Nice Treaty Referendum: Statements (Resumed).

Mr. Roche

When I was speaking the last day we discussed this matter I intended to make a general point about the confusion that surrounded the debate here and the manner in which it had been unhelpfully portrayed by members of the European Commission. The speech made last night by Commissioner Prodi illustrates the gulf that now exists between the members of the European Commission and the citizens of the Union. The Commission President's speech as reported was unwelcome. It was an affront to every Member of this House and to the leadership of all the major political parties who campaigned in the Nice referendum on the basis that the Treaty of Nice was fundamentally important in terms of the enlargement of the Community. Now it seems Mr. Prodi and his friends have taken an alternative view. The Commission President and some of his colleagues may wish to ignore the views of the Irish people on the Nice treaty but we cannot and should not.

As I said at the outset of the debate, I am firmly committed to the idea of European integration. I believe the European Union and its predecessors, the EC and the ECSC, provided the framework within which Europe could grow, prosper and develop in the post war years. Above all else, the European Community and its predecessors gave us peace. That is not the issue. What is in question is the capacity of the European Commission, and more particularly its President, to understand that it is sovereign, independent nation states that make up the European Union. The level of sovereignty that the independent states have freely chosen to surrender in the process of building the new Union and the new Europe is strictly a matter for law and the states themselves.

In this sovereign independent nation the basic, fundamental law is the Constitution which the Irish people adopted in 1937. They are the sole masters of that Constitution and are the only ones with the sovereign power to change it. So far as the Nice Treaty is concerned, the Irish people have spoken and, like it or lump it, the Commission and its President have no option but to accept it. They should do so with more good grace than they have shown in the recent past. Any attempt to move forward in Europe within the Nice process without formal Irish ratification would be illegal under European law and subject to challenge in either domestic courts or in the European Court. It is my contention that the suggestion from the Commission in recent weeks that we can somehow ignore the Nice referendum is based on an ultra vires view. If Commissioner Prodi and his commissioners choose to ignore that they will do so at their peril.

This is not the first time that the Commission President has put his two feet into it, metaphorically speaking, so far as Ireland is concerned. Earlier this year we had the attack by the European Commission on the Irish budget. That rang alarm bells in the minds of many Irish taxpayers. At the time, I pointed out that intervention would undoubtedly have a significant impact on the Nice ratification process. That is undoubtedly what happened. It was significant in the eyes of people when making up their minds on how to vote in the recent referendum. The Irish are not prepared to surrender taxation sovereignty to a Europe dominated by left-wing Governments who in many cases are ideologically committed to high tax and high spend policies. It is extraordinary in the past 48 hours to hear Commissioner Prodi again refer to issues relating to taxation. High tax, high spend policies may well be suitable for certain member states. That is a matter for their parliaments. The only body constitutionally charged with raising taxes in this country is Dáil Éireann and that is not the view of this House. While I support the idea of European integration, taxation is not a power that I would wish to see conceded to a non-elected largely left-wing group of commissioners sitting in Brussels. The reality is there is a dangerous gulf growing between the people of Europe and the bureaucrats who people the institutions of Europe.

The Nice treaty, no matter what its good intentions, is a document that has been democratically tested in only one member state, and that is Ireland. It failed to meet the democratic test in this nation. It is an arrogance for any politician, either here or any commissioner in Europe, to ignore the fundamental fact that the Irish people have spoken with some clarity on the matter. Yet, last night the President of the European Commission suggested that somehow or other the Irish people's will can be undone. If the Commission, its leaders or the Governments of other European states decide to sweep democracy aside, we must ask on what basis is the future of Europe to be built.

A core issue that Schümann, Monet, De Gasperi and all the architects of modern Europe sought to enshrine and reflect in its institutions was democracy. That is fundamental. If we look at their early speeches we will see that was one of the issues that bound them together. There can be no doubt that there is a growing and dangerous democratic deficit in Europe. The views of the Irish people reflected the discontent that is widescale across the continent of Europe. There were a series of issues in the referendum other than that but it was a centre and core issue.

Over the past two days, I attended a meeting of the interim European Security and Defence Assembly. I was amazed and gratified in equal measure at the response by European parliamentarians from 28 different European nations to the Irish referendum. It was an interesting one and an extraordinary eye-opener. There was no finger-wagging or suggestion that the people had got it wrong or were confused, rather there was a degree of admiration for the decision the Irish had made. Speakers from the United Kingdom to Slovenia to Greece spoke on the issue. They indicated their support for the right of the Irish people to make a decision on this matter. They were by no means all Euro sceptics. Speakers from a number of countries both within and outside the Union indicated that the Irish people in their vote reflected a common view and concern that now exists both within the EU and in those states most proximate to the EU. Members from the EU states who contributed directly in the debate or who spoke privately to the Irish delegation members indicated that it was their view – I made an effort to do a straw poll – that referenda on the Nice treaty as it currently stands, if held in other member states, would meet with the same public response as in Ireland.

