The next item on the agenda is No. 2, Ireland needs Europe and the Lisbon treaty. I welcome the Taoiseach who is accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche. In the past the committee has expressed its views on the importance of the Lisbon treaty and ensuring the widest possible amount of useful information is made available to the public prior to the referendum on 2 October. To this end, it decided to invite the leaders of the various political parties represented in the Oireachtas to address it on these issues. The Taoiseach is the first to address it and I ask him to address its members.
Lisbon Treaty: Discussion with the Taoiseach.
I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the invitation to join them in their deliberations during the course of this campaign. I am glad to have my two colleagues, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, with me. I welcome the opportunity to meet members of the committee today just weeks before the people vote again on the Lisbon treaty. It is not my intention to go into every last detail of the provisions, rather I intend to concentrate on a number of reasons for which I believe an Irish endorsement of the treaty is vital for the country's interests.
For fear of losing sight of why we negotiated the treaty in the first place, I want to recap quickly on what we see as the key positive features of the treaty for the country. We benefit greatly from our membership of the European Union. Anything that improves the way in which the Union functions is, by definition, in our interests. The treaty aims to make the Union more efficient and effective by updating its decision-making arrangements to take account of its increased size and to give it a stronger voice in global affairs. It seeks to make the Union more democratic, not least by giving a greater role to democratically elected parliaments, including, of course, the Oireachtas.
The entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights strengthens the position of citizens in so far as they are affected by EU law. We support the advancement of rights, including the right to liberty and security, the right to freedom of conscience, religion and expression, the right to gender equality, the right of cultural and linguistic diversity, the right of non-discrimination, the right of collective bargaining, workers' rights to information, the right to fair and just working conditions and the right to protection against unfair dismissal.
The Lisbon treaty advances our shared capacity in a number of areas, perhaps most importantly our ability to counter cross-border crime. That is another positive reason we should vote for the treaty. The treaty makes the Union more coherent externally. It improves our ability to advance our interests and values on the world stage.
There should not be any doubt that the Government strongly endorses the values that Ireland and its fellow member states have set out in Article 2 of the treaty. I refer to respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of people who belong to minorities. While we take all of these values for granted, they are not universally held in all parts of the world, unfortunately.
There are further reasons to support the treaty in addition to those I have set out. First, the legal guarantees on the issues of concern to the Irish people provide additional safeguards to those who were worried last year about certain aspects of the treaty. Second, only by implementing the Lisbon treaty can we ensure each member state will keep a commissioner. I accept that the fear of losing a Commissioner was a real concern for many people during the first referendum campaign. Perhaps there was a sense that Ireland might lose access or influence. The Government took that concern on board when it negotiated with its partners in other member states. The outcome of that process could not have been better or clearer. We received a commitment that there will continue to be one commissioner per member state. That decision can only come into effect if the Lisbon treaty enters into force.
The concerns of many people about key issues, which were elaborated during the last referendum campaign, have also been responded to by our EU partners. Regardless of whether those concerns were genuinely heartfelt or based on hypothetical or conspiratorial scenarios, they can now be put to rest by the legally binding guarantees we have secured.
Today's focus is on the need for a "Yes" vote on 2 October, which is fundamental to our economic recovery. I want to focus on two reasons I believe this to be the case. I refer to the relationship between employment and Ireland's place at the heart of Europe and to the issues of consequences and confidence. I will also make a few brief comments about the role of the Oireachtas with regard to EU affairs. I would like to mention specifically the greatly enhanced role the Oireachtas will have in respect of future EU deliberations if the people vote "Yes" on 2 October.
The outcome of next month's referendum will be interpreted as a signal for our future intentions regarding this country's place in the European Union. It will make a statement about whether we want to continue to be an influential player at the heart of Europe or whether we want to move to the periphery on the basis of our suspicion and mistrust of the EU's direction and intent. If we say "No", it is inevitable that our commitment to Europe will be called into question by our partners and others. The other member states have given a comprehensive response to the concerns we laid out. They would, perhaps justifiably, be at a loss if they were to consider how they might be expected to respond to a second rejection of the treaty. One way or another, it is difficult to imagine that the same spirit of understanding and co-operation will prevail beyond a second rejection.
Some people have asked whether Ireland might be evicted from the European Union if it rejects the Lisbon treaty. That is a pure red herring and a distraction. There is no provision for a member state to leave the Union in such a manner, nor is there any real suggestion of it as a possible outcome. That argument is intended to deflect attention from a much more real question, which is whether there will be negative consequences for Ireland if we vote "No". I do not doubt that a second rejection of the treaty would have very serious and damaging consequences for this country, especially now that our partners have responded in detail to the concerns we expressed following the first referendum. To those who suggest otherwise, I would say that it is time to get real. It is naive and dangerous to subscribe to the notion that there would be no consequences for Ireland if it were to continue to stand in the way of a package of measures that all other member states, which have responded comprehensively to the specific concerns which were raised here, consider to be necessary to improve the operation of the Union and enable it to function more effectively in the global arena. Ireland, like any other member state, is a member of the Union to protect and promote its interests, which often and increasingly overlap with those of other member states. While we are a member of a club in order that we can benefit from it, part of the price of any club membership is a commitment to respect the concerns and needs of other members. We have responsibilities and commitments to our fellow members just as they have commitments and responsibilities to us. Membership cannot be à la carte.
In the case of the European Union, the interests we want to protect and promote can be described in two ways. First, there are those interests that are bound up in the relationships we have with other countries of the European Union such as our trading relationships with them and the rights of our citizens to come and go freely among them. Second, there are the interests we want to pursue in the wider world where increasingly we can best advance our aims and goals by working closely with like-minded partners and neighbours.
The challenge to us, as a nation, is to find how best we can promote, protect and pursue our interests internationally and influence the world in which we live. The answer of successive Governments has been to endeavour to place us at the heart of Europe. Sometimes those of us who use this phrase may be guilty of not explaining the reason; let me spell it out. In any organisation of member states influence can arise in various ways. Sometimes it can come from a country's size or the extent of its contributions, especially if they are disproportionately large. Smaller member states have to find different ways to exert influence. In our case, we have always won influence by consistently acting in a constructive way where our national aims are aligned with the broad collective interest and where we appear supportive of and non-threatening to others. In that way, we gain their trust, respect and support, have our voice heard and concerns met. This approach has served us well in the past and we want to be able to use it in the future.
Some recent debate about the Lisbon treaty implies that we should consider our membership of the European Union solely in terms of what we can get out of it. Others go further, implying that the Union is some sort of malign force and that our aim should be to disrupt its business. The tone and substance of these attitudes are dangerous and damaging to our interests. It is not the approach we take to international affairs. Were this approach to take hold, it could very quickly undermine the respect we have built over many years of constructive engagement, both in the European Union and other international bodies. Since its accession in 1973, Ireland has acted as a constructive and progressive European partner and has been central to shaping the economic, social and political development of Europe. This approach, based on enlightened self-interest, has not been the sole preserve of any one political party but has enjoyed support throughout our membership, including from the two main Opposition parties, whether in opposition or government. Even those who have resolutely opposed the European Union at every turn now say they accept that our membership has been a key factor in contributing to our economic and social development. Many of the arguments being aired against the Lisbon treaty today are the same ones we heard in the past from those who were more openly hostile to our membership of the Union and each previous treaty put to the people.
We have a shared responsibility and interest in ensuring the European Union is fit for purpose. All our partners are keen to see the Lisbon treaty reforms introduced as soon as possible in order that the Union can function more efficiently and effectively. This is true of the Union internally but especially in terms of its place in the wider world. This is a perfectly sensible and reasonable aim and, as a small nation, it is a goal we should share.
Having agreed guarantees on the specific concerns identified last year, our European Union partners have struggled to understand Irish resistance to the treaty. They may be reluctant to voice their concerns too loudly or to be seen to be interfering in our domestic debate but nonetheless they find it strange that opposition remains to something that is intended to make our collective work in the European Union more effective and efficient. Members of the joint committee and I may or may not think it so strange, being used to the extent to which suspicion and conspiracy theories have permeated debate in this country from time to time about the European Union, but sadly suspicion and conspiracy theories have become the norm for many of those who think we can somehow go it alone in the 21st century.
Consequently, the fact that the Union has no role in setting the minimum wage in Ireland does not prevent the appearance of thousands of posters implying it would be reduced to bizarre levels, were the Lisbon treaty to come into force. While we may be getting used to this style of campaigning here, it is not so easily understood by those looking on from the outside. Given the enormous challenges we face at present, instead of looking inward and inventing bogeymen we now have an important opportunity to help ourselves. A "Yes" vote would be a message that Ireland welcomes an efficient and effective European Union. It would help us to continue to forge alliances, to generate understanding and support for our particular positions and ultimately to protect and promote our vital interests. Given the challenging times in which we now live, we might never have needed this aspect of our affairs as much as we do now.
This brings me to the issue of jobs. I am unequivocal in my view that a "No" vote in October will cost us jobs. In the business world, sentiment matters and one need only consider how the international money markets work. At present, Ireland is paying more then one would wish for borrowings, in part because of negative sentiment towards us. Although the base point spread has narrowed recently, reflecting the positive steps we have taken to tackle our public finances, there is little doubt that reaffirming our commitment to Europe and to working closely and constructively with our EU partners also would help to restore confidence externally in our ability to manage our way forward.
