say at the very end but I will call on our two guest speakers in whichever order they wish to speak, unless there is any other member of the platform group who wishes to speak. Does Deputy Costello wish to say something on the Laval issue?

Deputy Joe Costello

I wish to speak briefly on a couple of issues. Mr. Frank Prendergast wants to have a look at the reference to the churches even though God is not mentioned. There is a reference in a couple of articles but particularly in Article 16C where the recognition is given to all churches and where open dialogue with the churches will be maintained on policy items.

Mr. Ciarán O'Driscoll, from Castletownbere, asked about the fisheries policy. The fisheries policy is contained in Article 32. It is a competence of the European Union. There is no change whatsoever in that respect. In regard to public services, for the first time ever there is provision for a legal basis for the regulation and protection of public services. That is contained in Article 14 and is also covered in a protocol and emphasised again in Article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Mr. Tommy Canavan asked the position in regard to Bunreacht na hÉireann and the constitutional requirement. That is an interesting question. The decision is made by the Attorney General. When a treaty is put together, as in the case of this treaty, the Government must refer its contents to the Attorney General who makes a decision as to whether its requires a constitutional referendum in accordance with the Crotty case. In this case, obviously, the Government decided it did.

I will not open the case on what Mr. Edward Horgan said, except to say that I fundamentally disagree with him in his interpretation of the whole area of neutrality and militarisation. That was one of only two areas on which the Referendum Commission decided to speak and pronounce specifically. The commission categorically stated that Irish neutrality is not at stake nor is it under threat in this treaty.

Mr. Edward Horgan

That is because Irish neutrality does not exist any more.

Chairman

One speaker only.

Deputy Joe Costello

One cannot have it both ways. Either it exists or it does not exist. If it does not exist, the treaty has no impact on it. If Mr. Horgan had referred to the treaty in his presentation, which he did not, he would have seen that Articles 27 and 28 of the treaty state clearly that the United Nations can only engage in missions and any tasks of a civil or a military nature if they are in accordance with the United Nations Charter, international law and democracy. It lists the particular missions in which it can engage abroad. Ireland goes beyond that by saying it would not just be in accordance with the charter but we would want also a specific mandate from the United Nations.

Mr. Edward Horgan

The--

Chairman

We stated the rules at the beginning. Mr. Horgan had his say. The reply is being given.

Deputy Joe Costello

The mandate has to be given by the Security Council or by a plenary sitting of the United Nations. That has been given in respect of Chad, Lebanon and all the missions in which Ireland has been engaged. The Government approves of it and then Parliament approves it. That is the triple lock. There is no question of us engaging in a common defence policy because we have already written it into the Constitution and we are writing it into the Constitution again. I do not know where these allegations are coming from but they are certainly not founded in this treaty.

Mr. Edward Horgan

A million dead in Iraq.

Deputy Joe Costello

By the way, Iraq has nothing to do with this treaty. Shannon and the rendition flights have nothing to do with it.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I want to endorse what Deputy Costello said, particularly in response to Mr. Horgan's comments. I pay tribute to Mr. Horgan for attending and expressing his strongly held views and for the service he has given internationally in the military world. I do not claim to be an expert but I am a student of politics and history and a member of the UN reform committee and would have some knowledge of the position. He made a statement that the triple lock mechanism has been smashed, so to speak, as a result of the American troops going through Shannon. The triple lock mechanism refers to the military affairs of the island of Ireland, its sovereign republic and its army and defence forces. It does not refer to the United States, Switzerland or any other body. That is clear and it is important we understand that.

The Petersberg Tasks were voted through by the people of Europe, the people of Ireland and the Treaty of Amsterdam. They were accepted as responsible, positive and necessary protections for military affairs at that time. That point is important also.

In response to the question from Miriam of the Health Service Executive, the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Bill has been published by the Government, will be debated by Oireachtas Éireann and will be passed in due course.

I agree with Mr. Frank Prendergast and Senator Hanafin and I respect the point made earlier about the reference to God. We did our utmost to have a reference to God included in this treaty but we did not get our way on that. The first statement in the treaty is very clear: "Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law". Those are the opening words of the treaty taking into account religious and humanist heritage aspects, traditions and value systems. We got that included as a result of a major effort but we were unable to get the reference to God included. We respect everyone's right to have their own interpretation of God and to support their God. We are all here before the spiritual life that is ahead of us. We hope to be adjudicated on and, hopefully, get a passage into the next world. We have to trust in that.