There is something distinctly odd about democratic states attempting to take decisions that are out of line with the sentiment of their citizens. The gulf that exists between the citizens of Europe and the institutions, the commissioners and the bureaucrats who are now driving the Union is no more visible than in the area of peace, security and defence. In the run up to the Nice treaty the European Council decided, quite incredibly, that somehow the European Union could now take charge of peace, security and defence issues across the continent of Europe within and outside the Union.

Last month in the Hague the chairman of the European Parliament defence committee, Mr. Brok, made an absolute ass of himself by suggesting that the European Parliament with all its warts, which is made up of members of only 15 European states, somehow provides democratic oversight for the entire continent of Europe. When he was asked by some people from the eastern European states if they too were not Europeans, he failed to give a coherent answer. The best he could do was indicate a state of confusion. This response to valid questions, coming from the chairperson of the defence committee of the European Parliament, is all too familiar. It indicates the arrogance which exists at institutional level in the European Union. This week in Paris during one of the debates an eastern European parliamentarian asked the incoming presidency if he too was not European. He did not receive an answer.

The issues raised by the rejection of the Nice treaty in the referendum are of a fundamental nature. I have listened with some dismay to today's debate and the debate that has taken place in the weeks since the referendum. Many in the political leadership of the nation are more focused on making a political point about the referendum than on truly addressing the core issues behind the judgment passed by the people.

The reality is that the Nice treaty process is dead and will not be revived until the people decide in another referendum to reverse the decision they made on 9 June. It is foolhardy to talk about another referendum at this stage unless something fundamental changes. To attempt to rerun a referendum as a means of reversing the democratic decision taken by the people would be rightly regarded as an affront. Something fundamental will have to be changed in the Nice treaty before we can even contemplate putting it before the people again.

The Nice treaty is a complex document which intends to achieve complex things. It was sold to the Irish people as a means of providing for the enlargement of the European Union. Last night Mr. Prodi made it very clear that was not what the treaty is about. He did not, however, make clear precisely what it is about. He was saying, therefore, that the enlargement process could be somehow achieved without the Nice treaty. I doubt that is the case. It can be achieved for possibly four states. As someone else said today, I would not like to be the person who tells the other states they may not join.

This raises the question of what exactly Nice is about. One of the most distinguished predecessors of the current President of the European Union has suggested the European Union puts the Nice treaty to one side and reconsiders the entire manner in which the EU is attempting to move forward. Mr. Delors has, I suspect, a better sense of history than Mr. Prodi. In 1954 it looked as though the entire process of European integration would grind to a halt when it had barely started. Members with a sense of history will remember the French Assembly rejected by a narrow vote the EDC and EPC proposals. By the oddest coincidence of history, that treaty, which was to serve as the template for the new Europe, was defeated by roughly speaking the same margin as the Nice treaty in the referendum. The irony of the vote in the French Assembly was that France put forward the proposals for the EDC and EPC.

Thankfully Mr. Prodi was not in charge at the time. The leadership of Europe did not engage in hysterical recriminations against the French Assembly or the French people. Rather, it considered the real issues involved in the rejection of the treaty. The main issue was that Europe was trying to bite off too much at once. The process was too complex. It was an attempt to take a gargantuan leap forward when a step by step approach would have been more prudent. After a period of reflection and contemplation, the relance of Europe was achieved following the Messina conference. It resulted in the Treaty of Rome, from which Europe emerged stronger.

I mentioned the assembly I attended yesterday and the considerable interest shown in the decision of the Irish people. Some thought provoking contributors indicated that the opportunity afforded the Irish people should also be offered to the citizens of other member states. Maybe then Europe would get a clear message about what the people of Europe expect in the coming years.

Mr. M. Higgins

I welcome this opportunity to comment on the Nice treaty and the referendum. I recommended a "Yes" vote during the campaign having taken cognisance of a number of different factors which were unsatisfactory both in the negotiating procedure and the final text of the treaty itself. However the treaty as finished and negotiated was to be put before the people so one had to choose whether to recommend a "Yes" vote or "No" vote. I recommended a "Yes" vote because I believed, from my contacts and counsel in Europe's parliamentary assembly and elsewhere, that a "Yes" vote would be perceived by the applicant countries as a message that they were welcome and that a "No" vote could be construed, whether true or not, as a rejection of enlargement.