The same point also applies to inward investment. People do not need to take my word or that of any particular party for this. All the main business groups and the Irish heads of many multinational companies in Ireland, such as Jim O'Hara of Intel, Paul Rellis of Microsoft and Shane O'Neill of UPC to name three, are crystal clear on this point. Reluctance to endorse the Lisbon treaty and a constant perception that we are somehow à la carte in respect of our commitment to Europe will make the task of attracting and securing inward investment and the jobs it supports more difficult. Those who argue otherwise would do well to listen to the employers’ representative groups, the exporters of Ireland, the farmers’ representative groups, the employers themselves and the trade union movement. Those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets or growing and expanding businesses are united in their view that rejecting the Lisbon treaty could cost jobs and these views matter.
As a small open economy with a domestic market of a little over 4 million people and with the majority of our exports coming from foreign firms based here, our unequivocal membership of, and commitment to, the European Union is key. When the IDA competes with another region, whether from Europe or beyond, any possible undermining of our EU membership will be exploited fully and the chances of investment and jobs ending up in Ireland will shrink. I for one do not wish to see this happen. Furthermore, it is highly significant that the General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the country's largest trade union, SIPTU, are supporting a "Yes" vote. They perceive a "Yes" vote to be a vote for jobs and employment rights and so do I.
I wish to turn briefly to the role of the Oireachtas in European affairs under the Lisbon treaty, which I imagine is one topic on which this joint committee will wish to focus. That role would change significantly and positively under the Lisbon treaty, as national parliaments will assume a much greater role. This will include their role regarding proposals as they emerge from Brussels, as there will be scope to influence such proposals at an early stage when the parliaments of one third of the member states agree. In this regard, the vote of the Irish Parliament will count equally with that of the German Parliament or any other member state. Without going into detail, I wish to make three points about the new role that would come about, were the Lisbon treaty to be implemented.
First, as with any responsibility, it brings challenges as well as opportunities for the Oireachtas. It will be important that the Oireachtas is efficient and makes best use of existing structures such as this joint committee. Second, cross-party discussion will be required within the House, possibly in the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission or a different forum, on how this is to be managed. The important work of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union, chaired ably by Senator Paschal Donohoe last year, shows that in such matters, the Oireachtas has a keen interest in this area which augurs well for the prospects for an agreed and effective approach. Third, discussion on the detail is premature just now as we first must ensure the successful conduct of the referendum and a resounding endorsement of the treaty. We should spend our time in the next three weeks meeting the electorate, explaining the treaty to them and answering their questions. In that task, as elected representatives each of us has a shared responsibility that includes making sure the potential consequences are fully understood by the public.
Our changed economic situation has given rise to frustration, anger and feelings of helplessness among the public. Many argue that they did not cause this change of circumstances, yet they feel powerless to influence the outcome. Much of this is understandable. However, Lisbon represents an opportunity for the Irish people to help themselves through positive action. Ireland's economic recovery will rely heavily on our ability to rebuild our export capacity. Some of these exports will be destined for other European countries within the Internal Market. Others will be targeted at wider markets and our membership of the EU and our involvement in its wider policy development are crucial to our ability to reach and exploit these opportunities.
Supporting Lisbon and showing solidarity with our EU colleagues will help us to rebuild our international reputation, improve our export market prospects and protect and create jobs in the future. Most members of this committee agree with that argument, as do those outside these Houses who deal with issues of investment, exports and jobs. The food and agribusiness, information technology and services sectors agree. Irish exporters also support the proposition. Our standard of living ultimately depends on our ability to sell goods and services abroad, not least so that we can pay for the items we import, be they cars, electrical goods or clothing. When those in the front line of Irish businesses who are responsible for production management, pursuing export markets and closing sales say clearly that we need to vote "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty, we should listen carefully.
In the referendum of 2 October, every citizen can make a concrete contribution to our recovery. This is not about whether one supports or opposes the Government. It is about exercising a right and responsibility in the best interest of this country, its people and its future generations. In the coming weeks, when members meet people who are frustrated or angry about our current economic challenges, this is one specific opportunity for positive action. A vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty will strengthen our position with our EU partners, help Ireland as part of Europe to compete more effectively in global markets and improve and hasten our prospects of economic recovery.
Much has been done in recent months to inform people about developments. We are in the midst of extensive campaigning and in addition to posters and leaflets, the party I am privileged to lead, Fianna Fáil, will campaign throughout the country to explain to people why Ireland needs Europe and the Lisbon treaty. During this campaign, we intend to focus on the real issues, which will be decided by the people, and not the agenda of others. We will strongly rebut false attacks on the treaty and the European Union. The people are entitled to hear the positive case for a "Yes" vote and we are determined to make that case.
I welcome the commitment of other parties and groups on seeking a "Yes" vote. The referendum is not about politics as usual. It goes beyond any issue of party, organisation or locality. It is about our country's future and it deserves a serious debate based on facts. Everyone who cares about our future in Europe should take the time to participate in the campaign and bring a positive message to every community in the country.
I thank the Taoiseach. His attendance, along with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, is an indication of the importance of this issue. Eleven members have expressed a wish to contribute, and the list continues to grow.
I thank the Taoiseach for coming before us to set out clearly and concisely the reasons we should vote "Yes" on 2 October. It has been argued that a "No" vote will not have any consequence. He clearly outlined the context in which this vote will take place and the importance of a "Yes" vote to our economic recovery and the creation and protection of jobs. This issue is difficult to describe in tangible terms but he referred to the CEOs of companies. According to a survey conducted by the Small Firms Association, eight out of ten of its members believe there will be positive consequences to a "Yes" vote.
In addition, the argument is made that those on the "Yes " side do not outline the positive content in the treaty. In the first paragraphs of his speech the Taoiseach clearly outlined the positive — the updated decision-making arrangements; the greater role for national parliaments; our ability to counter cross-border crime; the values in Article 2 of the treaty with respect to the rule of law and respect for human rights; and now, in addition, the legal guarantees that we have received since the last referendum. Apart from the guarantee regarding the extra Commissioner, these do not change the content of the treaty but should clearly change the understanding people had of the treaty.
I have some questions for the Taoiseach. When he was talking today I detected a certain sense of frustration in his contribution. Human nature being what it is, I see that he is nodding "No" to that. Does the Taoiseach find it difficult that while during the last campaign groups campaigned on certain issues that were do-or-die issues, such as the Commissioner and taxation, it is clear these are issues no longer and the posts have moved so that other issues that were not important before have now been created issues of importance? I find no reason in the treaty to vote "No" and many to vote "Yes".
Was it difficult to get agreement on retaining the Commissioner? With respect to maintaining control over our corporate tax rate, did any countries, local political parties or any part of the political establishment lobby recently, or in the past, to have a common corporate tax rate across the European Union? The Taoiseach mentioned misinformation on posters. We in Fine Gael do not want to spend much time on any of this but it is important to nail misinformation. Many genuine and committed commentators can fall into the trap of repeating misinformation such as, for example, that our voting strength would be halved. Will the Taoiseach comment on that issue? It is clearly untrue and is a misrepresentation. Our voting strength will not be halved because it is double majority voting, namely, a system with two legs and two arms rather than one arm.
I noticed a headline in today's Irish Independent stating that at the Socialist Party campaign launch there was a comment to the effect that the Government should be punished for wrecking the economy. I do not know if that comment is accurate but I take it to be so because I did not see any denial of it. I cannot analyse or fathom what type of warped thinking creates the notion of voting “No” to punish the Government for wrecking the economy. Has the Taoiseach any view on the logic behind that sentiment? It is a case of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
I welcome the Taoiseach and the Ministers. I recognise the clear and concise language that was used to set out the reasons the Irish people should vote "Yes" on this occasion, acknowledging what the Government has achieved by the retention of the Commissioner and the legal guarantees obtained. A number of questions arise from that. Some of the research done to date indicates that young people are somewhat hesitant about supporting the treaty. Why is this the case? Is there anything within the treaty for younger people and what they might expect from it?
The Taoiseach spoke about the posters on the minimum wage, clearly setting out their folly and the deceitful argument involved. There is also a series of posters which suggest the leaders of 1916 would have been against the European Union. The Taoiseach is a scholar of history and might have a view he would care to share with us on that. Does he agree the message that Lisbon makes the EU more democratic has been lost to some degree? There seems to be a suggestion that as we continue with the evolution of the European Union we are somehow ceding power or democracy to an unelected elite. Will he comment on that and set out clearly what the Lisbon treaty states in that regard?
The Taoiseach has been at the coalface of negotiating throughout the economic crisis facing this country and others throughout Europe. Can he enlighten us as to how helpful our membership of the Union has been in the discussions with the European Central Bank and in assisting us in shoring up funding for our banking system?
I thank the Taoiseach for a fine and clear presentation about the issues surrounding the Lisbon treaty. I particularly emphasise the issue of democracy and addressing the democratic deficit in the treaty. I was interested to hear his emphasis on democratising the institutions to make them more accountable and the value of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in strengthening the position of citizens in the European Union.
