Deputy Eamon Gilmore:   I wish to share time with Deputy Joan Burton. An Ceann Comhairle: Agreed. Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Last Thursday a majority of Irish voters chose to reject the Lisbon treaty. That is the decision of the referendum. The Lisbon treaty has been rejected, and that decision must be respected. The Labour Party campaigned vigorously for a “Yes” vote because we believed the treaty was an important step forward in creating a progressive and democratic Europe that would better address the needs of the people of Europe and because we believed it to be in Ireland’s national interest. I pay tribute in the House to the work of my colleague Deputy Joe Costello, who co-ordinated and led the Labour Party campaign. Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Hear, hear. Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I strongly supported the treaty and with my colleagues in the Labour Party, I stand over every statement we made about it. I believed there were substantial benefits for Ireland, and for Labour’s vision of a social Europe, to be had from a “Yes” vote. We placed particular emphasis on the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European treaties and if I might make one comment about the conduct of the campaign, it is a regret that perhaps similar emphasis was not placed on the Charter of Fundamental Rights by others who were campaigning on the “Yes” side. I was concerned too that a “No” vote would send our country into a period of added uncertainty at a time when, economically, we have enough uncertainty to contend with. It must be said, however, that it was not an easy treaty to communicate. It was not based on one particular big idea, but rather contained a series of reforms intended to make the European Union more effective and democratic. The absence of a unified theme that could be related to the everyday lives of our people meant that from day one we were explaining, and in politics when one is explaining one is losing. It must be admitted that the result last week also reflects an erosion of confidence in politics. The people did not accept the advice of the main political parties. That erosion of confidence which is not unrelated to a decade of revelations at tribunals, must be of real concern. As political leaders, we must acknowledge that and seek a way forward. We must also learn the lessons from the campaign and the manner in which it was conducted, and the Labour Party will accept its share of responsibility in that regard. As a result of the vote last week, Ireland is facing its biggest diplomatic challenge since the Second World War. Fifty years of foreign policy centred on the objective of putting Ireland at the heart of Europe, and the many patent accomplishments won on the back of that policy, are now at stake. How we respond and the leadership we offer will determine, perhaps for a generation, what it means to be Irish in Europe, and how the Union deals with the democratic verdict of the Irish people will speak volumes about the value placed on democracy and the status of smaller member states in a community of nations dedicated to peace and democracy. The process of closer co-operation on vital global issues, which Lisbon was intended to advance, will not succeed unless the Irish vote is fully respected. Nor can Europe prosper unless it is fully committed to the principle of equality among member states. That is why there can be no question of going back to the people for a simple re-run of the Lisbon treaty. We must, instead, listen to the concerns of the Irish people and understand them. While there were many domestic factors that became significant in the campaign, it must also be accepted that there are other member states which would have difficulty in securing endorsement for the Lisbon treaty at a referendum. The Irish vote, therefore, must be seen as reflective, not just of an Irish problem but of a broader failure of the European Union to win the hearts, as well as the minds, of the people of Europe. The irony of course is that the Lisbon treaty was intended to address that same democratic deficit, but it must be treated with the utmost seriousness now. For that reason, Ireland must be given an opportunity to reflect on the outcome of the referendum. We in Ireland must ultimately drive forward the process of finding a solution, but this is not just an Irish problem. It is a European problem, and will require a European solution. At home, it is the task of political leaders to listen to the Irish people, and also to lead. I do not believe the Irish are the ungrateful children of the European project. We are an outward-looking progressive people who want to be at the heart of the European Union. Neither do I believe our relationship with Europe was based solely on the continuation of a flow of European funds into Ireland. That is not who we are and it is not what we aspire to be. Much that we have achieved economically and socially over the past 35 years has been predicated on the underlying assumption that we seek to be full members and full participants in the European project dedicated to peace and prosperity in Europe. Membership of the European Union was fundamental to the economic renaissance of Ireland in the past two decades. Membership of the Union was also central to the important advances in social legislation and we must not lose sight of those advances. Indeed, I say this to those on the left in Ireland, and to those who say they are on the left and who ask why the Labour Party is so firm in its support for Europe. Where did Irish women get the right to equal pay for equal work, from where did most of our recent employment legislation come and from where did we get most of our environmental protection