Danny Kinahan (UUP)

I look forward to speaking on the serious subject of the Lisbon Treaty referendum. I support the Ulster Unionist Party’s amendment, which proposes to rescind the treaty and hold a referendum. If the public are watching, many will be extremely muddled as to who is for Europe and who is against it.

The motion is muddled in that it looks for a binding promise that we cannot give on an issue that we may not be able to deliver. ‘The Economist’ has stated that the Lisbon Treaty had made Europe too complicated and that it is difficult for all of us to understand. The Ulster Unionist Party is pro-Europe, most Members are pro-Europe to varying degrees, and most Members support a referendum. The Ulster Unionist Party is for Europe, and I will point out what Europe has done for us. It has brought together 27 very different countries, which has been an enormous success; it has helped struggling nations; and it has opened discussions on the issue of climate change and introduced environmental legislation that the House may not even have considered, given that one corner of the House does not believe in global warming.

Nevertheless, the Lisbon Treaty may take away our sovereignty and part of our history, of which we are very proud. The European Union is complicated, and it is becoming too big and too expensive.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Does the Member agree that the anti-European or Euro-sceptic views that have been expressed by some Members are to be regretted? We should be at the heart of, and show our wholehearted support for, Europe, which the Member has just done.

William Hay (Speaker)

The Member has an extra minute.

Danny Kinahan (UUP)

Thank you. I look forward to an extra minute.

I do not agree fully with the Member. In varying degrees, we are all for Europe. ‘The Economist’ has stated that politics is local and that economics is global. We joined Europe for economic reasons, and we want that to continue. However, we want Europe to have less influence in our politics.

Trevor Clarke (DUP)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kinahan (UUP)

No. If I may, I would like to keep going.

The Lisbon Treaty may take all of that away. Recently, I was lucky enough to visit Brussels, where, in one of the many meetings that I attended, it was explained that, if we want to influence European legislation, we need to look at it two years before it is introduced. Once it is introduced, there is very little that we can do about it. The UK must not throw away its influence with the Commonwealth and its special relationship with America. Europe has been weak in certain areas, particularly in defence. Remember Rwanda, when Europe stood by and did absolutely nothing. A referendum is needed.

The motion refers to parties that have aspirations. That is a reference to the UUP, which is not part of the sideshow or of little Ulster. We want to have influence through our link with the Conservative Party, and we want to be with it in influencing what happens in Europe and what happens here. We are proud of the Union, and we are ready for change.

The Ulster Unionist Party wants a referendum for two reasons. First, the public must have their chance and their say. We must all educate the public on European issues and on where we are going. Secondly, a referendum is needed so that Europe knows exactly where the UK stands.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I thank all the Members who have taken depart in the debate, because I think it is very useful. Although some are suggesting that it is merely about a referendum, I have not missed — I do not think anybody could miss — the anti-European undertone of most of those who are proposing that there should be a referendum. It is a referendum with a view to undermining our commitment to Europe, and, indeed, undermining the commitment of Europe to us.

We in the SDLP have never been uncritical supporters of the European Union, but we examine each situation that arises rationally and on its merits. Over many years, I have repeatedly drawn the conclusion that the European Union as a whole, and European integration generally, works in our best interests. The simple — maybe too simple — illustration of that is the fact that over €1·65 billion, around £1·5 billion, has been invested in Northern Ireland from the European Union via the peace and reconciliation funds. That funding has, without question, provided a vital lifeline in Northern Ireland and the border counties of the Republic.

The European Union continues to prove that it is essential for securing and promoting jobs, the development of tourism, and the protection of our agriculture sector. Although things can sometimes be bad when we are inside, and working with, the European Union, they would be an awful lot worse if we were outside.

Jim Shannon (DUP)

I thank the Member for giving way. Although the Member mentioned how good Europe has been for the farming industry, it has not been equally as good for the fishing industry. That industry is one of the poor relations, with all the regulations that come from Europe, and the so-called scientific evidence that results in restricting the days at sea and restricting quotas. Does the Member accept that the European Union is not helping the fishing industry? Indeed, if anything, it is killing it.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I thank my colleague for reminding me. Fishing is one of the issues that I was thinking of when I said that the SDLP had never been uncritical. Seas have been overfished and overworked, and the European Union has tried to curtail fishing, and sometimes to conserve fishing. Had it not been for some of the conservation — and I feel uncomfortable about it — many of the stocks of fish would have been wiped out. However, it is a concern that the fishing industry has been squeezed again and again. It is not so much a European problem as a global problem. There is overfishing, and one of these days, there will be very few fish left; they will become harder to find.