There is an issue that is most pertinent to members of the committee, an enhanced role for national parliaments. This is an issue members of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny have laboured to get to grips with during the years. Now, there is a clear statement on an improved and strengthened role for national parliaments in policy and decision making at every level. There is equality of space and powers for national parliaments. I look forward to a restructuring of the business of the Dáil and the manner in which Members conduct themselves in the House. I take on board the Taoiseach's remarks relating to cross-party consultation in ensuring the new enhanced role for national parliaments can be implemented in an effective fashion. That is enormous progress which has not generally been recognised in the debates that have taken place to date. I am glad the Taoiseach focused on it to a considerable degree.
Likewise, I am glad the Taoiseach focused on the issue of jobs, inward investment and the colossal degree to which our exports depend on finance from abroad and companies that have established in this country. Approximately 300,000 jobs are dependent on such companies and 80% of everything this country produces is exported. We have flexible and diverse markets within the European Union due to the Single Market; in the past Ireland was totally dependent on the British market which sought lower prices for Irish goods. In the European Union we have the capacity to ensure this inward investment continues, whereas if we vote against the Lisbon treaty, we will raise a doubt about our future intentions and, therefore, a doubt among international companies about what our true position is in the Union. The vote can put us clearly at the centre of Europe rather than on the periphery.
The guarantees have been mentioned previously and the Taoiseach referred to them. In the current debate there appears to be scant regard on the part of the "No" campaign for them. On the issue of abortion, for example, Cóir claims the guarantees are worthless. People say the Charter of Fundamental Rights will change the position entirely in terms of the powers given to the European Union. Perhaps the Taoiseach will discuss the effect of the guarantees and how they will allow Irish sovereignty to apply in respect of this and other matters.
What is the Taoiseach's opinion on people coming from abroad to campaign against the Lisbon treaty? I understand the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party is speaking at a meeting on the issue today and that the party has announced it will send 1 million leaflets to households throughout this country. What is the Taoiseach's view on a party from outside this country, particularly a eurosceptic party like that, getting involved in the referendum in such a fashion?
Deputy Timmins questioned the Taoiseach on the leader of the Socialist Party being quoted as stating that people should punish the Government and vote "No". How would the Taoiseach counter that? People could be confused into voting, dare I say it, against an unpopular Government and at the same time they would be doing the country an injustice in the expectation of getting at the Government in some fashion. The Taoiseach might address that issue.
I also thank the Taoiseach for his presentation. The research done indicated that women had considerable difficulty with the Lisbon treaty and that they had issues that were of great concern to them. Will the Taoiseach outline what there is in the Lisbon treaty that protects women in particular? For example, cross-border crime and the trafficking of women for prostitution. Is there something in that area, for example, that would sell the Lisbon treaty to women? Conscription into a European army was also an issue for women the last time around. What can we do in that regard? The Taoiseach clearly highlighted some of the key issues for the population as a whole, but I wonder what makes the treaty attractive to women in particular.
On the binding nature of the legal guarantees, guarantees are in a protocol and will become part of a future treaty and that obviously makes them legally binding. As of now, however, will the Taoiseach reassure us on the binding nature of guarantees? Is this legal agreement registered with the United Nations? I ask him to give us a clearer understanding of exactly how binding they are.
One aspect the Lisbon treaty debate has highlighted is that there has always been a lack of understanding of European issues among the population and this debate has brought about a greater interest among the general population in European matters. I would also maintain that there is a lack of understanding — even in the Houses of the Oireachtas — and that in Dáil Éireann the European programme has not received the attention it deserves in terms of the scrutiny of EU regulations. What is the Taoiseach's opinion on that? In terms of its relevance to the Lisbon treaty referendum, what can be done to improve the communication and understanding of European issues for the population and also within the Oireachtas?
We have rules and regulations on misleading advertising. I am of the view that many of the posters around the country are extremely misleading. From a legal point of view, is there anything we can do about statements on posters that are designed to mislead the people?
Before we proceed I want to bring to members' attention that there are two possibilities, that the Taoiseach would reply to two tranches of debate or that it would all be done in one go. As there are 12 speakers, how does the committee wish to proceed?
A brief comment from the rest of us would be okay.
Does the Taoiseach agree?
I am in the Chairman's hands.
We will proceed as we are. The next speaker is Deputy Pat Breen.
I welcome the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Roche.
It is universally recognised in the EU that the Lisbon treaty must be ratified and implemented if the EU is to carry out its functions democratically. The Taoiseach does not like talking about defeat, but in the event of Ireland rejecting the treaty on 2 October, does he believe that other EU members will move ahead without Ireland, in other words, that a two-tier European Union, of which Ireland will be a part, will evolve? Does the Taoiseach have — as the GAA did in Croke Park on Sunday last — a plan B to put in place?
Following the rejection of the treaty by the Irish people last year, the Government set about carrying out research in respect of it and this proved quite revealing. Thereafter, the Government worked quite hard with its counterparts throughout Europe in order to secure certain guarantees in respect of the concerns which the people expressed. I am of the view that a sizeable number of people voted against the treaty on the previous occasion because they simply did not understand its contents.
Much of the debate on the treaty seems to focus on the consequences of people voting "Yes" or "No". It is important that people should understand the consequences that will result from the way they cast their votes. Equally, however, it is also important that they should understand the content of the treaty. I accept that it is a substantial document but it would be a welcome development if we, as elected representatives, could find a way to explain or outline to the people what the treaty involves. Much of the material that has been produced to date is quite confusing. If we could simplify the information being disseminated, we would do members of the electorate a favour by assisting them in understanding what the treaty contains. As stated, it is important that people understand the content of the treaty as well as the consequences of their voting in a particular way.
The Taoiseach referred to some of the posters that have been put up, particularly that which relates to the minimum wage. Will he outline the implications for workers if Ireland was again to vote "No" to the Lisbon treaty?
I welcome the Taoiseach. Last year, I did not reach a decision on the Lisbon treaty until I had weighed up all the arguments. Any of the matters to which I will refer at this meeting will reflect the changes that have occurred since last year. I almost feel like a bride at a wedding saying to her husband to be "Of course I love you darling, but do you mind if I keep the furniture in my own name?" It appears as if we are seeking special treatment.
I have two queries which relate to what has happened since last year's referendum. The first of these relates to Ireland's commissioner. If the referendum is lost, I understand that we will return to the position which obtained post the Nice treaty. In such circumstances, would it be possible for the EU to state that it is only going to have 26 commissioners instead of 27? I read a report which indicated that the high representative for foreign affairs could come from the 27th country.
Concern has arisen in respect of the use of the word "suggestion", instead of that of "propose", in the context of who might be the Commissioner. I do not know what is the difference between those two terms. However, there are those who state that we would no longer be in a position to propose who should serve as Commissioner, that all we could do would be to make a suggestion in this regard and that the President of the EU, advised by his or her colleagues, would make the final decision. Will the Taoiseach put my mind, and those of the people who have expressed concerns in this regard, to rest?
I thank the Taoiseach for his very informative contribution. I congratulate him and his ministerial colleagues on the extremely successful negotiations they conducted in order to ensure that the fears expressed by the people last year would be allayed and to obtain guarantees which can be copperfastened for the future.
When one reflects on the past three and a half decades, one realises that the European Union has been critically important for Ireland. This is most particularly true in the case of agriculture. The Common Agricultural Policy and single farm payments have facilitated the massive transfer of resources necessary to provide sustainability in Irish farming. How vital will the passage of the Lisbon treaty be to ensure we can continue to successfully negotiate financial instruments and the single farm payments post-2013? Where will the instruments of ratification be lodged once the people make an affirmative decision?
I thank the Taoiseach and I welcome his comments. There was severe criticism about the perceived lack of information during the previous referendum campaign but it is recognised more information is available for this campaign. Attitudes are, based on my experience canvassing, more positive. A "No" vote would result in a two-tier Europe with Ireland on the periphery. What would the consequences of such a vote mean for the country, particularly in the context of job creation?
I thank the Taoiseach. People had concerns and a majority voted against the treaty in the previous referendum. Some concerns were genuine but since that vote, we have seen nothing but good faith from the EU. Consistently since that time, the retention of an Irish Commissioner has been secured, we have secured guarantees on the pro-life issue, non-military involvement and taxation but an issue as significant as all of these has been lost in the mix, that is, we can borrow money from the ECB at an interest rate of 1.5%. The nation has given €7 billion to the banks and they have been charged 8% interest. We also have shares, yet the ECB saw fit to support NAMA at its lowest interest rate. In other words, we can provide €37 billion in funding for NAMA through the €7 billion put into the banks. That is proof positive the EU has shown good faith on every occasion since the last vote. Will the Taoiseach confirm this?
I apologise to the Taoiseach and Ministers for my late arrival. I was trying to make it back from the Fine Gael parliamentary party meeting but, unfortunately, despite the boom, the road between Dublin and Cavan has not improved particularly.