legislation? Those measures came through the European process, largely because of gains made by the left, by the social democratic movement in Europe, from which we ultimately benefited. Europe enabled post-colonial Ireland to come out from under the shadow of Britain and to assert its independence as an equal and respected state in Europe. Look, too, at who cheered most loudly last Friday. Across Europe, the people who rejoiced at the Irish result were the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party, the UK Independence Party, the right-wing Freedom Party in Austria, the National Front in France, and the Civic Democratic Party in the Czech Republic — a party so Thatcherite that they regard Margaret Thatcher herself as doctrinally unsound. If the extreme right in Europe is cheering so loudly, one must ask was urging people to vote “No” really such a left-wing stance. We all have concerns about the direction the European project might take but that is precisely why we supported its democratisation and the insertion of vital social clauses, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in the Lisbon treaty. The Labour Party is disappointed with last Thursday’s result but we can look anybody in the eye today and tell them that we told them the truth about the Lisbon treaty, that we gave our honest opinion on its merits and that we did so in the best interests of Ireland and of the Irish people who we represent. We fully respect the right of citizens to make up their own minds and to decide on the treaty. That, after all, is what a referendum is about. That is why we have referenda, namely, so that citizens can exercise their sovereignty. We are now in uncertain times and it is difficult to draw an accurate road map at this stage. There are, however, a number of essentials which need to be settled. First, that the Irish decision stands and must be respected. Second, that we must avoid a two-speed Europe where we are left behind. The extent to which that will be a problem will depend on how many other states ratify the treaty. They are entitled to decide for themselves on the basis of their own democratic procedures just as we were entitled to decide in our own manner. Considerable work will be needed at political and diplomatic level to ensure that the Irish decision is understood and respected and that Ireland remains engaged in Europe. This will require enormous political and diplomatic skill. We also need a process by which the decision last Thursday and the reasons behind it can be fully analysed and understood. This goes beyond the arguments advanced by the “No” side. I do not believe the result last Thursday was simply a reflection back to us of the arguments advanced by the “No” side, particularly since some of those were directly contradictory. There were other concerns, some of them domestic, which influenced the way people voted and there were uncertainties and concerns about the future which I believe underlay the decision made last Thursday. There are three issues in particular at which we can begin to look. The first of these is neutrality where, despite the arguments advanced about what is actually in the Lisbon treaty, some lingering doubts remained about what might happen at some stage in the future. We need to address these concerns, including by emphasising that the whole motivation behind the establishment of the European Union was to maintain peace in Europe by deepening the commonalities of interest among the people’s of Europe. Second, the issue of the loss of a Commissioner seemed to evoke a strong feeling that we risked weakening our hand. Again, I know all the arguments about why that is not so, particularly given that the future size of the Commission was agreed in the Nice treaty, but it still an issue that may have to be revisited. Third, there is the issue of taxation. In the current economic climate, with deep unease about the future, this was a serious point of concern. Again, there was nothing in the treaty that affected our right to set our own tax rates. However, noises coming from some countries about the combined common corporate tax base were distinctly unhelpful. It will take time to understand what the real concerns were and how they can be addressed. I do not pretend we have all the answers today. We need a period of reflection on the outcome. I welcome the support offered to Ireland at the meeting of Foreign Ministers on Monday and, in particular, the comments made by the British Foreign Secretary over the weekend. I look forward to the Taoiseach’s report to the Dáil on his return from Brussels after which we can continue the work of finding a way forward. Deputy Joan Burton: Many factors contributed to the defeat of this treaty. However, I wish to speak about the attitude of women voters to it because it is important in the context of how we, in Leinster House, do our business. Leinster House is a uniquely male place. Many other institutions in Ireland have changed but Leinster House has not changed very much. That is not to suggest that men, who comprise the overwhelming majority in Leinster House, are not sympathetic to the considerations of women but it is just that the place has not changed. Large numbers of women profoundly distrusted this treaty and were concerned about the issues of foreign policy, war, militarism, spending on armaments and related issues. An absurd argument made was that a woman’s children or grandchildren would end up being drafted into a European army. Mary Black sings a song entitled “All the lies that you told me” and sometimes it seemed that song was the anthem of the “No” side. A real and palpable fear among young mothers and grandmothers was that their male children and grandchildren would be in a European army. I do not believe