I thank Mr. O'Riordan for his contributions. He questioned the right of the President of Ireland to be party to a document and referred to our people as plenipotentiaries. Our Constitution is clear. The Oireachtas is made up of the President's establishment, that is, the President and his or her staff, the Members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann and the Members of the European Parliament. The President is separate from all of those as Head of State and Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces of the country. The Legislature is made up of the men and women elected by the people of Ireland to the two Houses of Parliament and the European Parliament who pass the laws on behalf of the people. The Executive is the Government elected by Parliament. The President gives all those people their commissions, as he or she does to the judges, the Army generals, the Comptroller and Auditor General and others. We, as humble servants of the people, under the President as Head of State and the Government of Ireland as servants of the nation, both nationally and internationally, take our power through the Constitution from the President. Our people - they can be described as plenipotentiaries, representatives or delegates - go to Europe to work not just for Ireland but in the interests of the common good of the people of Europe. Our Constitution is very clear on our roles and our separate position.

The final point concerns Mr. Philip Norden's original statement pertaining to water charges on schools. I do not want that red herring to distort the debate under any circumstances. I hope Mr. Norden is still present. We negotiated that issue in Europe on behalf of Ireland. Out of 27 member states we were the only country to negotiate an exemption from domestic water charges for every private house on the island of Ireland. We got an exemption for 50,000 gallons per house in Ireland. Included in that was a 50,000 gallons exemption for all other operations but beyond that the charges must be paid. Regrettably, because we got the exemption on domestic houses, we could not get one on any other area and on that basis schools, churches, halls, factories, offices and everyone else must pay for water.

We must accept that in a modern world with constant growth in population and a major change in the environment as a result of climate change and rampant pollution, we all face a challenge in society. We must pay for the services that are critical to sustain the quality of water that is vital for our people. Regrettably, school water charges must be paid in the same way that schools must pay for electricity, fuel and telephone services. That is what we did in Europe. No other country got that deal. It was a tremendous deal for our people but the balance in that regard was that schools would have to pay their water charges. Sin í an fhreagra agus, le chúnamh Dé, rachaimid ar aghaidh le chéile agus reathamar le chéile chun an reifreann seo a reachtáil ar son muintir na tíre.

Chairman

Senator John Hanafin wishes to make a brief contribution.

Senator John Hanafin

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to speak again. I want to amend something I said inadvertently earlier. I mentioned that there was a reference to Christian heritage in the treaty. In fact, that was a proposal. As was stated by previous speakers, it is the special contribution of the churches that was included. Most of us would be of the view that we would have wished to have a reference to God in the constitution but everyone is entitled to their own view.

The second aspect was the question of trafficking, in particular child trafficking. The best way of dealing with the question of people trafficking, drugs and international criminality, including obscene material over the Internet, is on an international basis and at a European level now that we are dealing with the Lisbon treaty. Many of us here will have been to either Spain or the United States this year but not many of us will have visited parts of Ireland such as Letterkenny. The world has become much smaller and in that context the Government has made a declaration stating our intention to participate in measures on criminal matters, especially police co-operation, to the maximum extent possible. That is something to be welcomed. It will make life more difficult for the criminals and that is as it should be in the world in which we live today.

It must be remembered, however, and this is an important point in the context of what has been said tonight, that this treaty does not claim to deal with issues such as fluoridation of water. It is very specific and people who come in here and make valid points about some issue that has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty have not served the treaty or the debate on it well. I would like to see an end to the war in Iraq but the Lisbon treaty is a separate issue.

