28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2008 - 2nd Stage Debate - 30th April 2008

Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 - 2nd Stage Debate - 30th April 2008
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. He is a vigorous and intellectually challenging representative of the Government. I am distressed to say, however, that I have to speak as a bit of a flake, in the words of my good friend and colleague, Senator Ormonde. I face the ghastly prospect of embarrassing the Senator and encouraging Ireland to be perceived as mean. These are terrible alternatives. I enjoyed the Senator's contribution, although I have not always felt the same about interventions by the Government and, indeed, the Minister of State.
One of the reasons I have decided finally to vote "No" to this treaty - this is my first time to do so, although I declared my reservations about the earlier treaties - is because of the supercilious and contemptuous way in which those of us who have a conscientious series of objections to the treaty are treated by the Government and other spokespersons. We are accused of lying and of being flaky and it is claimed that we have never been good Europeans. I do not accept that and it certainly cannot be said of myself.
I know nothing whatsoever about Libertas, having only heard about the organisation recently on foot of an intervention from the Minister of State. It has not persuaded me in the slightest on this issue. However, I am concerned about certain specific issues, principal among them being the undoubted and growing militarisation of the European Union. On that issue there can be no question, despite what the Minister of State might argue.
The language used is supercilious. The Taoiseach made a considerable error of judgment when he described people who opposed the treaty as "loo-las" and stated those who oppose the reform treaty:
[N]ow feel obliged to claim they are strong supporters of the European Union! These Treaty opponents know that outright opposition to the Union would gain them few votes. However, their support for the Union is paper thin and unconvincing.
I have always supported the EU and my support is not paper thin or unconvincing. There are, however, unconvincing elements to the treaty. It would be perfectly legitimate for the people of Ireland to use their democratic vote to reject this treaty. If they did so, they would be going over the heads of the megalocrats that run the EU to speak directly to the heart of Europe, a democratic right which none of its other citizens have been given the opportunity to exercise. That tells us something about the management of this matter. What are the megalocrats afraid of in terms of democracy and why will they not give the people the right to vote? Why are we the only ones to do so?
While I am speaking about evasion and confusion, I wish to address the question of why the referendum is being held. We are told by the Government that it is a constitutional requirement but, according to the court judgments, it is only a constitutional requirement if there is a prospect of a substantial constitutional or legislative changes. On the one hand, we have a referendum caused by this major shift and, on the other, the Government says there is no shift and nothing is happening. Some people have suggested that Europe will come to a shuddering halt if we vote against the treaty but Europe will continue unchanged. What will change it is the passage of this treaty.
In an article published in The Irish Times on 13 March, which the Minister of State may challenge, Patricia McKenna wrote:
Gormley is shortly to re-establish the Referendum Commission after legislation for the Lisbon Treaty referendum has been published by the Government. However, a spokesman for the Minister has confirmed that the original remit of the Referendum Commission - to outline the cases for and against a referendum to the public and to promote debate and discussion on it - would not be restored by the Government.
That requires an explanation. According to the Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, there is no fall-back position. They are arrogantly assuming we are going to bullied into passing this referendum.
Why was the date moved from October to June? Had it something to do with the leaked memo in which we were told that June was chosen over October because of "the risk of unhelpful developments during the French presidency, particularly related to EU defence"?

Perhaps Mr. Sarkozy might be inclined to tell the truth but that would be terribly embarrassing and we might be justified in being mean to the megalocrats.
Something else concerns me. We hear a great deal of rubbish about liberal issues, people concerned about abortion and so on but we know one thing. I have a motion on the Order Paper about the exemption from equality legislation of the churches, even in the light of and despite the revelations of the Ferns Report. Decent, upstanding citizens like myself could be fired from a teaching job by the authorities with impunity because of the exemption granted under that legislation.
This came to the notice of the equal opportunities Commissioner, Vladimir Spidla, and he proposed action in the European Court. There was then a little squawk from the Iona Institute and others, unelected and unrepresentative people, and in order to smooth the way so that there would not be any turbulence from the right wing religious element, this has been dropped. Again, we have sacrificed equality and principles to ease through this treaty. Mr. Barosso stated: "There is no intention to bring Ireland to court on that ground. That is not going to happen". It was stated that the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Dick Roche, strongly welcomed the news. He stated, "Mr. Barosso's comment are very positive. I look forward to seeing the final adjudication". They are not positive and the Minister of State knows it but I will not call that a lie. I will call it an evasion because we must be polite in this House, but it is a damnable day for equality when this happens.
Deputy Dick Roche: It is actually an interpretation of law.
Senator David Norris: People have said the treaty is difficult to read and have been patronised for saying that. One learned commentator said it was like trying to read Finnegans Wake backwards in Latin. Even for a Joycean like myself I imagine that might pose some difficulties.
If we examine the statements of other senior politicians, Monsieur Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is on record as saying that the Lisbon treaty is a direct clone of the failed constitution "except for certain cosmetic changes making it easier to swallow".