any of the parties in this House which supported the treaty paused to reflect on why people accepted what was blatant scaremongering. In many ways, the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, was at his most clever and devious in the run up to the Iraq war when he managed adroitly in a diplomatic and elitist sense to be on both sides of the picture. Although American aeroplanes were landing in Shannon Airport, somehow or other he was with the hundreds of thousands of people who marched in Dublin. In the post-11 September world, security is important, whether one is a neutral nation or part of a military or regional alliance. However, one cannot confuse security with military adventures or a global war on terror about which people felt profoundly uncomfortable. We have not had that debate in this House and so many of the women who voted “No” said that was a cornerstone in their thinking. The 13% or so of women Members of this House need to reflect on why they did not communicate their detailed views and talk to people about these issues. The other issue which was profoundly disturbing for both women and men was immigration. The Taoiseach may remember I was asked to speak unexpectedly one morning a week before he took office. I had spent the early morning at the railway station in Castleknock. I told the Taoiseach that I was astonished by the number of people who said to me that they would vote “No” and he sort of brushed it aside because he was going to run 50 Fianna Fáil meetings. I represent a constituency in which one third of people are immigrants. It is, in large part, very successful. However, Irish people are very concerned about their jobs, paying their mortgages and about their children and families. There is some racism, which is ugly and horrible, and I assume that is to what Deputy Enda Kenny was referring. We must deal with it. However, that is different from saying that people are concerned about the economy, their families, houses and their jobs. We must have a period of reflection, and I hope this country emerges stronger from it because there are great people in this country. This is not only an Irish problem but a shared European one. Tomorrow, when the leader of the Labour Party talks to the socialists in the European Parliament, we will put the Irish case but we will also say that this is not only our problem but a shared European one in terms of where we go next. Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): I join other party leaders in expressing disappointment at the result of the Lisbon treaty referendum. However, as an Irish person, I am very proud that this was the only country in the European Union to hold a referendum on this issue and it is regrettable that other countries did not do so. It points to the disconnect about which some of the previous speakers spoke between the European project and the peoples of Europe, a point to which I will return. We must respect that vote and maintain the highest respect for those who chose, democratically, to vote “No” in this referendum. We cannot afford to be in any way patronising. I have heard it said in recent days that those who voted “No” did not know for what they were voting. That may be true in some cases, but the same could equally be said of those who voted “Yes”. There was not only a democratic deficit, but an information deficit as well. Perhaps those of us on the “Yes” side should hold our hands up and admit we could have done better in that regard. As leader of the Green Party, I am proud that my party examined this issue in detail. We held a comprehensive internal party debate and party members were very well informed about it. We held a vote and 63% of the party membership voted in favour of the Lisbon treaty. That is not to say those who voted “Yes” were convinced by everything in the treaty, but on balance they believed it was a good deal for Ireland and Europe. One of the reasons I put forward and repeated during the course of the campaign was support for the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Several years ago I had doubts about the Charter of Fundamental Rights because I felt that perhaps it was not fully judicable. However, when I heard such people as Mr. John Palmer, Mr. Gerard Hogan and Mr. Tony Coughlan — all of whom come from different perspectives — say that it was, then, as someone interested in the whole question of human rights and fundamental rights like many in the Green Party, I agreed this charter should be supported by all democrats. Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Yes. Deputy John Gormley: The beauty of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is that it can be read as a stand alone document. There has been criticism, perhaps valid, that much of the Lisbon treaty could not be read as a stand alone document. The reason for this is the proposed constitution, much of which could be read as a stand alone document, was thrown out. The Lisbon treaty harked back to previous treaties, which was a difficulty exploited by the opponents of the treaty.  