Deputy Flynn referred to the issue of women voting in large numbers, and disproportionately, against the Lisbon treaty on the first occasion, which is a worrying development. I am concerned that we are trying to find women-specific issues in the treaty and I am not sure this is the way to go. I do not know that we can pigeonhole women. This treaty and the European project is for man, woman and child. However, communication is an issue. The three Ministers present are men and there is a case for ensuring more women are engaged in the debate. That would make it easier for women to relate to the treaty. It seems to be a bureaucratic male dominated enterprise to many people. While that may be an incorrect perception, all of us and the Government, in particular, need to bear that in mind during the coming weeks. I do not believe trying to pluck women-friendly policies from the Lisbon treaty will be a particularly worthwhile exercise.
Deputy Flynn also referred to the lack of understanding of the Lisbon treaty, which is a much bigger issue and one that will not be addressed in a matter of weeks. The fundamental problem with the treaty is that it is one about reforming institutions, which is not particularly glamorous or engaging. Most do not understand what the institutions do. The ordinary man and woman on the street, perhaps because they have more important matters to worry about, do not know the difference between the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council. It is difficult to explain how these institutions are to be reformed when people do not know what they do in the first instance. Addressing this issue will be a huge challenge for us at Oireachtas level and our education system. However, it is one that requires to be addressed by this or a future Government.
On the campaign, what does the Taoiseach believe is different on this occasion? In this regard, I am speaking not about the content of the treaty but of the nuts and bolts. Is he satisfied that the campaign under way on this occasion is better and that the "Yes" side is better organised and articulating better its case for a "Yes" vote? Also, I am interested to hear his views on what he believes needs to happen in the coming weeks; what we can expect in terms of leadership from the Government, himself and his Ministers and what he believe needs to happen on the part of the "Yes" campaign as a broad church, including all of the political parties on the "Yes" side.
As I was driving through town I saw a poster stating EU policies had failed and that 20 million people were unemployed. Such erroneous, inaccurate and misleading statements on posters leave me speechless. Unfortunately, however, there is nothing we can do about the matter. A few people have referred to the poster on the minimum wage. I would specifically like to hear from the Taoiseach if there is any mechanism contained in the Lisbon treaty that will force the minimum wage in Ireland down to €1.84? If there is such a mechanism, in what article is it contained? I have read the treaty at least twice and have not seen it. There are also posters which state we have been milked dry, as though during the past 35 years the European Union has been draining subsidies from Ireland to support German farmers. Perhaps the Taoiseach will comment on the matter and the particular interests of the farming community in terms of a "Yes" vote.
I have two final brief questions, the first of which relates to the consequences of a "No" vote, with which I believe the Taoiseach dealt well. I do not have any sense that people have an understanding of the tangible consequences of voting "No" to the Lisbon treaty this time round. One statistic which I believe comes from IBEC is that we are paying a €400 million premium on our debt repayments and that this could potentially be reduced or eliminated by restoring confidence in the Irish markets if we vote "Yes". Perhaps the Taoiseach will say whether he agrees with that statement which I believe is important. It is one about which the people need to hear.
Proponents of a "No" vote claim that following the "No" vote in 2008, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs went cap in hand to the European Union apologising profusely on bended knee to the other 26 Heads of Government and were instructed to come back and force the people to hold a second referendum. While I do not believe that is what happened, perhaps the Taoiseach will comment on the matter.
I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to attend the meeting. I also thank the Taoiseach for his contribution. As many of those present will be aware, I voted "No" in the previous referendum on the Lisbon treaty. I had a number of reasons for doing so and the majority agreed with me. My reasons centred on issues such as the retention of the Commissioner, taxation, neutrality, militarisation and the undermining of our sovereignty. However, there is another issue that those present are failing to address, which is that at the time many felt that those involved in the "Yes" campaign were talking down to the people and that arrogance crept in during the first Lisbon treaty campaign. It is important to say this. Today there is a sensible and balanced debate. I know people are raising issues that came up on the "No" side in recent days, with which I disagree. It is important to have a balanced debate in the coming weeks. I have moved from being a "No" voter to one who does not know. That is my position and the recent opinion poll showed that 25% of the people are in the same position. There is nothing wrong with this. If those on the "Yes" side want to sell the Lisbon treaty to the people, they need to deal with the treaty, not engage in spin and talk down to the people.
This morning I met people in a working class area of my constituency who were talking about the economic side and jobs. Nearby was the poster which Deputy Creighton mentioned referring to 20 million unemployed people in the European Union. I ask the Taoiseach if that is an accurate figure, particularly given the enormous and growing unemployment problem we have in Ireland and within the European Union.
I am concerned that people have failed to address the foreign policy issues in this debate. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, was in Sudan in recent days working on the kidnapping case involving a constituent of mine, Ms Sharon Cummins. I thank and commend him on the work he has done in recent weeks on the issue. However, I am concerned that if we are part of this big club post ratification of the Lisbon treaty, when we go to places such as Africa and the Middle East, we will lose the international respect we have enjoyed historically as an independent nation. That is a genuine concern to which I would like the Taoiseach to respond.
That leads me on to the European Defence Agency. During the last referendum campaign I spoke at public meetings at which many women raised this issue in respect of Article 42.3 of the Lisbon treaty regarding the European Defence Agency and spending on defence. Many want the money spent on health and education rather than defence. I ask the Taoiseach to outline how the proposed European Defence Agency legislation will deal with this issue and when it will be addressed in the next few weeks.
I have a question on the issue of the retention of the Commissioner. Article 17.7 deals with the issue and, as Senator Quinn rightly pointed out, includes the word "suggestion". I agree with the Senator and seek clarification on the matter as it is an issue that is also coming up. How can the Taoiseach convince me that the big countries will not go for a big power grab to take control of the European Union? That is an important issue, on which the people would like straight answers. How can the Taoiseach convince me that there will not be a big power grab by the big European Union states post ratification of the Lisbon treaty?
Ba bhreá liom fáilte a chur roimh an Taoiseach. Gabhaim mo leithscéal leis freisin os rud é go bhfuil orm an choiste a fhágáil go luath. Ní bheidh mé in ann fanacht go dtí go mbeidh mo chuid ceisteanna á fhreagairt ag an Taoiseach. Gheobhaidh mé amach céard a dúirt sé. Aontaím leis an méid a chur mo chomhghleacaithe, an Seanadóir Quinn agus an Teachta Finian McGrath, maidir leis an gCoimisinéir. Cé go bhfuil tábhacht ag baint leis an cheist an mbeidh Coimisinéir ag an tír seo amach anseo, muna nglacfaimid le chonradh Liospóin, is mó tábhacht a bhainfidh leis an cheist cé aige a bheidh an cheart an Choimisinéir Éireannach a roghnú. An mbeidh sé níos laige amach anseo, sa chás go nglacfaí le chonradh Liospóin? An mbeidh aon difríocht ansin? Cén mheas atá ag an Taoiseach faoi sin?
Bhí mé an-sásta an bhliain seo caite nuair a stop an Rialtas ag caint faoi cheist an ghinmhillte amháin. Glacadh leis go raibh daoine buartha faoi réimse níos mó ceisteanna sóisialta agus eiticiúla, ar nós cúrsaí clainne agus cúrsaí oideachais. Bhí mé an-sásta go raibh sé mar aidhm ag an Rialtas dul ar thóir gealltanaisí a mbainfeadh ní hamháin le cúrsaí ghinmhillte ach le cúrsaí oideachais, cúrsaí clainne agus cúrsaí na mbeo freisin. B'fhéidir go mbeidh leas polaitiúil amach anseo, toisc go bhfuil aitheantas oifigiúil tugtha don chéad uair dos na hAilt i mBunreacht na hÉireann a bhaineann ní hamháin le cúrsaí na mbeo — bhí prótacal ar leith i chonradh Maastricht cheana fhéin — ach le cúrsaí clainne agus cúrsaí oideachais freisin.
É sin ráite, ba mhaith liom aird an Taoiseach a dhíriú ar rud a d'ardaigh mé i litir a scríobh mé go dtí an Rialtas roinnt seachtainí sular ndeachaigh an Rialtas i mbun idirbheartaióchta. D'iarr mé an mbainfeadh cibé gealltanaisí a bheadh ann le chonradh Liospóin amháin, nó le gnéithe de chonradh Liospóin, nó an mbainfeadh siad leis an chorpas iomlán de dhlíthe na hEorpa. Is ceist, níos mó ná ráiteas, atá in aigne agam. De réir mar a thuigim é, baineann na gealltanaisí le gnéithe de chonradh Liospóin agus, dar ndóigh, leis na cearta bunúsacha. Bhí an prótacal a bhí i gconradh Maastricht maidir le cúrsaí ghinmhillte leathan — bhain sé le dlíthe na hEorpa ar fad. Cén fáth nach mbaineann na gealltanaisí seo ach amháin le gnéithe de chonradh Liospóin? Cén fáth nach bhfuil trácht a dhéanamh ar an gconradh ar fad?