When the constitution was voted down in France and the Netherlands the Commission Vice-President, Günter Verheugen, stated: "We must not give in to blackmail". When the citizens of Europe exercise their democratic right it is blackmail but when the megalocrats stuff something down the throats of 26 of the 27 countries that is democracy in action. I have a different way of using language.
On the question of language, I recall pointing out to the Minister of State's colleague, Deputy Mary Harney, that in a statement on health approximately three pages long she used the word "competition" seven times and she was embarrassed by that. Let us examine the language of the treaty. The word "market" gets 63 mentions and "competition" gets 25 mentions. There is no mention whatever of full employment. In other words, we are going to exchange social Europe for the neoliberal economic model of Europe.
Deputy Dick Roche: On a point of fact, employment is mentioned. The persons who wrote that particular tract the Senator is now quoting were factually inaccurate.
Senator David Norris: That was not a tract. It was an article by Susan George in The Irish Times. I accept the Minister may be right but will he accept also that there are 63 mentions of the word "market" and 25 of the-----
Deputy Dick Roche: I would just make the point that in a response which The Irish Times very decently carried I pointed out the number of times she had been inaccurate in the article. I will deal with it in my response.
Senator David Norris: Okay. Could the Minister also comment on the fact that in Strasbourg on 10 July last year Jose Barosso stated: "Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of Empire. We have the dimensions of Empire". There is an imperial level to it, therefore.
With regard to the economic aspect, there is the business about spreading the European economic message by what is described as "the integration of all countries into the world economy through the suppression of barriers to international trade". We could have a whole debate on that and the impact on southern hemisphere countries.
I did not fully follow what the Minister of State was saying but he mentioned in his contribution the war in Iraq. I never felt that the war in Iraq was a good thing. I believe he was quoting Mr. Shanley or somebody from Libertas but I do not want to be dragged into that kind of debate. That is why I am concerned about the erosion of our individuality.
The Minister of State is probably aware that on Bastille Day last year there was a triumphal military procession in Paris. Monsieur Sarkozy was in a military jeep. The armed forces of 27 countries, including Ireland, were presented and I quote from a description from Reuters:
In a carefully prepared display, a V formation of flag-bearers preceded the 800-strong European guest parade with the EU and French flags at the front. That came after some 4000 French military marched by and air force jets made a flyover in a show of military might.
That is the theatrics behind it. However, there is a philosophical agenda. For example, on 13 November 2007, during the French Presidency, Monsieur Herve Morin spoke of the need for a more muscular presence by Europe on the world stage and outlined France's plans to press ahead with a Europe of defence. That is worrying.
Chancellor Angela Merkel was reported on 23 March 2007 in Bilt. She stated: "Within the EU itself, we will have to move closer to establishing a common European army". We are going to replace the United Nations, for example, with this extra military organisation. David Miliband, in a characteristically English intervention, stated: "It's frankly embarrassing that European nations - with about two million men and women under arms - are only able, at a stretch, to deploy around 100,000 at any one time". The Portuguese Defence Minister, when Portugal had the EU Presidency, stated: "Defence is a vital driver of integration today and the EU has to strengthen its military rapid response capacity, bolster its defence industry, etc. And all this should complement NATO".
I wish to turn to the defence industry and the European Defence Agency because that also raises a question of language. This used to be called the European Armaments Agency. Why the coy change of title? Why is it now the European Defence Agency instead of what it really is, namely, the European Armaments Agency?
One should take note of the statement from this renamed agency. In September 2005, Mr. Nick Witney, who was the chief executive of the European Defence Agency, addressed the Institute of European Affairs in North Great George's Street, just up the road from where I live, and outlined the benefits to Irish industry of EDA membership. He described some Irish or Irish based companies as being key players in some defence related sectors such as armoured fighting vehicles and defence electronics and that co-ordinated procurement could put them in a better position to be awarded defence equipment contracts.
I would like to put on the record also the long-term statement of the European Defence Agency. It states:
Today, Europe retains a widely capable defence technological and industrial base. But the prognosis is not encouraging. If Europe is to preserve a broadly based and globally competitive DTIB (which means competitive with the US, and, increasingly, producers in the Far East) it must take to heart the fact that the US is outspending Europe six to one in defence R&D; that it devotes some 35% of its defence expenditure to investment (from a budget more than twice as large as that of the Europeans combined), as against the European level of about 20%; and that it is increasingly dominant in global export markets.
In other words, we are now committed to, and have built into a structure that makes us part of a weapons exporting mechanism.
The Minister of State will be aware that a conference on cluster munitions will be held soon in Croke Park.
Some of the states with which we are entering into collusion with this treaty will go there and try to lobby for exemptions for cluster munitions they are manufacturing.
I will end by speaking on the reservations of some non-governmental organisations. There is no statement about partnership and independence in the treaty, which the European Community Humanitarian Office previously included. Many organisations are concerned, as I am, about the increasing militarisation of Europe and our incorporation into a manufacturing industry that is a disgrace to the human community.
For those reasons I will be opposing this treaty. I would like the Minister of State to accept I do so from a principled stand and I am not a "loo la", a flake or a liar.