12 o’clockThe second reason I put forward in support of this treaty was the democratisation of the European Union. One lesson we could learn is to recognise the need to distil the treaty into several facets and point out that there are three fundamental reasons for supporting this treaty. It proposed giving more rights to national parliaments and the European Parliament, as well as enhancing the rights of European citizens through the citizens’ initiative. This was an area in which I worked when I was a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe. I drew up the first draft of the convention and I was delighted to see it as part of the treaty. I also proposed the need for a Europe-wide referendum which was, unfortunately, rejected because many member states wished to decide in their own way. We have a sovereign right to decide on the treaty in our way. Countries such as Germany do not recognise referendums. However, I believe such a proposal could have been negotiated and we could have had a plebiscite, but that is all said in hindsight. Perhaps the option can be revisited because we need to examine ways of engaging with the citizen in future. The other two reasons I put forward in support of the Lisbon treaty and which my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and I have spoken about at length are the provisions regarding energy security and climate change. It should have been emphasised more that it was this Government which inserted those provisions in the treaty. I am very proud to be part of a Government that recognises the importance of tackling climate change. It was argued by the “No” side that this does not amount to a hill of beans, but it was wrong. I have no doubt that this aim, as put forward in the treaty, would have been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights and that the court would have adopted a maximalist approach in this regard which would have made a fundamental difference. We have lead the way in the European Union in tackling climate change and we are now facing a situation where the provisions will not be realised, which is regrettable. Energy security and climate change are two issues facing all countries and it is not possible to tackle them in an isolated way. We are on the periphery of Europe and if we think we can go it alone on these issues, then we are sadly mistaken. We need only look at the price of oil at $135 per barrel and at people feeling the effects of this to know it is a major issue. Ironically, it is perhaps the case that this fed into a feeling of dissatisfaction among voters. Perhaps some voters decided in a fit of pique that, given increases in food prices and energy, they would vote “No”. This is regrettable because this treaty addressed those issues. We have rejected the treaty. During the campaign I said — it was not scare-mongering — that there would be extreme difficulties if we voted “No”; as it turns out, that is the case. It was described by the leader of the Labour Party as the biggest crisis that we have faced in half a century, which is saying a good deal. It is a crisis and there is no doubt about it. At the weekend I was in Austria and Germany and the headlines on every newspaper there stated that Ireland had plunged Europe into a crisis. There are people on the “No” side who may not want to know about this but it is the reality with which the Government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach must deal. I have no doubt they will bring all their diplomatic skills to bear on this matter. We also said in the course of the campaign that if there was a “No” vote, this treaty would be very difficult to renegotiate. It is clear we have been proven correct. The reason I said that was because I was a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe. We came up with the constitution which was rejected by the French and the Dutch. The Lisbon treaty was, in effect, plan B. We said there was no plan B for this treaty over and over again. We need only listen to what the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other party leaders have said in recent days to know that we spoke the plain truth on this matter. How can we renegotiate this treaty? I have heard those on the “No” side suggest the need to do this, that and the other. Do such people think our representatives, who are very skilled negotiators, did not think of these things at the time? Of course they did and they wanted to negotiate to get the best possible deal. The real difficulty is to know how we now go beyond that. We have heard issues raised about the position of the Commissioner. I vividly recall at the National Forum on Europe the former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, saying that the provisions of the Nice treaty dealing with the position of Commissioners were not good and I agree with him. However, we are now faced with the Nice treaty as the Lisbon treaty is gone. The Nice treaty states that once we reach a total of 27 Commissioners there must be a reduction in the number and I ask people to reflect on this point. The part of the treaty dealing with the arrangements for Commissioners which we negotiated as part of the Lisbon treaty was a vast improvement on the Nice treaty. Unfortunately, that was a message we could not convey. When one goes around the country, as I and others have done, one sees effective posters, the contents of which got into people’s heads. Those who were informed that Ireland would lose a Commissioner did not appreciate that we will lose a Commissioner in any case under the Nice treaty. I have always said, even when I was on the Opposition benches, that one cannot speak of Ireland as being neutral in the traditional sense. When we speak of military neutrality, we should more accurately speak of Ireland as being non-aligned. Ireland is in the same position as those Scandinavian countries which are known as former neutrals. There was never a question of the Lisbon treaty affecting Ireland’s non-aligned status in any way. Unanimity is required if that is to change. I suppose there was a failure to communicate those facts. As I went from door to door — I said this to reporters at the time — I was convinced that the people of my constituency would vote in favour of the treaty and that turned out to be the case, but I was not sure about other parts of the country. I share the concerns of other Deputies about the level of misinformation that was evident throughout the referendum campaign. I