I am suggesting that Europe has been, and continues to be, good to us, with our infrastructure and community development funded from Brussels. It has continued to be good to us through key infrastructure investments such as the Kelvin project, which will ensure that at least eight towns in Northern Ireland and five just south of the border acquire the fastest telecoms connection to North America from anywhere in Europe. That new infrastructure will help us to attract international business and give us a much better trading platform. In many ways, it may have helped to create the atmosphere for the jobs announcement that we heard earlier this week.

Through the reforms of the Lisbon Treaty, Europe can be even better for us in the future. I am at a loss to understand why there is an intrinsic hostility to Europe espoused by many in the DUP and Sinn Féin, and, indeed, the Ulster Unionist Party. It strikes me as a paranoid view that one cannot trust foreigners.

Trevor Clarke (DUP)

Perhaps I have missed the point, but surely the essence of the motion is that it is not the DUP’s view. The motion calls for the public to be given an opportunity to have a view; it does not necessarily force the view of the proposers upon others.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Maybe I will get to that in a second. Our suspicion of foreigners is unhealthy. It is wise to be sensible and cautious, but we can sometimes be too cautious.

The Lisbon Treaty is an attempt to bring the institutions of Europe out of the 1970s, when they were set up to manage 15 states, and into the twenty-first century, when the European Union comprises 27 states. I warmly welcome a union of 27 states, because, like a lot of Members, I did not like the concepts of the Iron Curtain and of Eastern Europe under the jackboot of Russia. We had an obligation to help those states, and I am glad that the European Union has taken them on board.

William Hay (Speaker)

The Member must draw his remarks to a close.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Globally and locally, we face unprecedented economic and social challenges. Member states cannot rise and overcome those challenges alone.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin believes that every citizen of the European Union should have a say in such fundamental decisions about how society is run, whether that is in Ireland, Britain, France or Holland. Sinn Féin is not hostile to Europe, as the previous Member who spoke alleged. All politicians, elected representatives and members of the public have a right to scrutinise legislation and to make decisions on legislation such as the Lisbon Treaty. It is unhealthy for democracy and democratic debate that some parties adopt a carte blanche approach to any legislation that comes out of Europe. The treaty is not about staying in Europe or about economic investment, and some Members must recognise that.

The European Union will advance towards common foreign policies. Funding will increase for a European defence agency, there will be an EU Foreign Minister, and military alliances will be formed to carry out common foreign and defence initiatives. Those are facts, and that goes above and beyond the peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance that is already taking place.

Lisbon II was not a referendum on whether the Twenty-six Counties should stay in the European Union. It was not a referendum on job creation, as some in the Government alleged. The treaty contains nothing that will incentivise investment or stimulate growth. Ironically, the economic policies that the Lisbon Treaty promotes are exactly the same policies that drove us into the current economic crisis.

For the past 20 years, the European Union has pushed a right-wing economic agenda, promoting deregulation and liberalisation. It has aggressively promoted competition in all areas of the economy, including in public services. The European Union has weakened the ability of the state to manage the economy, leading to privatisation and inequality.

Much is revealed by an interesting quote from the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC). It told the National Forum on Europe that the treaty:

“creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest (Art. 106). A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education”.

Jim Shannon (DUP)

Will the Member agree that the Lisbon Treaty will affect 60 important areas, including policing, the army, justice, the finance system and employment? The treaty will make life easier for criminals. Will the Member agree that the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom should have the right to vote on it and to say no to it?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin)

I agree that everyone has the right to vote on issues that are as fundamental as that. It affects a wide range of issues, which must be addressed.

Public services, such as healthcare and education, will, under article 16 of the Lisbon Treaty, be subject to new economic and financial conditions. Healthcare and education will be subject to further privatisation, and, in turn, greater levels of inequality. We do not wish to see a united states of Europe.

We do not want to go down the same road as the United States, not only with regard to foreign policy and a unified army, but on critical issues such as health and education. We are aware of the gross health inequalities in the United States. There is little wonder that politicians such as Silvio Berlusconi have backed the Lisbon Treaty. It is fundamentally a right-wing treaty that will do nothing for Irish people’s quality of life.