Níos mó ná sin, tá mé an-sásta leis an chaoi ina mbeidh cibé rud atá socraithe daingnithe amach anseo. Tá mé ag caint mar ghell ar an gconradh a bhaineann le ballraíocht an Chróit san Aontas Eorpach. Os rud é go mbeidh an stádas conraithe ag na gealltanaisí seo, cén fáth nár chuaigh an Rialtas i mbun idirbheartaióchta chun a chinntiú go mbainfidh an t-aitheantas céanna atá tugtha do Bhunreacht na hÉireann maidir le cúrsaí oideachais leis an chorpas iomlán de dhlíthe na hEorpa — ní hamháin le gnéithe áírithe de chonradh Liospóin? An cheapann an Taoiseach gur chóir dúinn na gealltanaisí sin a leathnú ionas go gclúdóidh siad dlíthe na hEorpa ar fad?
I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words at this meeting. I welcome the Taoiseach and his colleagues.
I concur with what Deputy Treacy said about the challenges and opportunities being faced by Irish agriculture. Like me, the Taoiseach comes from a rural constituency. He is aware that when we debated EU policy in the past 30 years in the context of referendum campaigns, people from rural areas were generally the strongest proponent's of Ireland's involvement in the European Union. In successive polls there was strong evidence that Irish farmers supported the Union in sizeable numbers. That was not surprising, given that substantial amounts of income flowed directly from the Union to the pockets of those involved in Irish agriculture. However, there was a significant change in that regard when Ireland voted in the first referendum on the Lisbon treaty in 2008.
I accept that there was a debate about the WTO in the run-up to that vote. There were also some difficulties with the farming organisations, although the largest organisation came on board towards the end of the campaign. Despite the figures presented to us after the referendum, all of us who represent rural constituencies have to concede that a significant proportion of farmers voted "No". In my opinion, most of them voted against the treaty last year. On this occasion the Irish Farmers Association has firmly indicated its support for the proposal, which is very welcome. It has published a list of five items that prove the Lisbon treaty is important for Irish agriculture. I ask the Taoiseach to confirm that the Government will continue to use its contacts among our European partners — its ongoing channels — to try to tackle in the immediate future the problems being faced by Irish agriculture. I refer, in particular, to the dairy crisis. While this issue may be more appropriately debated in another forum, the Irish dairy industry is in danger of shutting down as a result of cost problems and low prices.
Substantial further support from the European Union will be required if the dairy industry and agriculture are to continue ticking over. As the referendum on the Lisbon treaty approaches, the Taoiseach must reassure farmers and the broader agri-industry that, once the referendum has been passed, Ireland will again be in a position to punch well above our weight in agriculture and we will secure further support for the dairy industry and agriculture in general. If those living in rural areas, most of whom have been supportive of the European project, do not row in behind the Lisbon treaty, the referendum will not be passed and the country, including areas such as those to which I refer, will go down the tubes. The Taoiseach must provide firm reassurance that the Government will work closely with our European partners to defend and preserve Irish agriculture.
I raised my second point, a slightly more philosophical issue, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, during a recent debate on the treaty in the Seanad. It is interesting to note that this debate is taking place on the 20th anniversary of the momentous changes which took place in central and eastern Europe. Twenty years ago, people marched for freedom and, within months, people power brought down the Berlin Wall, freedom marched across the Continent and the European political landscape changed completely.
It is interesting to consider which groups are to the fore in demanding that we vote "No" to the Lisbon treaty referendum. They include far-left groups which, despite having new titles, consist primarily of old Trotskyites, as well as the Workers Party and many more such groups. If these individuals had had their way 20 years ago, the Berlin Wall would still be standing and those who were locked behind it would still be imprisoned in the communist bloc which prevailed at that time. That is the ideology of these groups. I am old enough to remember far-left members of Cork City Council refusing to back motions in support of groups such as the Solidarity trade union in Poland. Their failure to do so demonstrates their true respect for workers and their rights. It is significant that the current President of the European Parliament is a former member of the Solidarity trade union. If workers in Leinster House, Dublin and elsewhere were to examine the track record of those urging a "No" vote, they would find that the individuals in question were not the friends of workers when they were literally in chains.
The European Union has created real jobs and employment. Deputy Creighton referred to posters stating that 20 million people are unemployed. The European Union has created tens of millions of jobs. Given their appalling track record on the fundamental issue of workers' freedom 20 years ago, the "No" campaigners should be silent.
The Taoiseach, the Minister and the Minister of State have heard members deliver tours de force on this issue. While they may not have spoken with one voice, they certainly spoke with conviction.
I refer to an issue which was not raised in this discussion. I and other members have become aware of considerable outside influence being exerted in the current and previous referendum campaigns. An attempt is being made from outside this jurisdiction to scare, convince and coerce the electorate into voting in a certain way. Those behind this effort are well organised and funded. In attempting to undermine our institutions of State, they use slogans such as "The political classes have lost their touch". In their view, we are all members of the political classes.
The ultimate objective of those involved in this scaremongering is to have Ireland leave the European Union. While they are not saying this, that is their agenda and has been for a long time. I need not enumerate the people who have spoken along these lines but they have done so recently. I believe, as I hope does everyone else in Ireland, that this is a republic and that people are entitled to make up our own minds and that they are quite capable of so doing. We have, as several speakers suggested, done so in the past in the interests of the people.
One point everyone must recognise is that we have no evidence of ever seeing the European Union treat a member state, its citizens or any of its institutions badly or with disrespect. In the situation in which we now find ourselves we must recognise that there are powerful forces arrayed against us who perceive this referendum in a member state of the European Union as providing the best possible opportunity to eventually break up what has become the European Union. This point may be stark but that is the way it is. I revert to the Taoiseach and his Ministers as he sees fit.
I thank the Chairman and if it is in line, I can ask my colleagues to say a few words on some of the issues raised to be as helpful and comprehensive as possible. I thank all members for their contributions and questions. Before getting down to the specifics, I wish to make some brief points.
It is important to point out that the people spoke in the first referendum. It was the duty of their representatives to ascertain how they could address the issues raised were there to be another referendum. Much work was undertaken by the Oireachtas in so doing and I thank everyone who was thus engaged. Moreover, I note our European colleagues are prepared to provide us with the protocols we require to give certainty, to avoid any semblance of doubt and to try to deal with genuine concerns. One can have a view on the merits or otherwise of any side of a debate on any particular argument. However, we have been engaged — this campaign must be so engaged — in persuading those who may have voted "No" the last time to vote "Yes" on this occasion, as well as in persuading those who voted "Yes" to come out and vote again. This is an exercise in democracy and we must be mindful of that fact. The determination of people on all sides of the argument to have a public debate or provide a forum for this important question must be predicated on a need for everyone to be accurate and truthful in what they have to say in order that there is a basis for their contentions.
Sometimes there is a reference to a lack of information. In response to some of the questions posed by colleagues previously, one big difference is that a highly proactive effort has been made to provide information in a way that it will be usable and accessible. The Department of Foreign Affairs, civic society groups and others, as well as the European Commission, have been helpful in bringing forward documentation that provides the essentials people want and information on where further information may be obtained in a more accessible way. Through the websites www.lisbontreaty.ie or www.eumatters.ie, one has an interactive opportunity to raise specific questions over and above the broad issues involved. Consequently, the provision of information on the content of the treaty is better this time. This is generally acknowledged and it is a positive development.
The Referendum Commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, also has an important statutory role to play, which is being discharged in a fine manner. However, from my perspective and that of all members, the issue pertains both to the content of the treaty, which is important, and to the context in which we are now dealing with this matter. The situation in Ireland is incredibly different from that which obtained 15 or 18 months ago. It has brought into sharp relief and focus people's understanding that Ireland cannot stand alone in finding the solution to all its problems. In the modern world in which we live, Ireland has to be part of something greater than itself if we are to ensure the sovereignty provided for this republic is exercised creatively and in co-operation with others who share our values.
When we ask what is in this for particular sections of the community or for Ireland, we should remember that the European Union is not simply an economic entity; it is a community of values. Senator Bradford gave a good example of this in his contribution. The President of the European Parliament, Mr. Jerzy Buzek, is visiting Ireland today, and he is most welcome. Mr. Buzek is Polish and I am sure when he was a prominent member of the Solidarity movement, the idea that he would become a democratic member of his own parliament, let alone President of the European Parliament, was not predicted. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, I recall meeting a colleague from one of the Baltic states whose parents had suffered in the Soviet Union. The President of the European Commission gave an eloquent speech to the Forum on Europe on his experience as a young man under the dictatorship in Portugal. It is important we do not take for granted this Community of values.
The European Union has been the great progressive force which has brought Europe together. When we were growing up, we thought we lived in a bipolar world divided into communist and non-communist camps. We all recall the geography maps of the time. The fact is, however, that things change very quickly. After the fall of communism, in the absence of a European Union which was able to ensure progressive forces in the countries of post-communist eastern Europe would look to democratic values as a means of resolving problems and charting out a future, one does not know what might have emerged. That has happened in our lifetime. It is difficult today to retain a sense of wonder at this world but the collapse of the Berlin Wall was a wonder, as was the fact that an organisation called the European Union has enabled the enlargement of a Europe in which everyone subscribes to democratic values and the rule of law. We do not often recall that ten states became members of the European Union during our Presidency in 2004. That was a moving moment for those nations. We recall their Prime Ministers and Heads of Government coming to Ireland and the joy we all shared. That was part of Ireland in Europe and it is what the European Union is about.
