THE LISBON Treaty is "by far the most minor" of any EU treaty the Irish people have ever been asked to vote on, former EU commissioner Peter Sutherland has said.
He was speaking at the Forum on Europe in Dublin yesterday where he played down the significance of the content of the treaty, but said that Ireland's rejection of it would "not be a trivial event" and would put Ireland at odds with the rest of Europe.
The various arguments against the treaty were "spurious", "of little substance" and "absolutely illusory", he said, and references to Ireland's "special position" in relation to its neutrality were "embarrassing".
The treaty was simply a way of adapting the EU to deal with the effects of enlargement and to provide a new legal basis for dealing more effectively with issues such as climate change, energy security, foreign policy and terrorism, but it gave "virtually no" new powers to the EU, he said.
"This is by far the most minor of treaties that has been put before the Irish people over the years ... . ... . . ... ... it doesn't surprise me that no other county is holding a referendum," he said.
"It is much less substantive than the SEA [ Single European Act], the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam or Nice treaties. Contrary to the case made by its opponents, it confers virtually no new competences on the EU."
Referendums on these treaties had been fought on "spurious grounds" and this referendum was no different, he said.
"Who even remembers what the arguments were that caused a vote against the Nice Treaty?"
Anti-treaty campaigners made the point that Ireland would not have an EU commissioner for five out of every 15 years.
"This is true, but does it surprise them that France, Germany and the United Kingdom, for example, have agreed to precisely the same thing?"
He added that commissioners have to put EU interests above those of their own countries.
Claims that Peter Mandelson would have more control over Irish farming made no sense at all, and suggestions that neutrality would be compromised were "absolutely illusory", he said.
"Unanimity is preserved. So too is the virtually compulsory and, to me, embarrassing reference to the fact that the common security and defence policy shall not prejudice the specific security and defence policies of the member states."
Socialist Party politician Joe Higgins said Mr Sutherland, who went on from his EU role to become chairman of BP and Goldman Sachs International, was the patronising voice of big business and was pushing the agenda of privatisation.
"It is not illusory that the Lisbon Treaty further intensifies the militarisation of the European Union. It crushes the right of any European state to have an independent foreign policy."
Mr Sutherland wanted the same vision for Europe as he wanted for his companies - to privatise services and make massive profits, Mr Higgins said.
"I will not be patronised by you, sir. You talk down to us without making arguments of any substance," he added.