SDLP member Alban Maginness suggested that a number of changes to the Lisbon Treaty were secured. That is just wrong: not one word of the treaty was changed between Lisbon I and Lisbon II. He said that a number of guarantees were secured by the Irish Government. In saying that, does he not recognise that Lisbon I was wrong in the first place and that Sinn Féin was, therefore, right to lobby for a “No” vote?

He talks about enhanced democracy. Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the European Union power to amend treaties without referenda. Clearly, therefore, it takes away from the democratic agenda. As regards nuclear power — an issue that SDLP members allege is close to their hearts — the Lisbon Treaty again reaffirms and mandates the European Union to promote nuclear energy.

All in all, Cheann Comhairle, I thank the Members who brought the motion to the House. It is important that the House debate European issues. It does not do so often enough. The European Union has a great deal of power to set legislation that affects members of the public on the island. We must ensure that our voices are heard and that the views of the people of Europe are heard on fundamental changes to legislation. I support the motion.

Roy Beggs (UUP)

Why are there concerns about the Lisbon Treaty? If the treaty is enacted throughout Europe, the European community will change. UK citizens will no longer determine their own future. It will frequently be decided by others.

My colleague Danny Kinahan quoted ‘The Economist’; he said, rightly, that politics are local and economics are global. How true that statement is. The European Economic Community will become a political union. It will not be local. There will not be local politics. Decisions will be made remotely and will be unaccountable.

At present, European decisions must have the approval of the democratically elected Government in the European Council, or of the European Parliament. In future, a wide range of decisions will be made by the new proportionality voting system. Gregory Campbell, rightly, highlighted that as the fundamental shift that comes with the Lisbon Treaty. That means that other people can impose laws on us that do not have the British people’s support.

We are expected to be content that the Parliament will be consulted for eight weeks, instead of six weeks. Although I respect Alban Maginness’s comments, consultation of merely eight weeks, rather than six, does not improve democratic accountability. I question why the Alliance Party seems to be content with that.

We must ask what the purpose of the motion is as it is originally worded. Is it designed to achieve a particular outcome, or is it merely playing at party politics? It calls for parties to give a commitment to hold a referendum within 12 months of the next Westminster election. Why wait, possibly, up to 18 months? Such a delay could enable ratification of the treaty, to which the proposers claim to object.

My colleague Danny Kennedy indicated that the Ulster Unionist Party has given commitments to hold a referendum prior to the ratification of the treaty. That is what my party wishes to do. The proposers of the motion either fail to understand the nature of British parliamentary democracy or EU law, or are being mischievous. The key time is now, not 18 months from now, by which time ratification could have come into effect.

Alex Easton (DUP)

Does the Member not agree that the DUP put down a motion a year ago that called for a referendum? Therefore, the DUP has been ahead of the game on the issue. My party has been pushing for a referendum — not the Ulster Unionist Party.

Roy Beggs (UUP)

The Member did not answer the question that I posed: why does his party want to wait 18 months when, during that time, the treaty could be ratified? Perhaps, in summing up, a member of that party could answer the question.

It will be extremely difficult and painful to change the treaty once it comes into effect. Indeed, how will the outcome of a successful referendum to end the treaty be put into effect? Are the proposers of the motion, who indicate that they wish to hold a referendum in 18-months time and after the enactment of the treaty, going to bind the UK to withdrawal from Europe? That could be the outcome.

Simon Hamilton (DUP)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP)

No, I have given way already.

I notice that the proposers of the motion have not stated that that will be the case. However, if that is what they are stating, they should do so clearly.

Mitchel McLaughlin supports both the opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and the DUP motion. However, what consultation has there been with the business community or the community and voluntary sector about a possible withdrawal from Europe? I have major businesses in my constituency to think about; for example, FG Wilson and Schrader Electronics, two companies that trade extensively in Europe. That is a key reason why jobs are located here, why companies invest here and why new investment may come here. Have the proposers of the motion consulted the business community on how withdrawal from Europe could threaten jobs?

The Ulster Unionist Party has its differences with how we are governed in Europe, but withdrawal is not an option at this time. We would rather improve the structures in Europe to meet the needs of the United Kingdom.

The British Labour Party made a commitment to hold a referendum, and then welshed on it. That commitment should be honoured before the Lisbon Treaty is enacted.

Sammy Wilson failed to explain why nine DUP MPs supported the Government, gave them a lifeline, and thus enabled this law to come into effect. Had the Government fallen, and had there been an election, the treaty would not have been ratified. Someone should explain that.