Chairman

I wish to clarify the questions I read out earlier. Unfortunately, I mistakenly attributed to Patricia Conlon from the University of Limerick the question to Professor John Maguire from John O'Reilly. That was wrong. Ms Conlon's is a separate question. Her first question asks what the EU role will be in regard to climate change, Article 191.1, and energy, Article 194, etc. if the Lisbon treaty enters into force. That is a good question. She also asks the implications of Article 48.5 in the aftermath of the Lisbon treaty. Her third question, on the role of national parliaments in the aftermath of the Lisbon treaty, asks how subsidiarity and proportionality will be judged in terms of the protocols. Our expert speakers will have much fun in dealing with those questions.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I wish to return briefly to one or two points. In one of the written questions Thomas Kirby asked about the impact of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the fact that it will be shared by three member states. To clarify, the President of the European Council will be one person elected for two and a half years. That term can be renewed once. Therefore, one person could be President for up to five years. That is important because it will provide some continuity in that when the President of the European Council is meeting other Heads of State from around the world, it will be the same person for a period of up to five years. When Vladimir Putin was President of Russia, he met up to 14 Presidents of the Council during his term of office. This measure will provide important continuity.

Another point was raised concerning the Council of Ministers. The Presidency of the Council will be shared by three member states for a period of 18 months. Ireland will assume that role with Greece and Lithuania in 2013. That will provide stability and the member states will work together to advance the agenda on various issues.

Mr. Canavan asked a pertinent question on the impact of Ireland's voting "No" in the referendum. Nobody has the complete answer to that question. My view is that the principal consequence would be a serious loss of goodwill towards Ireland in the European Union which would manifest when Ministers and the Taoiseach travel on a regular basis to negotiate policies and advance Ireland's point of view and argument on specific issues. In that context, there would be a serious loss of goodwill towards Ireland for the simple reason that since 1973 the development of the European project and the effect of the institutions and policies of the European Union have brought Ireland from the bottom to the top of the league. We have been the primary beneficiaries of everything that is good about the European Union. The eyes of the peoples of Europe will be on us on 12 June. If we say "No" to them on the treaty, that would be some thanks to give for all the positive contributions the Union has made.

The Lisbon treaty specifically empowers the European Union to develop policies on the security of energy supply, which is important. We heard in recent days about the possible increase in the price of gas and so forth. The European Union, in collectively negotiating with gas suppliers such as Russia, is in a much stronger bargaining position than Ireland negotiating on its own to secure the best possible terms.

Those are some of the points I wished to cover. I appreciate that the guest speakers will address other issues.

Chairman

I thank Deputy McGrath. We have reached the stage where our guest speakers will respond. Professor Maguire will speak first on this occasion.

Professor John Maguire

I hope it will not be interpreted as a personal complaint, because it is not, when I say that in the context of a referendum where one could argue, as I would, that ideas and arguments, not people or parties, are of the essence, those present have not heard anyone from the platform speak against the treaty, other than me, and I stopped speaking two hours ago. It is important to consider that point in the context of the referendum.

Chairman

I want to correct something Professor Maguire said. Those on the platform are representative of members elected by the people to Dáil Éireann. The fact that members of a joint committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas hold a point of view is something to which the Constitution must also have regard. We will have that argument at a later stage.

Professor John Maguire

We could, but in that context, I point out that political parties are not even mentioned in the Constitution; it is the people who are sovereign.

Chairman

It is the people who elected them.

Professor John Maguire

Absolutely. The people are not voting in an election but considering what shape they want the European Union to take.

I have a page of notes and will not get through everything I want to say, for which I apologise. My e-mail address is [e-mail] and I invite people to contact me if they want to follow up on any points made.

A number of direct questions were put to me. I do not believe it was Ms Conlon who asked what way I would vote if the 1972 referendum was being held now. Mr. O'Reilly asked that question. If in asking that valid question he is asking whether I am arguing, or have argued since 1972, in favour of our leaving the European Union, the answer is no; rather I argue that we should have an adult relationship with the Union, which I do not believe we have had.

On the question of whether I regret voting and arguing in the way I did - I will send Mr. O'Reilly what I said then, if he would like to read it - I do not regret it. I was not arguing in favour of a narrow backward-looking Ireland. I wanted Ireland to be part of a wider democratic Europe and world. With all the good things that have happened, I do not believe we have used the resources that we and the European Union have given to ourselves in order to use our voice in Europe. We are in danger - to some extent we have already done so - of selling out on a crucial Irish inheritance - in which I honour Mr. Edward Horgan; I certainly will not add to his remarks - the Irish tradition of peacekeeping with the United Nations.