Apart from technical provisions, the detail of which we should comprehend, the bottom line is that the political project of the European Union has been the great conflict resolution mechanism of the modern world. It has changed the continent of Europe from a byword for conflict to an area of co-operation. It was born out of the simple idea that one should co-operate with those holding shared values rather than enter conflicts. That is a very simple idea but it has worked tremendously well for all who have been members of that Union and have witnessed its progression.
The wider context is important in terms of explaining why the country has to look at this referendum as a pivotal point. For the past 35 years, this country has moved in a strategic direction. Our economy has developed on the basis of being part of an open marketplace. We are prepared to work with others to develop rules that provide an internal market. They have brought an investment policy to this country which has been very successful, has created jobs and has helped us overcome the historic constraints of underemployment and forced emigration. That all happened because the context in which Ireland was operating was no longer polarised into what was available in our own domestic market and our historic economic dependence on our nearest neighbour but on the fact that we opened up horizons and new opportunities for this country. It was a result of the vision of people and the political vision of a prior generation.
I recall a question asked by Deputy Dooley. I do not want others to set the agenda for our discussion today but I refer to the posters alluding to the leaders of 1916. They were progressive men and women of vision who did not see Ireland as out on its own in the Atlantic. Their vision spoke about Ireland taking its place among the nations of the world, not being separate from them. It was also about giving freedom to future generations to chart the future of this country as we saw fit, based on the common good which we could establish and recognise. That is our responsibility now, as it was that of the previous generation in 1973 to make the historic move towards membership, as it was the responsibility of Lemass and others in the 1950s and 1960s to say Ireland should consider applying for membership. There were many at that time who said "No", that Ireland should recoil and would not be able to compete, that Ireland would not last and would not be able to take on membership.
The creativity, resilience and capability of our people is always there, however, when the challenge is put to them in the proper way, namely, in a political context. Domestically and internationally in our lifetime we must consider these events in such a way that we do not bring the argument down to whether a slogan on a poster is inaccurate, one way or the other. It is much deeper and more important than that and concerns the signals Ireland wants to send at this time in the aftermath of the biggest financial crisis we have seen in 70 years and the economic dislocation caused by that. A small open economy like ours has been even more greatly affected than most others. What signal do we wish to send next month? We are part of a European Union which has brought great benefits to our country over many years and in which, objectively, everyone sees us as being one of the main beneficiaries and as having used membership more beneficially than any other country. Are we saying now that we will step back from the consensus which was painstakingly built up and negotiated? Is it in our interest to send that signal? Will it be understood that Ireland should send such a signal at this time?
Ireland is part of the euro area, a currency greater than our own which provides us with the capability to withstand the financial tsunami that hit us in the past 15 months. The European Central Bank has been pivotal to maintaining financial stability in this country in the past 12 months and will play a crucial role in the months and years ahead. Are we saying this is an obligation which is à la carte from our point of view? I do not believe for a moment the Irish people take that view. The discernment and common sense of the people is what we must look to when those who wish to make their case and, through over-enthusiasm or for whatever other reason, depart from the truth.
Let us stick to the facts. There are pros and cons in every argument but in public debate and on an issue of national importance, we owe it to the people to put to them a passionate and accurate debate that will enable them to make their final judgment themselves. That is the ultimate exercise in sovereignty for those of us who want to ensure we respect sovereignty in this republic. That is a responsibility we all have. We must not be irresponsible but responsible.
I am prepared and willing at all times to engage in debate and I recognise there is more to the debate than my side of it, or that of the "Yes" side. However, I believe that in any objective analysis, the weight of the debate for Ireland is very much in favour of a "Yes" vote when it comes to protecting and promoting our interests. That is why I am a committed European. I believe Ireland can and will come through this crisis as it has come through others. Membership of the European Union is an important means by which we can do so and we can effect our economic recovery more quickly if we have a more competitive European economy. A more competitive and efficient European economy can be achieved more quickly if we adopt a Lisbon treaty that simply seeks to make the Union fit for purpose. When one considers that in the past five years the Union has almost doubled in membership from 15 to 27 and that in the previous 20 years the number of member states increased from six to 15, there is a need to change the rules to ensure it can take on the challenges that are, in many cases, beyond the remit or certainly the geography of a nation state.
Many of the problems we must solve today are not confined within the boundaries of national jurisdictions. How do we deal with climate change? How do we bring forward sustainable development? How will Europe lead the world and be a leader in the argument for sustainability in order that we can pass on to future generations a world that can sustain itself? How do we ensure there is energy security for Europe in the future? Can Ireland do it alone at the end of the pipeline? No, we cannot. We must work with others. We must find common means by which we devise policies that help to protect our interests as well as others who are affected by these issues. That is fundamentally what this treaty is about.
Let us talk about the economy and look at how it has been constructed and has developed. The great selling point for Ireland has been to build up an entrepreneurial climate that has generated more businesses and SMEs. In addition, our foreign direct investment policy has been hugely successful and many of the front-line corporations in all major fields of industry and professional services are located here as a result. They have located here because Ireland has been a platform into the European market. However, it is not just that market. Ireland is now a platform into the far eastern and other markets as the global reach of the Irish economy has extended way beyond the boat to Holyhead. That is how much progress this country has made.
Yes, today we are experiencing and confronting difficulties, which are no less because of where we are. However, as Deputies Breen and Costello said, why should we look at this as something other than just part of the usual domestic debate? It is because it is bigger than that. It is about a long-term future for this country and how effective the organisation which is central to our prosperity will be. It is bigger than that because it will dictate the role of future Governments of whatever political composition for many years to come. The idea that it is about a reaction to the immediacy of our problems today is to fundamentally misunderstand what is at stake and why it is so important for us to view it as a matter of the national interest. In the same way as joining the EEC in 1973 was bigger than the result of the 1973 general election, the 1977 election or any other election that followed, in this instance it is about a decision by Ireland not to stand in the way of a hard-won consensus that has been developed with 26 other member states.
Those issues that were of concern to us on the last occasion have quite rightly been discussed in the Houses of the Oireachtas by the democratically elected representatives of the people, from all parties and none. We discussed the issues that affected us and what we needed to get from our partners to try to address concerns and alleviate worries, to ensure people can see there is something bigger involved than the issues that permeated the debate on the last occasion. We decided on that practically unanimously. In fairness to the European Union, as has always been the case, its modus operandi is that it seeks to accommodate and recognise diversity and to ensure that solidarity is shown to the Irish people because we believe fundamental issues are important such as the position in the Constitution on abortion and other issues, and our policy of neutrality. Our policy of neutrality is not a policy of disengagement from the world, and never was. It is a policy consistent with our tradition of peacekeeping, with our soldiers in the blue helmet under the UN flag, and using the European Union as a regional organisation that works to the United Nations, as has been outlined here by Kofi Annan and other prominent members of the United Nations in recent years.
On that issue, the autonomy of taxation and the need for a Commissioner, we have secured the agreement of the other member states to the requests and requirements set out by the House. Having established that, which is totally in the traditions of the European Union in any event and one of the reasons it is so successful, the responsibility falls back on us to show our solidarity with the European Union and with those whose membership may be more recent who want to progress as we have and who provide for us the prospect of an increased market and increased co-operation, trade and mutual benefit, as has been our experience in respect of every enlargement of the European Union since we joined in 1973. That is why it is critically important that we say "Yes" to this treaty.
When people speak of getting down to the specifics, it is terribly important that we keep that big picture in our mind in addressing these issues. Of course, I will address the specifics, but it is not down to whether it was 55% of the member states and 65% of the vote, or whether it should have been 60% of the member states and 67% of the vote. It is beyond that. In politics and in the way the European Union works, Ireland's influence in Europe has never been based on the mathematical formula deciding how many Irish people are there in the European Union, be it 2%, 1%, 0.4%, which is a ridiculous way to conduct politics. Politics is about the shared values of member states coming to the table to resolve problems on a common basis and seeking to accommodate the particular requirements of member states without affecting the coherence of the policy itself; that has been the experience of successive Governments, with successful Commissioners and Ministers at Councils of Ministers and with success at European Councils. This has been the experience of all political parties — it is not a party-political point — because there is goodwill towards Ireland. It brings me back to the basic point in my speech, that the reason Ireland has been successful is that we are constructive and engaged members of this project and if we say "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, then we will no longer be viewed — how or on what logic could we be — as constructive and engaged members of the project but as members of the project present at the meetings.
To answer the question Senator Bradford and others raised about the Common Agricultural Policy, for example, and the idea about which Deputy Timmins spoke, there are consequences to our actions. There are consequences to all of our actions, whether in any aspect of our life and in public life, and certainly in terms of how a nation determines how it will decide an issue of this magnitude. There is the idea promulgated on the last occasion that there are not consequences, that one goes back and starts again. There are consequences, such as how we are viewed. With the mid-term review in the Common Agricultural Policy, with significant challenges presently in Irish agriculture does anyone seriously suggest that the present Minister, or any other, would be more influential on the back of a "No" vote than a "Yes" vote? Does anyone seriously suggest that the Minister for Finance attending the ECOFIN Council would be in a stronger position on the back of a "No" vote than a "Yes" vote?