For that reason I recommended clearly and unequivocally a "Yes" vote. My decision was taken on balance. I also had reasons which were particular to my approach to the campaign. I felt, again from conversations with many different strands of opinion in the applicant countries, that our decision would have an effect on the kind of transition under way in the applicant countries from state led economic systems to a version of the mixed model of the economy and new forms of institutional structure in civil society. That transition would be affected by globalisation which would make itself manifest in one of two models, either an unregulated neo-liberal market model driven by the United States or a model of transition that includes social protection, the model that lies at the heart of social Europe. Put simply, I concluded that workers, citizens and those reliant on income from different forms of social welfare, such as pensioners, needed the social model quickly and, if possible, within the time frame contained in the treaty that was put before the people. The quicker they were part of the social model, the better.

I also looked at what had happened to some of the state properties in these countries shortly after the demolition of state control. For example, in the Czech Republic a system of credits issued to the citizenry in general was accumulated for hard currency by many expatriates who had moved back to the Czech Republic and now owned vast amounts of what was previously the property of the public. Examples of this include a whole side of the main street in Prague, in other words, predators were unrestrained, putting their claws on the people's property. The quicker these applicant countries were in the European Union, the better protection there would be. I am not saying that any of those who lined up in favour of a "Yes" vote shared that view but it is important to state it.

The behaviour in my constituency during the campaign of Minister of State, Deputy Ó Cuiv, was unconscionable. To participate in a public campaign seeking a "Yes" vote and then to announce when the result had gone the other way that one had voted "No" and proceed to give long interviews about what were referred to in one Mayo newspaper as "scary moments" that he shared with his cousin, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, is not an act of integrity. It is shameful, an exercise in bad faith that is corrosive of trust. A reasonable person is entitled to ask politicians knocking their door in the future if they are just going through the motions for the party or how their heart really ticks or if they will vote the same way as they are asking other people to vote. That degree of bad faith destroys the trust that is at the basis of politics.

I concur with Deputy Roche on my next point. The people have spoken. Their decision must be respected and there is no point in imputing motives to them or seeking to deconstruct what their motivation might have been. The fact is we move on. There have been treaties before and there will be treaties again. Only the context will differ. May I offer one historical example? The Maastricht Treaty reformed the single European area in economic terms. That comes into being at a time when the pendulum in European politics has swung to the right. In relation to the completion of the Single Market even if it is to be curtailed by some element of social cohesion which was expanded in the Treaty of Amsterdam, the form of economic transition is influenced by neo-liberal market economics, a kind of illiterate and thuggish version of economics that does not need the term "political economy". It is a very low grade kind of economics. It is simply interested in seeking the maximum return for the minimum cost in the fastest time and effectively seeks State support as much as possible to try and socialise its costs and maximise its profits.

Indeed in this country we have to remember that the amount of money income, the proportion taken in profits as opposed to wages, has probably increased by 50% in the last few years. That particular model gave us versions of the economy, arguments about competition. May I give one example? In broadcasting it would facilitate the commodification of entertainment where it would be inimical to public service broadcasting. In railway, it would facilitate private transport but would be anti-public transport. The same would be true about our airline. You would be stopped from assisting a State owned airline but you would be enabled to assist any kind of gurrier wanting to go in the air, irrespective of the safety standards.

That was the thinking then. Now the pendulum has swung in the other direction. Again and again, it is not only those in the centre and left who see that you cannot tear social cohesion out of the heart of the society but that there must be a mediation of the economic effects on the society itself. The social model becomes more central, becomes more crucial. There is nothing wrong with now preparing, in the course of the forum, for these general issues and as to what kind of treaty will come next in 2004.

I wish to address some of the issues raised by a previous speaker in relation to the debate in Europe. Many people in Europe have been very unhelpful in relation to our recent referendum. As an aside may I say that in 32 years in politics, I do not recall a Fianna Fáil campaign like the recent one. Let me put it like this; they were mercifully scarce on the ground in Galway. They did not bother the people at all, you could hardly see them. The posters were few and far between. One member of the Cabinet decided near the end to give a speech. The Minister of State, Deputy Ó Cuív, was thinking one thing in his heart while speaking the other way. Another member of the Government team, Minister of State for the Progressive Democrats, was extraordinarily silent.