do not accuse everyone associated with the “No” campaign of using such tactics. A great degree of misinformation was certainly out there. I received telephone calls and text messages two days before polling to inform me that people were starting to believe a strong rumour that a “Yes” vote would lead to the introduction of water charges and the installation of water meters. Issues like conscription and abortion were also raised. It has to be recognised that the elephant in the room throughout the referendum campaign was the underlying suggestion that there are too many immigrants in this country, which is something we do not like to talk about in this Chamber. I do not doubt that many people have concerns of that nature. We have to look at that issue, with all other possible reasons people decided to vote “No”. I respect those who voted “No” for reasons which were absolutely valid and have to be respected, but I cannot deny that the campaign was marked by a level of misinformation that I have not experienced in the past. As Deputy Gilmore said, those who campaigned for a “No” vote have to consider how those on the extreme right can be on the same side as those on the extreme left. Mr. Ganley and others have a right wing agenda we do not yet fully understand. I am sure we will get to the bottom of it. People need to examine the objectives of Mr. Ganley, who claims that he is pro-European, which is something about which I have doubts. There is a need for a period of reflection. We need to analyse what the “No” vote tells us. If there were referendums in other countries, I do not doubt that there would have been some other “No” votes. The people of Europe are telling us they do not trust the direction in which we are heading. The Irish Government and its counterparts in all other member states need to study such matters. The Laeken declaration made it clear that we have to bring Europe closer to the people and the Lisbon treaty would go part of the way towards doing that. We need to determine how we can do better, and if we can do better, it will be in the interests of the people of Ireland and the rest of Europe. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Those who share my outlook on the Lisbon treaty believe that last Thursday, 12 June 2008, deserves to be remembered as a great day for democracy in Ireland and in Europe. It was a positive assertion by the Irish electorate of its power to decide on vital national issues. The people reached their verdict despite the hectoring of many people in the political and media establishment. This was not a vote about whether we should remain in the European Union — that question was not on the agenda — it was a vote about the type of EU we want to help to develop. Will it be an EU of political elites and bureaucrats or will it be a democratic Europe of the people? The votes were barely counted when the President of the European Commission, Mr. Barroso, when speaking out of both sides of his mouth, said that while he respected the Irish decision, the remaining member states should continue with the ratification process. As soon as he said that, it was clear that our vote had served a vital democratic purpose. It exposed the real choice that faces all the people of Europe. Is the EU to be a partnership of equal states with a voice at the top table for all member states, regardless of size? If it is to continue as such, the ratification of the Lisbon treaty cannot proceed. It requires the unanimous agreement of all states, which cannot be achieved because the people of this State have said “No”. If the democratic decision of the Irish people is not to be respected, we will have a federal EU in the form of a centralised super state. Many people on the “Yes” side carelessly trotted out the line that our small population should not presume to hold up hundreds of millions of people across Europe. Such a comment ignores the fact that hundreds of millions of people have been denied referendums in their own countries. It can lead to just one conclusion, which is that national democracies do not count. Such people believe that the only valid unit for decision-making is the elite who are at the helm of the European Union as we know it. We should make no mistake about it — they want a federal EU. It would be much simpler if those who want such a super state were to make that clear. However, that is not what the Irish people want and I believe it is not what the majority of people across Europe want either. While some advocates of the treaty have attempted to castigate the electorate for rejecting it, more reasonable voices have rightly pointed out that there is no crisis. Ireland will not be thrown out of the European Union. When the French and Dutch people rejected the proposed EU constitution in 2005, the ratification process was brought to an end. The same thing should happen in the case of the Lisbon treaty. The French and Dutch Governments told their EU counterparts that the game was up in the case of the constitutional treaty and that the ratification process should cease. The Irish Government needs to send a clear message to the European Commission at this week’s leaders’ summit that, notwithstanding its own support for the treaty, it is insisting on an end to the ratification process in countries which have not yet completed their respective processes. The Irish electorate, which overwhelmingly voted “No” last Thursday, deserves and expects no less. As a citizen who voted “No” to the Lisbon treaty, I respectfully ask the Taoiseach to declare his respect for and acceptance of the decision of the Irish people and to act accordingly. During this week’s leaders’ summit, he should call for an end to the ratification process throughout the European Union. I hope I can make