I stated in my speech and, for the information of Deputy Finian McGrath, I say it out of respect for the people, that we need to be real about this. This is not an optional extra. This is something fundamental to the future of this country. I say that as Taoiseach, with the significant issues we must confront at this time. I do not want us shooting ourselves in the foot.
I respect people who voted "No" the last time. I must put my case more persuasively and better this time to try to persuade some of them across to what one might call the "Yes" aisle, but there is a obligation on us in having this debate to stick to accurate and truthful statements. On the question that there would be a minimum wage of €1.84, for example, it just is not true. There is nothing in this treaty about it at all. That is a national decision. We decide our own minimum wage in this country through the well established processes of which we are all aware. No one outside this country can determine what the minimum wage will be here. Such a determination is the responsibility of the people.
One of the great benefits of the Lisbon treaty is that the conferral of rights principle and doctrine is far more clear than was the case in previous EU treaties. The treaty specifically states what the European Union's competence is in any particular area, what the national competence is in any area and what the mixed competences are. One of the great benefits of the treaty is that it sets out, in a much clearer way than may have been the case heretofore, how the European Union works. The only powers used by the Union and its institutions are the ones conferred by member states. The argument relating to the creation of a superstate is at variance with the facts and also with the provisions of the treaty.
The Lisbon treaty was drawn up by member state governments and ensures balance is brought to the argument. With a European Union of this magnitude which has the ability to integrate so many of our affairs in this way, matters can be rather complex. However, that complexity does not take away from its importance or the centrality of what it does in the context of how we conduct our affairs in this country in a successful way or how we might rebuild confidence and bring about economic recovery.
The other point I wish to make revolves around the need to bring about such an economic recovery as soon as possible. Voting "No" would not assist us in our efforts in this regard. I am not stating this rhetorically; it is being said by those who are in a position to convey to the rest of us what is involved. I refer to those who understand the position such as persons involved in industry and who know how the decisions are taken. Regardless of whether they represent workers, management or others, they have made their point clear and it should be given the weight it deserves.
Deputy Timmins inquired about the retention of our Commissioner. Member states reached agreement on that matter in an unequivocal fashion. The Nice treaty does not provide for the prospect of 27 Commissioners. There is a commitment in the protocol that there will be one Commissioner per member state. There is no practical significance with regard to the idea of confirming or that of making suggestions. What will happen is that the Government will nominate a person to serve as Ireland's Commissioner and the European Parliament, as is its role and right under the provisions of the treaties, will accept him or her. From our point of view, there is no effective change with regard to our right to appoint a Commissioner. There is always a consultative process with the incoming President of the Commission. However, there has never been an issue in this regard and I do not expect any to arise in the future.
On voting rights, it is a double majority system. It is not a question of basing it on population, there is also the question of at least 15 member states — 55% of the total number of member states — agreeing to a proposal. In that part of the equation Ireland is the same as Germany, that is, each will have one vote. Germany's population is 20 times greater than that of Ireland. These matters all come into play when one considers the institutional balance involving the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. For example, Ireland has 12 Members of the European Parliament. If matters in the Parliament were dealt with in a proportionate manner, Germany should have 240 MEPs. However, it only has 96. The balances are outlined in the context of the Parliament and the Council. The double majority system relating to the Council's decision-making process is part of that overall institutional balance, which has also been confirmed for Ireland in the context of there being one Commissioner per member state.
Members referred to the need to provide adequate information. It is important to point out that there is a need to avoid the provision of unnecessarily contradictory information. Both sides have a responsibility to put their case based on the facts. Neither case should be at variance with the facts. That is important but there is a genuine belief more information is available now.
Deputy Costello referred to the jobs issue which I highlighted in my opening contribution because it is important. That people, unfortunately, are unemployed in the European economy in this recession, as they are in every other part of the world, is due to the failure of the banking and financial systems which has brought about the dislocation we now see; it is not about the failure of the European Union. Because we have a European Union member states can co-operate on financial regulations and ensure we can work together to make sure the banking systems have common rules and that fair play and a level playing pitch can be established. The fact that the Union is committed to competition and open, fair and free trade means it has avoided protectionist tendencies which would have very much militated against Ireland's interests in the context of the international recession because larger economies have larger markets that would still be able to function were there protectionist trends in the Union. That has been avoided.
As a member of the European Union, we not only have access to a market but we also help to shape the rules that govern the operation of the market. That is where the success of the Union has been assured in these circumstances. The social policies devised in previous recessions helped in providing funds for training for the unemployed. Members will recall the European Social Fund grants given to all students attending many of our institutes of technology. The Union still provides significant resources for research and development which are accessed by this country and others. Assistance is provided by the Union in times of recession which, far from indicating its failure, indicates why it remains central and important to us, even in difficult times. There are difficulties we cannot dump on the Union which has been a means by which we have overcome problems but it has not been their source.
I wish to concentrate on the electorate considering this issue as a national question. I am sure many outsiders have a view, to which they are entitled, but I do not subscribe to their way of thinking. I do not have to say much about that because I have enough positives things to say about my own point of view without worrying about them.
Deputy Flynn brought up an important issue. There were sections of the committee who were less enthusiastic than others the last time and various points of view were expressed that affected this. With regard to women, the issue concerns the commitment to ensure non-discrimination. I have referred to the early articles of the treaty which set out its aims. People will be comfortable with them in the context of women's rights and how we have been able to avoid discrimination in the workplace, etc. The modern corpus of labour and employment law originates from the European Union, as does much of that which is progressive in our social legislation. Regulations governing health and safety in the workplace, terms and conditions of employment and adequate maternity and other leave provisions for those who leave the workplace temporarily resulted from progressive legislative proposals implemented in Ireland as a result of discussions at European level where we had our say and were able to work with others to achieve a greater good.
Were we to pass the treaty an important issue in terms of where we go from here concerns the narrative of European politics in domestic politics. We have been far too complacent and unimaginative about how we incorporate what happens in the European Union into domestic politics in a manner that is relevant to the people. Those of us who are practitioners in politics know, through our job, in terms of what comes through the Dáil, committees, Departments or Ministries and so on, that the European Union has a daily influence on what happens here in public affairs. It is not something that is presented in the tome of a treaty once every ten years. Everything we do in this country, in the preparation of legislation, our law-making and the impositions we place on sectors of the community, is influenced by or originates in the European Union. We must find a way to ensure politics integrates these agendas far more easily. We must broaden the context in which people understand and discuss our problems. Too often we consider matters purely in the national rather than the wider context in which many issues are developing and must be addressed. That is a matter which requires this generation of politicians to address issues, on an all-party basis, far more imaginatively than before.
For a lot of reasons, there are views about the European Union which are prominent in societies that do not accurately portray what the European Union is about. While we should not be uncritical, we need to avoid thinking the European Union is a malign force. It is a benign force in world politics and, in many respects, a benign force in so far as this country is concerned. This is an issue we need to address.
Deputy Breen asked what would happen if the treaty was rejected. If it is rejected, it cannot be ratified and therefore become a corpus of European law. What will happen then is the relevant question. One can only speculate in this regard, as there is no definitive answer. What we do know with a degree of certainty is that Ireland's place in that debate will be lessened and that its interests will not be as well protected. I cannot state with accuracy any more than that at this point. While I am not suggesting the question put by Deputy Breen was a rhetorical one, in response I ask why we would put ourselves in that position. What would be in it for Ireland? Why should Ireland stand aside from the consensus? What benefit would we derive from rejection of the treaty?
There are those who suggest rejection of the treaty would mean a new treaty could be drawn up. When we went back to our colleagues in the European Union, they asked, short of renegotiating the treaty, what they could do to assist us. They did not want to reopen the discussion to 27 national agendas. One is not inclined, having engaged in long negotiations and worked out a compromise, to reopen the issue again, as people might change positions. What have we to fear from the Lisbon treaty, given that the fears and concerns expressed have been addressed? What else is there that would cause fear or concern?
It is interesting to note that the "No" side is not revisiting the issues addressed precisely for that reason. It is not possible to raise contradictory fears on these matters. We are now hearing for the first time of concerns in regard to a reduction in the minimum wage to €1.84, an issue I do not recall being raised the last time. This is a new one and I suspect there will be a few more in the weeks leading up to the referendum.
There are other reasons those on the "No" side may put forward to which I do not subscribe. We need to respect the people by expressing views that are grounded on the facts and reality. We do not show much respect for the sovereignty of the people if we conduct a public debate of this importance in any other way. I do not wish to labour that point but there are many positive reasons we want to vote "Yes" and it is on that we are concentrating. However, if something is gaining traction because of a poster on a pole somewhere, we must comment on it if it is not correct and there is no basis to it.
Deputy Seán Power mentioned the issue of the content of the treaty. There is more information available and more access to information. The European Commission and Commissioner Wallström have also brought forward a good document.