Whether I may be right or wrong, in my constituency the people have the right to expect me to declare what I am doing. They equally have the right for me to act in the way that I say. There is another interesting issue to be considered. The campaign was spoiled very early on by the kind of intolerance which I hope we have seen the end of. A campaign was run on the basis of saying that all of your opponents were really people who were wild people who did not understand the issues and they were a mixum gatherum. They are the people who won the day. We speak for the minority of those who voted. Before the referendum campaign I said that we must respect the opinions that are held for different reasons, and I say that again.

It is completely wrong now, in the construction of the result, to be presenting this as a problem that the Irish people represent. It is as if the Taoiseach goes to Gothenburg and other cities dragging after him the problematic Irish people. The Irish people have problems of comprehension of some of the issues but these are minor in relation to the institutional difficulties we have. There is a desperate need to change our mechanisms in this House so that we can be involved in direct discussion on directives at the drafting stage when it counts, as is possible in both Denmark and in the House of Lords. It is important to be able to review those decisions back in the House as speedily as possible. I was President of a Council of Ministers and it is also important that all the papers and preparation for a Council meeting be publicly available and that there should be access to the Council meetings. This means that there would be a regular interaction, open and transparent interaction, and we would be dealing with Europe in a way which would develop familiarity.

May I make a point in relation to comparative political science, comparative politics in other jurisdictions. When you look at these issues as a political scientist you find something very interesting in what has happened in the Irish case. When something is being negotiated in relative diplomatic secrecy, you have two choices available to you, suspend the secrecy in a complicated matter to allow the public gaze to fall on the different elements so that when you conclude, they have been aware of your choices but they are very familiar with how you arrived at your conclusion. Your second strategy is to go to the end of the process and seek to explain it in such detail as it were, on selling. Neither of these happened successfully and we must make sure now when we are actually establishing a forum, that the forum begins with the main issues that are at the centre of Europe.

Another speaker mentioned Mr. Santer's view. He was the last President of the Commission who spoke about a Europe of the citizens and how such a Europe is created. There is a crisis of governance within Europe. That crisis is reflected in the low number of people who are participating in elections as we move to an American model of participation and with falling percentages. There is an institutional crisis in which there is a certain amount of institutional atrophy. People are speaking about the future without mandate. Those with the mandate are not participating in the same debate. Thus the European Parliament tediously and slowly arrives at a particular opinion on the future of Europe, yet off-the-cuff remarks are made by those who are the appointed members of the Commission. Then in the Council of Ministers there is so much closure in relation to trading on an intergovernmental basis that that process is not open either.

There is institutional atrophy in terms of the changes that have been taking place and there is confusion in relation to the delimitation of responsibilities. This crisis of governance becomes really serious if it moves into a crisis of legitimacy in relation to the political system generally. We have just had in the Nice referendum a demonstration of how something like consulting the people can become what might be called a space of contestation, that is, people come into it and they bring with them any worries they have about any aspect of unaccountable Europe, any aspect of the democratic deficit, any aspect of institutional non-transparency. In this space of contestation, they oppose those who are advocating what they believe was in fact the best decision on balance.

The really dangerous side of all of this is that the only way out of it is by constructing a new vision for Europe. Deputy Roche mentioned the earlier treaties. What was the component that was attached to them that was missing on this one? The aspect of vision, a Europe of the citizens, a Europe that would not be simply economic. That is very important. Beyond the forum and into the years to come, Europe cannot be served well by those who work simply on a propaganda basis, on the basis that they know from inside conversations and that the wider public do not know. You then get an arrogance and a kind of low grade propaganda from those who are purporting to be disseminating information. It is in all our interests to understand the debate, to go to the forum, to participate and much more importantly, to speak about the kind of Europe we want. I hope that it happens and that it happens in good faith. I hope that it happens with tolerance. I think we should also be honest.

We have to discuss the relationship of the new Europe to a world in which we have a single power in its relationship to the United States and to the world beyond Europe. All of this means nobody is saddened by the announcement after a referendum, that the vote went against it. I hope the people on all sides will use the forum to develop different models for the future. I hope also that when Europe cannot be helpful it will stay silent and that when it has something to say it will take the model of the discussion on the future of Europe in Ireland and extend it to the other countries in Europe so that we can move forward together

Mr. Haughey

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on the outcome of the referendum on the Nice treaty. Like other speakers I supported a "Yes" vote. I knew in the last few days of the campaign that the result would be much closer than was generally expected, having been out and about in my constituency discussing the issue. Nevertheless the warning signs were there long before that. The percentage "Yes" vote in previous referendums on Europe was declining and in hindsight it was only a matter of time before there was a majority "No" vote.