I ask Members to support the amendment, follow the proper procedures to ensure that Parliament withdraw its approval for the treaty and have an urgent referendum on the issue so that the United Kingdom can legally withdraw from the process. That will allow for a much better process to be put in place, one that enables continuing co-operation in Europe yet respects nation states.

Simon Hamilton (DUP)

On a personal basis, I am much opposed to the Lisbon Treaty. In particular, I am opposed to the furtherance of EU power at the centre, the erosion of nation-state status, and the weakening of the powers of national Parliaments. I am concerned by the increasing development of the EU as a state, as seen in the Lisbon Treaty; by the idea of a permanent president of the European Council, in effect, a European foreign minister; the legal personality of the EU; and by the 29 new areas in which qualified majority voting will be the decision-making mechanism, and not unanimity as before.

A Member mentioned the “citizens” of Europe. There is no such thing as a “citizen” of the EU at the moment. However, the Lisbon Treaty will create EU citizens. In many ways, the issue is not so much about the precise provisions of the Lisbon Treaty; rather, it is about further extension of EU power without recourse to the British people and without allowing them to have their say.

On 8 October 2007, David Burnside said that the British people had been sold a pup. There is such a contrast between Mr Burnside’s virulent anti-European comments and those of the individual who replaced him in the House. However, in this case, I agree with David Burnside. The British people were sold, what was in effect, a very tame trading block within Europe. That is being replaced with something that is taking on, ever more, the personality of a super state, as we see in the Lisbon Treaty.

However, this is not about my view, the DUP’s view, or the view of any party in the Assembly. It is about the view of the people of the United Kingdom. The British people have been betrayed by the Labour Party, which promised in its 2005 manifesto that it would:

“put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe.”

It is the Labour Party’s right to support a “yes” vote, but the point is its support for a referendum on the treaty. Despite what the previous Member who spoke said, the DUP would welcome a referendum immediately. We want the British people to get their say as soon as possible.

Roy Beggs (UUP)

Will the Member give way?

Simon Hamilton (DUP)

The Member will have to hold on; I want to expand my point.

If the Member and his colleagues look at the motion, they will see that it reaffirms the Assembly’s support for an immediate referendum. The motion demands a referendum today as much as it demands one from the next Government.

The Labour Party’s manifesto pledge has been completely ignored. The Conservative Party manifesto states:

“We oppose the EU Constitution and would give the British people the chance to reject its provisions in a referendum”.

That pledge has, to be polite, been nuanced to the extent that there is real concern and confusion about the party’s position. The Conservative Party moves from unequivocal endorsement of a referendum to a position that is unclear, not just to me and others in this Chamber, but to members of that party.

Alex Easton (DUP)

Does the Member agree that the Lisbon Treaty would create a president, a motto, a flag, an anthem and all the trappings of constitutional power? It seems that the Ulster Unionists are backtracking and are supporting the creation of a European superstate.

Simon Hamilton (DUP)

Like the Member, I am concerned by the European Union’s attempt to develop trappings of power that would be centralised in Brussels, particularly the creation of a permanent president and foreign minister. Those are positions that every state has, so if the European Union is not a developing superstate, why does it want to take on those characteristics?

Danny Kennedy (UUP)

It seems that the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party agree on the need for a referendum. If the DUP regards a referendum as fundamental, why did its parliamentary team at Westminster not, through their votes and influence, take their opportunity to bring down a Labour Government that failed to honour the promise to hold a referendum that they made to the electorate? Why did the DUP not take that opportunity and create circumstances in which a referendum could be held?

Simon Hamilton (DUP)

After making that point twice and having it knocked down on both occasions, I did not think that the Member would want to embarrass himself any further. He is accusing my party of propping up a Government by supporting them in a vote on stronger anti-terrorism measures, even though his party’s sole MP also supported it. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker)

Order. The Member is making a winding-up speech on the motion and has the Floor.

Simon Hamilton (DUP)

Throughout her tenure at Westminster, the Ulster Unionist Party’s sole constituency..." class="glossary">Member of Parliament has habitually propped up the Labour Government, so much so that she is probably more loyal to the Labour Whip than many of the Labour Party’s Back-Benchers.

I am not confused about the Tory position and neither are the people of the United Kingdom; it is the Conservative Party that is confused. One need only look at the mess that it has got itself into over recent weeks to see that. For example, David Heathcoat-Amory said of David Cameron:

“He simply can’t fudge his way through this”.