With regard to workers, the Charter of Fundamental Rights brings together the rights which have been established in European law and gives legal effect to them in a formal way. In the evolution of European Union development representatives of workers will always seek further protections and improvements. That is the nature of democratic politics. However, we can say with certainty that ascribing a legal status to those rights in this treaty is an improvement on where things stood previously. From the point of view of all those on that side of the argument, no one suggests the treaty represents the ultimate nirvana for workers' rights, but it is a far better position. One should not be absolutist. Even if every issue one is still struggling to achieve has not been achieved in the treaty, this does not mean it is a bad treaty. It is an advancement on where we were before. The fact the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and others support it within that context is fine by me. The bottom line is they support a "Yes" vote for the treaty.
The first Ministry I had the privilege to hold was labour and I recall the working time directive going through at European level. Such advances have come year on year over time. The forum in which such advances can be developed is the European Union. A "Yes" vote is clearly the best vote for workers, not only in terms of making the economy more competitive but because of the good track record of social protection in the corpus of European law, a corpus of law available to all European citizens, including Irish citizens, in the future.
I have dealt with the issue of the Commissioner as referred to by Senator Quinn. There is no practical difference involved in that semantic argument. I know the argument is considered to have substance by some and it warrants a reply, but my honest view is that the capacity of this country to nominate its Commissioner under the new arrangements is not an issue of substance about which we need worry.
Deputy Treacy raised the issue of the Common Agricultural Policy. I mentioned that it escapes me how in practical and political terms voting "No" would strengthen Ireland's negotiating position. A "Yes" vote is imperative and the current difficulties reinforce rather than dilute this. The Deputy also asked about the instrument of ratification. If we vote "Yes" to the treaty the agreement we reached with our Heads of State and Government in June will be lodged as an international agreement in the United Nations. That is a further reinforcement of the legal validity of what has been achieved. The decision at the European Council meeting in June also has legal merit, but the fact there is a commitment and undertaking to attach it as a protocol to a future treaty makes legally watertight the argument as to its validity and substance.
Senator Hanafin has outlined clearly the important role the ECB has played on an ongoing basis in recent times. However, we are a member of the euro zone. We have taken on that obligation. It provides us with a wider zone of stability than would have been the case were we relying on our own currency. One can only speculate what might have happened were we not in the euro zone at a certain point. That further reinforces how important it is for Ireland to continue to be a very active member of the European Union. We need to influence that area of policy as others in a very important way.
Deputy Creighton spoke about the context in which some of the issues were raised about the minimum wage and the cost of borrowing, among others. There is absolutely no room for complacency in the campaign. We have a big job of work to do in the coming weeks. I have great faith and belief in the discernment and common sense of the Irish people. Once we do our job of putting the case accurately and with passion and clarity, then people will see where the balance of advantage lies. I do not put my case on the basis of being dismissive of other people's views. I put my case on the basis that I am convinced that the balance of advantage for the country is in a "Yes" vote. To portray that as scaremongering or as anything other than a democratic politician putting the position as accurately as he can does not reflect the motivation behind our position on that.
This is the first time I have spoken to a "don't know", Deputy Finian McGrath.
There are 25% of us out there.
The Deputy looks far better than he did when he was on the "No" side. It must be the haircut. There are people who are undecided and that is a very important point to make. We are in the midst of a campaign. There are people on both sides of the argument who are quite convinced of their arguments. However, we need to look to those who have not yet made up their minds and put our case in a respectful but forceful way so that we rebut any effectiveness that may reside on the other side of the argument as it is being put.
Regarding the European Defence Agency, if one considers the protocol and what we achieved in June, we cleared up much of that argumentation. There is no obligation on Ireland to increase its defence expenditure in this area. It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other member state to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It is also a matter for each member state to decide in accordance with the provisions of the treaty whether to participate in permanent structural co-operation or the European Defence Agency. Nothing in this section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other member state on security and defence.
The great benefit of what was achieved in June in practical terms is that it ends the Tweedledum and Tweedledee arguments of he says this and the other says the opposite. The protocols make clear what those who sign the treaty mean by what is in the treaty. The member states are bringing clarity to those issues thereby addressing interpretations that were brought to the provisions during the last debate which were contradictory, sowed confusion and left people wondering what way to go on this. That has been clarified on the basis that the guarantees that have been given in all these areas are very clear.
On taxation, nothing in the treaty makes any change of any kind to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union on taxation; therefore, it is not an issue. We have already discussed security and defence. As we go down through the other ones it is the same. On the solemn declaration on workers' rights and social policy, while of course it is a solemn declaration it is a very strong political signal by all member states of the European Union as to what their view of the treaty is in these areas and the importance they attach to it. The inclusion of the social clause is also important. All of these areas are consistent with what the experience of the European Union has been. If one examines the aims and objectives of the treaty, one will see that it refers to a social market economy, combating social exclusion and all the issues that would be regarded as progressive sentiments in areas of social protection, such as dignity for workers and families in the workplace.
When Senator Mullen spoke as Gaeilge, he also made a point regarding the guarantees. The fact of the matter is that the Lisbon treaty was not renegotiable. The guarantees we have obtained confirm that there is nothing in the Lisbon treaty that attributes legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Nothing in the provisions of the treaty regarding freedom, security and justice affects in any way the scope and applicability of the protection of the right to life in Articles 43.1, 43.2 and 43.3 of the Constitution; the protection of the family in Article 41 of the Constitution; and the protection of certain rights in respect of education in Article 42 of the Constitution and elsewhere. It has been confirmed that these are matters for our own Supreme Court — for our jurisdictional decision. That these are matters which have been set out by our own people is a position that is respected.
I emphasise that our EU partners have no interest in interfering with Ireland's position on these issues. In all of my discussions and negotiations, no one has ever asked me to spell out the basis on which this or that came about. When the Oireachtas decided that certain issues needed to be addressed, we proceeded to engage with the Union and with our legal experts. In my opinion, the guarantees that emerged from that process are in full compliance with what was sought by the Oireachtas. That had to be done in a way that did not impinge on the constitutional provisions of other member states. A great deal of legal work and discussion needed to be done up to and during the meeting of the European Council. It often works out that way. During that process, it became apparent that Ireland's EU colleagues strongly wished to ensure that Ireland could find itself in a position to hold a new referendum and to approve the treaty. The other member states have a strong wish for Ireland to be part of what is emerging in the European Union. They want Ireland to be there. Our membership of the Union is valued. We have to step up to the mark by making sure we can accommodate others. We have nothing to fear.
We need to rediscover some of the sense of adventure — the can-do approach — that was at the heart of our initial involvement in the European project. Even in the midst of a recession, we are in a far stronger economic position than we were when people of a previous political generation were determined to move in a certain direction and face certain challenges. Those people understood the economic and social benefits to Ireland of its membership of the European Union. They appreciated that it was also a question of opening up Ireland's sense of where it was in the world in order that its citizens realised they could be part of something bigger than themselves. They helped us to understand we did not have to think we were constrained by our history. They showed us we could make our own history. In recent years we have been able to agree new political arrangements on the island of Ireland. This country is now making its own history. As a divided Europe becomes united, we should be prepared to see Europe as our natural home. I see Europe as our natural home. I genuinely believe this country's progress will be determined by the quality of its relationship with the European Union, which plays a wider role in the wider world, in turn. Ireland's voice is far greater as part of this organisation or enterprise, which comes with many benefits, than it would be if we were on our own. That is my genuine and honest belief. I am absolutely convinced that it is the case. During this debate we need to convey to the people that it is not just a question of Article 42.3 or Article 17.7. While clarification can be provided on such matters, the issue is much bigger than this.
At this difficult time for the country we need to enthusiastically move forward by saying, "Yes, we are part of the European Union and want to continue to influence what happens in it." What happens in the European Union affects us fundamentally — hourly, daily and weekly — in everything we do. In the world in which we live things affect us and we can either shape and take control of events or be controlled by them. The European Union is the best mechanism yet devised for a region to pool its resources and deal with the challenges of our time. That is the reason we need to vote "Yes".
Does the Minister wish to comment?
After the Taoiseach's tour de force, it would be superfluous to do so.
I thank the Taoiseach, the Minister and the Minister of State for coming before the joint committee and compliment them on their even-handed and objective presentation. I also thank members for their constructive and objective words and welcome the views expressed by colleagues who are not members of the joint committee.
Deputy Finian McGrath referred to the role of the European Union in humanitarian issues and overseas development. It goes without saying the Union has been to the forefront in providing development aid and addressing poverty and many other humanitarian issues both in Europe and across the globe. It will continue to perform this role.
Senator Bradford made a good point when he referred to the hard left. The hard right and hard left have converged in opposition to the Lisbon treaty, as they did on various issues at different times in European history. A short study of European history will show that when such convergence occurred, it was not to the benefit of the people of Europe. We should bear this in mind.
It has been a privilege to meet individuals such as the former mayor of Strasbourg, Mr. Pierre Pflimlin, whose family were killed at the end of the Second World War and who is totally committed to the concepts outlined by the Taoiseach, and Mr. Altiero Spinelli, an Italian communist who spent most of the Second World War imprisoned for his views. Nothing that either man has said is in conflict with the sentiments expressed by the Taoiseach and members today. This should be a lesson to all of us. We must examine the past to try to ensure it has a positive influence on the future.
I also thank members of the diplomatic corps and media for their attendance.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.40 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 10 September 2009.