It has been said people such as Mr. Horgan have brought the issues of Iraq and rendition flights into the debate on the Lisbon treaty. The other point he raised concerned our membership of Partnership for Peace, on which the then Government was elected on a manifesto in which it promised to hold a referendum on the issue but which it then decided not to hold, a matter on which the Opposition failed to hold it to account. I have not heard an answer to the question on what is the specific character of Irish defence policy. Deputy O'Sullivan said there was a reference in the treaties to the fact that there were neutral countries but, to the best of my knowledge, there is not. There is reference to the fact that there are some countries which are not members of NATO and that is the end of it. It is not spelled out what is different about those countries. That is the important point. That is a sad failure on our part that I would like to see remedied.

Deputy Costello raised a number of points, particularly the increased role of the European Parliament in making law. To some extent, that is true. The same applies to the role of national parliaments, but neither of them has the initiative. The European Union is not a representative democracy and does not have a parliament in the sense that it is an elected law-making body. It may be moving slightly towards this, but after more than half a century, it has not got there yet. That is a fact.

Deputy Costello also said we could not be part of a common defence policy, etc. That may have been a slip of the tongue because we are a part of a common defence policy and have already signed up to treaty obligations.

Deputy Joe Costello

That is not correct. We are part of a common defence agency. Common defence policy--

Professor John Maguire

Excuse me, I thought there were rules that applied.

Chairman

There are. We will wrap up the discussion at the end.

Professor John Maguire

Yes, if we are all to have a further bite of the cherry, I would like to come back to that issue.

Chairman

We could continue on it all night but we will not go there.

Professor John Maguire

Perhaps we could and then I would not be saddled with being the only person trying to answer these points.

Chairman

That discussion can take place over coffee.

Professor John Maguire

Deputy Treacy said the 1973 treaty of accession provided that referenda would have to be held. I do not recall that being the case; it may be so, but why did Mr. Raymond Crotty have to go to the Supreme Court to fight the case for the holding of a referendum on the Single European Act?

Deputy Treacy also said the triple-lock mechanism was the subject of a protocol. I have checked every text and I am virtually certain that it is only covered in a declaration. Let us be clear about this: the Government states in the White Paper that declarations are not legally binding. Therefore, we do not have a triple-lock mechanism that is binding on Ireland or the European Union. That argument may have been made around at the time of the holding of a referendum and while it may be significant, it is not legally binding any more than was the promise to hold a referendum on our membership of Partnership for Peace.

People mention the fact, as did Deputy O'Sullivan, that the special character, which is unspecified, of Irish defence policy is respected. The crucial place where it is glancingly and unclearly referred to is in Article 42(2) mentioned on page 50 of the Government White Paper as published on the Department of Foreign Affairs website. It states the policy of the Union "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States". There is no mention of Ireland or other neutral countries. The paragraph finishes with the words, "and [shall] be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework", - the framework of NATO. The very clause that people use in saying Ireland is recognised as being different is one that provides that whatever we are a member of - we have already agreed to have a common defence policy - it must be compatible with NATO. There are many more such references. That is what I think of the triple-lock mechanism.

Deputy Michael McGrath said that I had said we would be forced to do various things. I did not say that, nor am I arguing that point. Professor Rees is slightly wrong when he says there is no qualified majority voting with regard to defence. If he is right, page 47 of the Government White Paper is wrong because it states that there is the beginning of the introduction of qualified majority voting, that is, non-veto covered voting. I am not trying to fool people. That can be pulled back to unanimity by an Irish Government but it is not true that qualified majority voting is not beginning; it is beginning to be introduced in the area of defence policy. We need to be careful about that. My concerns are not about what we will be forced to do, although I believe we have gone along with too much already, but what our Governments will be ready to do. We did not hold a referendum on the Partnership for Peace, the triple-lock is only a declaration and we have gone along with the Iraq war, which is illegal. When we say somebody has got to do something we completely overlook the fact that the reason somebody must do something is that the United Nations has been systematically run down, under-resourced, stigmatised and scapegoated over the past 20 years. That is a very sorry record from Ireland.