On the other side, David Curry said of the treaty:

We should accept it.”

In contrast, Andrew Rosindell said:

“I speak to people in my own constituency and I can tell you that everybody wants a referendum.”

Roger Helmer MEP said — [Interruption.]

The Ulster Unionist Members do not want to hear about the very difficult position that they have got themselves into with the Conservative Party.

Danny Kennedy (UUP)

Will the Member give way?

Simon Hamilton (DUP)

No; I have already given way to the Member.

The Ulster Unionist Party Members are scared stiff of the difficulties that the issue poses in the ranks of their new political alliance. When someone as pro-European as Kenneth Clarke says that he is content with the Conservative Party’s position on the Lisbon Treaty, it should be cause for concern for those of us who oppose it, including the Ulster Unionist Party Members who say that they oppose it.

Although the Conservative Party is not in government, it has moved away from the position that is stated in its manifesto about its credentials in opposing a federalist, growing superstate in Europe. After all, the Conservative Party took us into Europe and expanded the remit of the European Union through successive treaties.

It is clear from today’s debate that there is no clarity whatsoever on the possible position of a Conservative Government. The party says that it will not let matters rest, but there is no clarity about whether it will let people have their say. It plays up the issue to win support but, on every occasion, falls short of allowing the British people to have their say on this important issue. If the matter is of such serious political consequence, why have the people of the UK been denied a say? The people of Ireland have had their say on two occasions, whereas the people of the United Kingdom have not once had a say. In fact, we have had no say on the expansion of Europe since the second referendum in the 1970s.

I am concerned about the outsourcing of the constitutional status of the United Kingdom, which is an important issue, to the President of the Czech Republic. In essence, a matter that should be in the hands of the British people has been given to the head of state of another nation. The British people have been treated abysmally by successive Governments on the European issue. What do the Labour Party and the Conservative Party fear? Why have the people of Britain not been allowed, as they were promised, to have a say on the fundamental constitutional issue? I want a referendum as soon as possible. The party in government in the United Kingdom, and the party that aspires to be, have promised us a referendum; it is high time that we had our referendum.

William Hay (Speaker)

The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

Simon Hamilton (DUP)

We need an unequivocal commitment to a referendum on an issue that is important to the people of the United Kingdom.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 12; Noes 48.

AYES

Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Cobain, Mr Cree,  Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Gardiner, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kinahan, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea,  Mr Savage.

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Beggs and Mr Kinahan.

NOES

Mr Attwood, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley,  Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Burns, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Dallat,  Mr Dodds, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Ford,  Mrs Foster, Mr Gallagher, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn,  Mr A Maginness, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCausland,  Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Dr McDonnell,  Mr McGlone, Miss McIlveen, Mr McQuillan,  Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr O’Loan, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mr P Ramsey,  Mr G Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Shannon, Mr Spratt,  Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr B Wilson.

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Hamilton and Mr Shannon.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 47; Noes 19.

AYES

Mr Boylan, Mr Brady, Mr Bresland, Mr Brolly,  Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Butler, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Dodds, Mr Doherty,  Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Ms Gildernew, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr P Maskey,  Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney,  Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea,  Mrs McGill, Miss McIlveen, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McQuillan, Mr Molloy, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill,  Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Ms S Ramsey,  Mr G Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Shannon, Mr Spratt,  Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells.

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Hamilton and Mr Shannon.

NOES

Mr Attwood, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley,  Mr Burns, Mr Dallat, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher,  Mrs D Kelly, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn,  Mr A Maginness, Mr McCarthy, Dr McDonnell,  Mr McGlone, Mr McHugh, Mr O’Loan, Mr P Ramsey, Mr B Wilson.

Tellers for the Noes: Mr McCarthy and Mr O’Loan.

The following Members voted in both Lobbies and are therefore not counted in the result: Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Cobain, Mr Cree, Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Gardiner, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kinahan, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Mr McFarland.

Main Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the verdict of the Republic of Ireland electorate on the Lisbon Treaty referendum; reaffirms its support for a referendum in the United Kingdom on the treaty; and calls for a declaration from those parties aspiring to form the incoming Government of the United Kingdom to give an unequivocal commitment to hold, within a twelve month period from assuming office in 2010, a binding referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that is unconditional and unrelated to how other member states choose to vote, and the result of which will not be held in abeyance pending a further referendum on the subject.