Statements on the Lisbon Reform Treaty - 5th June 2008

Statements on the Lisbon Reform Treaty - 5th June 2008

Senator David Norris: I wish to share time with Senator Quinn. I welcome the Minister of
State who made an interesting case to the House. I also compliment Deputy Perry on the
report produced by the joint committee he chairs. It is important that both sides of the debate
are heard today, as has not been the case thus far. Mr. Po¨ ttering, for example, was invited to
the House to advocate the treaty without a balancing performance by anybody else. There has
been a chorus of “Yes”.
It has been argued that those who advocate a “No” vote are the same old people who have
never voted in favour of Europe. I have always been an enthusiastic European and have supported
every treaty, although I have done so with growing reservations on account of the
incremental militarisation of the European Union. I have no doubt this is the case.
I mentioned on the Order of Business today that the Taoiseach acknowledged that he has
not fully read the treaty. The Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy, stated he has not fully read
the treaty and one would be an idiot to try. An attempt was made to cover that up by stating
that the Minister for Finance presents the budget to the Da´ il and the Deputies, who have not
read the entire document, vote for it. That is true but the Minister for Finance is in a position
to commend it because he has read the entire document. Today, as I pointed out on the Order
of Business, we have a worrying situation where Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill, the man who is
in charge of the Referendum Commission and who is supposed to explain it, acknowledges
that some aspects of the treaty are completely impenetrable.
I have a number of questions. It is a matter of balance. There are good measures in this
treaty. Some of those on the “No” side are an embarrassment. For instance, I have heard
people state that one would get gay marriage stuffed into this country, there would be access
to abortion, there would be free contraception and there would be euthanasia. If I thought that
were the case I would be out campaigning for it, but I acknowledged that it most definitely is
not and that should not be used as an argument against the treaty.
However, there are questions I would like to ask. In terms of the democratic unresponsiveness
of the treaty, for example, what percentage of it is precisely the same as the rejected draft
EU constitution in light of the fact that it is reported widely in the press today that people
from other European countries who are grateful to us for having this debate state that they
have been robbed of the right to vote? It is perfectly clear from the words of senior European
politicians that they do not trust their own people and that there is not time to name them all,
but we know what Vale´ry Giscard d’Estaing, for example, has stated on this issue.
In particular, I am concerned about the Government’s position on the Crotty case. The
Government has stated that there must be a referendum because of the Crotty case. The Crotty
judgment stated that a referendum was only called into play when a treaty involved substantial
change here, and yet the Government states the treaty involves no substantial change. They
cannot have it both ways. That worries me.
I have asked a series of questions on militarisation because I do not like the Western European
Armaments Group, even though they have tried cosmetically to repackage it as the European
Defence Agency, EDA. I would like to ask the circumstances in which we take part in
this. Do we really want to be part of the European Defence Agency? Why was there no Da´ il
discussion on this decision to join the EDA? Can we have clarification on that? What are the
financial implications of our membership? I understand we will be required to contribute.
There is an upping of the military budget. I am very concerned by the statements of the former
director of this group that one of the principal targets is so that they can increase production
of armaments.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris is taking from Senator Quinn’s time.
Senator David Norris: On the question of the Commissioner, we were told historically it was
vital for us to have a Commissioner. Apparently now it is not. We were told in recent weeks
by a Minister that we could not give the farmers a guarantee on the veto because it would
weaken our negotiating position, but now that has been overturned.
I will yield to Senator Quinn, but there are many reservations. I ask the Minister of State,
Deputy Roche, or his officials, just because I do not have time and it would not be fair to
continue, to take a look at the detailed questions I asked last week on the Order of Business
about the European Defence Agency and the Western European Armaments Group and to
give Members an answer. I was promised answers repeatedly by the Leader and I did not get
them. That is not democracy.