That is not just my opinion. NATO is recognised as being at the centre of EU defence policy. The only way we deal with that is to say: "Sure we might not have to go along with it." Why are we members of a Community with a defence policy we claim we will be able to wriggle out of when push comes to shove? Incidentally, I am not sure we will wriggle out of it anyway. The reasoning behind NATO being able to say something had to be done and that it must do it has been described by the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, established by the Swedish Government, as "somewhat self-serving, as the earlier UN failure was partly a result of the refusal by the NATO countries to support the Bosnian effort in a more vigorous and effective manner". The then Secretary General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, asked for a 30,000-strong NATO force operating under UN authority when these problems were starting but he was prevented from raising the force by the large powers in the United Nations.

We cannot align our resources with what is happening under the Petersberg Tasks and, at the same time, keep them in the framework or setting where they are ready for traditional peacekeeping. That was recognised by the EU Presidency in 2004 under Deputy Bertie Ahern, the then President of the Council, when it spoke about the need for a new culture of security. We are retraining our troops to a new culture, one that is in conflict with Articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution. I believe that is because we are not adult and not ready to use our voice. I am sorry for being so vehement but I am under time pressure.

Is democracy increasing? Is everything in the treaty bad? No. It is a good idea, for example, to give a greater role to national parliaments. However, they do not get the initiative. The European Parliament does not have the initiative. People talk about the European Parliament gaining powers under the treaty but why is there a declaration by all the signatories to the Lisbon treaty reassuring us that in the area of defence, the European Parliament does not gain any new powers? It does not run the policy; the policy is run by the Council and the high representative. Incidentally, that is the area where the small amount of qualified majority voting is being introduced.

It is good to give more power but let us be clear. I am almost finished and I apologise for ranting at this pace but I am the only person on this platform speaking against the treaty and I am trying to deal with a huge number of points from the platform and from the floor. The EU has government structures and parliamentary structures. Let us say that Ireland were the EU. The voters would elect the Dáil. They would also elect the county councils and the government of Ireland would emerge from the majority on the county councils. They would set up the government. The members of the government would not be members of the Dáil and would not be answerable to the Dáil. The EU does not function as a representative democracy. It might be making some moves towards that, which is probably good, but in the most crucial area of defence, it is allegedly reassuring us that even that degree of power for the European Parliament will not be introduced. There are serious issues about how answerable the defence policies of the EU are to democracies. I am not saying that Ireland will have to participate in any of the lurid scenarios that have been discussed, but the readiness of Irish Governments to break their political promises and endorse illegal wars is quite enough to concern me without anybody forcing us to do anything.

I am sorry for leaving so many points unanswered, but I will conclude by stating that I wish to see a Europe that is a real democracy. I want a Europe that does not impose so-called free trade on the poorer countries of the world. Deputy Treacy spoke about co-ordination of armaments, having guns that fit together and so forth. There is a great deal more than that in the role the high representative will play in ensuring that countries live up to their obligation, which Ireland will share, to increase their defence spending. In a world where one stealth bomber costs $1.2 billion dollars - it is almost unbelievable - Mr. Javier Solana, who is and will be the high representative in this policy, states that Europe must compete with the United States, a country that is outspending the EU by a ratio of 6:1. No wonder George Kennan, the man who warned of the danger of Russia in the 1940s and could be regarded as an architect of the Cold War, said about five years before his death in the late 1990s that the US was in danger of becoming the dunce of the world if it did not cop on.

We have not been a good friend to the United States. Joseph Gerson of the US Quakers committee has summed it up in a wonderful phrase: "Friends don't let friends drive drunk." We have not spoken the truth to the US. People have spoken about our heritage and the diaspora. We have not had the courage to tell the United States to steady itself and look at things a little differently. We have been a rotten friend; we have been a rotten friend to many people around the world, many of whom are now dead. As a sovereign citizen of the Irish Republic, who can be held responsible for what is done by our Defence Forces, I make no apologies for being very concerned about what we have already swallowed and what we are letting other people proceed with and then weaselling out of it with political promises. I am very sad that we have not contributed to a relaxed, peaceful, friendly and more democratic Europe. That is what I wanted in 1972 and what I want now. It is what I believe Europe owes to the world.

Chairman

Thank you, Professor Maguire. You have had a good innings. Theoretically, somebody who has an opposite view to that of the majority should get time equal to each of those who speak for the other side. Unfortunately, it does not work that way in this situation. However, on some other occasion, and definitely over the coffee, you can rest assured that we will engage in that debate. I call Professor Nicholas Rees.

