I am sure the Government has no hesitation at all. There is a serious issue in terms of how the Minister for justice is dealing with some incredibly important Bills that will have implications for years to come, and that is his inability to engage with the Houses of the Oireachtas regarding EU matters in a timely manner. I have lost count of the number of times that a Minister from the Department of justice has come in here with a proposal and said that time is of the essence and we have to adopt it within the following number of weeks. The question is: whose fault is that? It is certainly not the fault of Opposition Members who are told that there is an urgency. This is particularly the case with this proposal. The briefing note circulated by the Department highlights the particular urgency and lists 23 June, less than a week from now, as the deadline. That is the timeframe the Houses have to consider it. The Minister might consider me to be naive but I would have thought that the purpose of debates in this House was to scrutinise proposals, identify issues and suggest improvements or other beneficial courses of action, but the truth of the matter is that these motions have become a rubber-stamping exercise that have become the hallmark of how he approaches this. The least that the Houses of the Oireachtas deserve is an adequate timeline. I am told that for all the lack of notice we got in this House, the Seanad was give 24 hours' notice in respect of this motion. The Minister of State referred to the deadline of 23 June. She stated this is because of the pressures of Article 3 of protocol 21 and it is important that we go back to the basis of where protocol 21 came from. It provided an opt-out for Ireland and Britain at the time in respect of matters concerning security, freedom and of that nature. There are two provisions in it. The first, Article 3, that the Minister of State cites, essentially allows the Government to opt in at an early stage of the deliberative process and within which comes a very tight deadline, but I am astounded that her contribution never mentioned Article 4 because Article 4 provides a different mechanism for Ireland to opt in, if that is the considered view of the Government and the Houses of the Oireachtas. That allows us to sign in at any stage after the enactment of the proposal. Of course, the Government will cite that Article 3 brings us to the table, allows us to be part of the deliberations and the decision-making process but it also forces us to accept whatever decision is made, even if we oppose it and are in a minority in a qualified majority voting situation. Two questions arise from that. Do we have faith in the Ministers to defend and fight for the positions of the Oireachtas behind closed doors when they treat the Oireachtas with such contempt on an ongoing basis in relation to these motions? Do we trust the Minister at a time he is signing us up under protocol 21 to probably the greatest number of EU proposals ever? He has given up opt-outs where we have always had them and opted in and he is increasingly using Article 3 rather than Article 4, which was the primary mechanism used by previous Governments to sign up. This is all too familiar. We saw the furore in recent weeks when members of the public became aware in respect of the EU migration and asylum pact that we are locked in not only through this Government but future governments to an EU framework that takes no account of the unique circumstances and challenges that this particular island nation, divided as it is, faces. In the Seanad earlier, the Minister misrepresented, or at least misunderstood, Sinn Féin's position because we have always acknowledged that there are areas where there is a need for EU collaboration. It is absolutely the case that combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences could be one of them but that should be done on the basis of considered discussion in this House. That should have been done as a result of debates at the Oireachtas joint committee on justice in the first instance where we have thoughtful detailed conversations as to what precisely it means for Ireland to opt in, what provisions of sovereignty precisely are being handed over and what the value for this State is in handing over that sovereignty, then a considered debate in this House and then moving forward, but instead what happens is decisions are made behind closed doors to opt in. I have the briefing note here. That is what has been provided to the Oireachtas by way of considered deliberation by the Department by way of briefing and then we are being asked at short notice to opt in under Article 3 and trust the Ministers to have our back as a state in EU negotiations. It does not matter after that whether they do have our backs, because we are locked in anyway. This is not at all the way to do business. There is a particular issue when it comes to firearms. When we are dealing with terrorism and serious firearms trafficking, I fully accept there is a need for, and merit in, operating on an EU basis. However, game clubs and hunting organisations, for example, have highlighted to us that when previous Governments signed us up under Article 4 to firearms legislation at EU level, there was no consideration for the impact on those types of local organisations and, subsequently, no real engagement on the part of the Department. I will be voting against this motion. I do so on the basis of standing up for the rights of the Houses of the Oireachtas to have full and proper consideration of these matters, not to be subjected to a rubber-stamping exercise and not to be treated with what I consider to be absolute and utter disdain in terms of proper accountability. The Minister of State can say these are democratic decisions. Yes, this will be a democratic decision in that Members will vote on it, but nobody can argue in any way that there has been democratic consideration, accountability and discussion in respect of this motion. That absolutely has not happened.

Sentiment score: 0.13