this request on behalf of all my fellow citizens who voted “No”, for whatever reason. Similarly, I speak on behalf, I am certain, of the many thousands of people who voted “Yes” and strongly believe that the Irish decision should be fully respected and acted upon. The ball is at the Taoiseach’s feet. He must exercise his right and duty to ensure that the decision of the Irish people last Thursday is accepted and complied with. When he faces his counterparts over the coming days, the Taoiseach must insist that the Lisbon treaty is over and done with — nothing less will suffice. I reject the Taoiseach’s attempts this morning to sully the Irish people’s rejection of this treaty by trying to link it with the contemptuous views of Mr. Le Pen and others. Progressive people across Europe have welcomed the rejection of this much contested text. We are not alone in our opinion of the Lisbon treaty. This document has been put before the people of five countries and was overwhelmingly rejected in three instances. Sinn Féin will host an event in Brussels tomorrow with senior political representatives from France and the Netherlands. We will be joined by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, French Socialist Senator and President of Pour la République Sociale, PRS, Francis Wurtz, President of GUE/NGL and Dutch parliamentarian, Harry Von Bommel of the Social Party. These are respected, sensible, grounded parliamentarians who, like Sinn Féin, won the support of their people through calm, measured and informed debate. We should stick to the facts not alone in regard to the text of the Lisbon treaty but in respect of the clear welcome of the Irish people’s decision last Thursday as echoed right across the European Union. Throughout the campaign, Sinn Féin argued that the Lisbon treaty was a bad deal and that a better deal for Ireland and Europe was possible. We focused on three specific concerns. We argued that the Lisbon treaty would deepen the democratic deficit. It would do so by removing this State’s permanent Commissioner; would reduce our voting strength at Council, removing or weakening a number of key strategic vetoes on taxation and international trade and by giving the European Council the power to amend the fundamental laws of the Union. That the treaty was written and presented in an unintelligible form that added an information deficit to the democratic deficit is clearly indisputable. We argued that in addition to taking the EU further down the road of developing common foreign and defence policies, these policies would promote militarisation and, in turn, undermine this State’s neutrality. We were deeply worried the Lisbon treaty was designed to further open up vital public services such as health and education to competition and, in turn, privatisation. This liberalising drive would have been complemented by the removal of key vetoes on the inclusion of health, education and social services in international trade agreements. Sinn Féin also expressed deep disappointment with the failure of the drafters of the Lisbon treaty to address issues of workers’ rights and the continuing trend towards social dumping aided and abetted by the European Court of Justice. In addition to these key areas we also highlighted issues such as the negative impact of the treaty on the developing world and Ireland’s continued involvement in the European Atomic Energy Community. The campaign is over and the verdict is clear. I welcome Fine Gael and Labour’s commitment not to seek a second referendum on Lisbon and I call on the Government to do likewise in clear and unequivocal terms. However, the most important task now is to ensure the better deal, for which the people voted, is secured. While the primary responsibility in this effort lies with the Government, there is a responsibility on those of us who argued against the treaty to outline in detail of what we believe such a deal should consist. We must also support the Government in achieving the best possible outcome of any future negotiations. I say that sincerely, as I did yesterday on the floor of this House. Also, I encourage all sectors, whatever their position on the treaty, to grasp this opportunity and to work with the rest of us in this cause. Today Sinn Féin will submit to the Irish Government a detailed position paper outlining proposed changes to the Lisbon treaty. Among the changes we are arguing for are the retention of a permanent commissioner for all member states; the retention of the Nice treaty formulae for qualified majority voting; the removal of all eight self-amending articles, including the simplified revision procedure in Article 48; the removal of Article 46a giving the EU a single legal personality; a strengthened protocol on the role of member state parliaments; a significantly expanded protocol on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, including the aims and values of the EU; substantial amendments to aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy; substantial amendments to the section of Common Defence and Security Policy; a new protocol on neutrality; a strengthened social clause; a substantially revised protocol on vital public services; amendments to articles dealing with public services and state aid; the inclusion of the European Trade Union Confederation Social Progress Clause to protect workers’ rights; a protocol on Irish tax sovereignty; substantial amendments to Article 188 dealing with international trade agreements, including a cast iron veto on mixed World Trade Organisation agreements; a new protocol ending Ireland’s participation in the European Atomic Energy Community; and a series of amendments to Articles 10 and 188 promoting the needs of the developing world in the context of international trade. |