Professor Nicholas Rees

I will address just a couple of issues because time is limited. With regard to the discussions we have had about the military issue, nobody has discussed the civilian structures. We have tended to view matters negatively in the discussions we have had. We forget about the successes. Ireland has played a large role in the UN. Our peacekeeping role in Liberia was clearly a success. East Timor or Timor-Leste is another example. We forget about these and tend to highlight more problematic cases. The case of Kosovo has also been raised. At present, we are sending civilian forces there to help - police, administrative personnel, judges and so forth - and to provide the basis of civil administration.

It is easy to talk about the military aspects but these are positive things that Europe is doing both on its immediate borders and further afield. I would like to highlight some of those points. We should be aware of a lot of the positive things that are coming out of the type of EU structures we have been creating.

It was mentioned earlier that military spending is increasing. In fact, if one looked across Europe at the EU states in general, one would not find that to be the case. Most of the evidence from academic associated studies highlights the fact that such expenditure has been reduced. The idea that Europe is becoming more militarised is not the case.

We should also be able to provide civilian reaction to disasters such as tsunamis. It is important to be able to do those things. We need structures to do so because single states cannot do it. Ireland's foreign policy contributes, but usually through UN or EU agencies. Our ability to do things on our own is quite limited. It would be naive to think we could stand alone. We must work with partners, which gives us a greater chance to play a positive role in the world.

We have underplayed the UN's role and have tended to demonise it here. We have been positive in our role in the UN. The United Nations is not faultless in terms of its structures and the balance of power but on the whole, the EU has operated within the UN remit. Kosovo is a more recent example of that and Chad is another case. It should not be forgotten that the EU mission in Chad is there in part, along with the African Union, for only a short period. It is meant to be a bridging operation. Those are some of the points I wanted to highlight.

Other issues were raised. Professor John Maguire mentioned the QMV issue as regards common foreign and security policy. He is right about that as regards the CFSP, but I mentioned defence earlier. Professor Maguire might want to re-examine the White Paper in that regard. I would encourage anyone to look at the White Paper, which is eminently readable. It is perhaps the most helpful document of all.

This evening we have had a very interesting debate on the issues. I enjoyed listening to the positive and negative points, including the concerns expressed. It helps us to hear them. We should discuss these matters with more people. I think Professor Maguire and I agree, as we discussed earlier, that it is important for people to vote and use that opportunity. There is an opportunity to do so in Ireland, although other states do it differently. They have different traditions. There is diversity in Europe which we have always supported and encouraged. That is part of what our country is about in this instance. When we leave here tonight we should encourage others to think about the Lisbon treaty.

Chairman

I particularly want to thank our two guest speakers for having covered the issues in their presentations and for listening so carefully to the submissions. I want to deal quickly with a couple of points that were raised. First, I want to deal with the history of the European battle group. We have heard the arguments concerning it. I was Chairman of this committee during the war in Bosnia. The former Deputy, Des O'Malley, was Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and we had several joint meetings of those two committees. We called in the ambassadors of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Russia and all the countries neighbouring Bosnia, including the newer members of the European Union.

The real reason that action was not taken by the rest of Europe was because Europe did not have any defence mechanism whereby it could respond to such an event. The reason was that most of them had past history in the particular situation. History students in the audience will readily appreciate that fact. At that time, we repeatedly pleaded with them to take some kind of action to protect the people who were corralled within the safe havens. Of course, even though UN personnel were there at the time, they were incapable and did not have the armaments to do the job. For whatever reason, they were overrun or capitulated and the result was the appalling slaughter in Srebrenica where 8,000 people were put to death. That was the salutary lesson the EU learned the hard way. It resolved, rightly or wrongly, that such an event would not recur. That is why we have rapid response forces and battle groups, to which we have referred. That is their history.

Reference was made to our Defence Forces which have played a tremendous role both in peacekeeping and peace enforcement throughout the world over the last 50 years. It is something of which we should be proud. We should record our appreciation of that. I remember that Mr. Edward Horgan and I debated this issue during the Nice treaty as well.

Reference has been made to the fishing industry and perhaps one could also include the agricultural sector in that regard. We must recognise that we are a food producing country. We export 98% of what we produce. It is important that we always remain vigilant. It is true to say that we have not come out best on some occasions, but that is our problem. That is the way we present the case and do our negotiations. We are not forced to accept any argument from Europe in these matters. It is a matter for ourselves.

Euratom and a nuclear alliance were mentioned but these matters are not new to the Lisbon treaty. They have always been there. Reference was also made to future co-operation on energy. One of the things provided for is a European energy policy. Proposals have been laid down and put in place whereby we will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, replacing them with alternatives. One of those alternatives in Europe, including the UK, happens to be nuclear energy, but that does not mean that we must produce nuclear energy. I am opposed to it and have opposed it in the past. Others disagree with my view but that is as it may be.

Some time ago, somebody suggested that we should refuse to accept electricity generated by nuclear energy and supplied through interconnectors at some future stage. I find it hard to see how that could be operated, however. Suffice it to say that we will have an opportunity to export our energy to Europe, which is generated from wind and other alternative means. In the event of the wind dying down, which does not always happen in this country, we can import energy through interconnectors. Provision has been made for that, both now and in the past.

Reference has also been made to the extent of the powers of the European Parliament. In the past, the European Parliament has sacked the Commission, end of story. That ultimate power rests with that elected parliament if it wants to use it. We often tend to ignore the fact that the people elect Members of the European Parliament. One cannot always change them but one can elect them, re-elect them or dismiss them.

The loss of sovereignty issue has been readily dealt with. It is recognised that provision is made in the treaty for the protection and preservation of our neutrality. I want to emphasise that point, to which Deputy Jan O'Sullivan has already referred. It is appropriate that we should be discussing this issue in the treaty city. A treaty is an agreement made up of pros and cons, views, fears, aspirations, worries, prejudices and even hatreds of the participating groups. There is bound to be the odd contradiction and the odd issue with which somebody will disagree. They are put there for a purpose - to show the participants that their view has been recognised - and if they disagree at some future stage they will have the right to do so.

Somebody said to me, locally, that abortion will be forced on the Irish people, but nothing could be further from the truth. There is a recognition within the European treaties for countries that have legislated in that fashion and, equally, for other countries that refuse to and are quite right to do so. We have that provision ourselves.

Reference was made to the imposition of free trade on smaller countries. In times past, the EU had a special relationship with small, poorer countries, particularly in Africa. That relationship was somewhat dented by CAP reform. I remember being on the committee and representations being made to the effect that improvements, for want of a better description, entailed in CAP reform, of which the farming community and others are now critical, were necessary and beneficial to small farmers but they were not. We should always maintain our position to suit ourselves, although we should not necessarily impose our will on everybody else. We should always expect the other side to recognise that we, as a sovereign state, have a view and we should not be afraid to put it forward. I believe I have covered most of the issues, including sovereignty and free trade. As was said, we do not have the time to go through some other issues at this time.

Privatisation was also raised. The European Union has created a situation in which the consumer has benefited from greater competition. That does not necessarily mean it is forcing privatisation. Somebody brought to our attention at one of our earlier meetings that the telecommunications system here was now faltering as a result of privatisation in the European Union. What about the telecommunications systems in France, Germany and even in the new accession states? That argument does not stand up. Most of these issues are in our hands and will remain in them.

I thank committee members, some of whom have been at every meeting, for being here. This is the last of this series of meetings. We must compile a report which will be made public by 28 May 2008. I thank our guests for being here and for helping us. I particularly thank the audience for participating. It is generally accepted that this audience was unusual to the degree to which it participated. That is a good thing and it is interesting that it happened at the end of this series of meetings.

As was said by other speakers, the founding fathers of Europe would have been proud of Mr. Frank Prendergast. I had the privilege of meeting Spinelli, the famous Italian Communist, and was amazed by the degree to which I agreed with his philosophy. I could not understand it but that is Europe. I also met the former mayor of Strasbourg, Pierre Pflimlin, who is now deceased and who was President of the European Parliament. In the final months of the Second World War, his entire family was shot by the Germans when retreating but that did not stop him from playing a leading role in addressing the issues which brought Europe to its knees. He spent his life working towards the type of concept spoken about tonight.

I thank everybody, including our hosts. I also thank our staff for coming along and for bearing with us. Whatever they are paid, they need to be paid more because they have earned it.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.15 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 May 2008.