In my Second Stage contribution on the referendum Bill I said we had a moral duty to facilitate the accession of Central and Eastern European states to the European Union. These countries should be given a chance to advance their democratic freedom and enjoy the economic prosperity which we enjoy. We have a moral duty to facilitate them in their endeavours. Nevertheless the people took a broader view of the issues involved, and rightly so; they were being consulted on an issue on which they are not often consulted. Many of those who voted were informed on the issues. They took stock of the European projects as best they could and considered the arguments for and against and voted accordingly.

There should not be a new referendum on the Nice treaty unless there is clear evidence of a change in public opinion. We cannot put the same referendum to the people on its own. We need to develop our thinking on this issue and go back to the people with a new perspective on the European Union generally.

Why was the Nice treaty referendum defeated? The issue was not just about the Nice treaty as far as the electorate was concerned. There was a deep concern about the democratic deficit of the European institutions. Our old friend openness, transparency and accountability was to the fore when people were making up their minds. The result of the referendum was a wake-up call for all the states of the European Union. As other speakers have said, including Deputy Roche, it is generally accepted that if referendums are held on the Nice treaty in other EU countries they might be defeated. What needs to be seriously addressed is the view that a democratic deficit exists in the operation of the European Union institutions. There is no doubt that a factor in all our referendums relating to the European Union, which the electorate took into account, was the concept of Irish neutrality. The Rapid Reaction Force was discussed in the context of the referendum on the Nice treaty. There is a perception that Ireland will eventually be involved in some type of military alliance. That is an issue that needs to be addressed in the post Nice treaty discussions.

There is confusion about what is meant by "peacekeeping" and "peacemaking". We need to be clear on what these terms mean. Where there is confusion people vote accordingly. In our deliberations there is a need to spell out and define clearly what exactly is meant by "peacemaking" to and to decide if that is the way we wish to proceed indefinitely. This treaty is about expansion. However, the people saw it in terms of integration and said the case for further integration was not clearly demonstrated. That is indisputable. The people availed of the opportunity to consider all issues related to the European Union and took the view that the case for further integration has not been made.

Previous speakers dealt with the interventions of the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, the EU President, Romano Prodi and the President of the European Central Bank, Wim Duisenberg – the latter two are on a visit to Ireland. Such contributions were unhelpful. Certainly they did not consider the politics of their statements when a referendum was in full swing in one of the member states. I would be surprised if they did not know that at this stage.

During my Second Stage contribution on the referendum Bill I said the reprimand to the Minister for Finance by the Commission and the Council of Finance Ministers was a factor in the referendum. People in my constituency and elsewhere have told me they did not like the cold reprimand to this country. If Ireland signed up to the Commission controlling our budget policy, I have no recollection of it. I would like somebody to point out where it is stated that the European Commission or the Council of Finance Ministers could dictate our budgetary policy. The people had no understanding that that was the position.

In hindsight, there is no doubt the referendum was rushed. I can understand the Government's difficulty in getting people's minds concentrated on an issue such as the Nice treaty. It takes the holding of a referendum for people to concentrate on the issue. Following the referendum the people are concentrated on the issues involved. That is healthy and we are now involved in a comprehensive debate on the future of the European Union.

I welcome the establishment of a forum on Europe. However, I hope it operates successfully. I have a few suggestions in that regard. It needs to consult widely.

When the Taoiseach informed the House that the forum would consist of the political parties and the social partners, I was sceptical, because it was the political parties and the social partners that recommended a "Yes" vote. We need to move beyond those groupings. We need to move beyond the cosy consensus and engage with the people in an imaginative way with this forum. Unless we do that, the forum will be just another talking shop that will produce a report that probably nobody will read. I look forward to hearing the details of that forum.

The forum must come up with a clear vision for the European Union. We need to take stock of where we are now and where the European project is heading. In that regard, I welcome the speech by the Attorney General in a personal capacity. He has added greatly to the debate we are having at present. He sees a choice between the federalist project of a European superstate or a partnership of member states. That puts the question clearly before us as to which model we want.

I am critical of the leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Noonan, and the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn. The people have spoken and we are obliged to consult in active debate as a result of their decision. As soon as anybody puts forward a view contrary to that proposed before the referendum, they are shot down. That is not helpful. Deputies Noonan and Quinn should encourage a debate and seek different viewpoints. They claim it symbolises Government disunity. However, we must have a full, open and frank debate and everybody should give their opinions. It is extremely unhelpful, almost bordering on arrogance, for the leaders of the Opposition to say Mr. McDowell or Cabinet Ministers cannot express an opinion. We are obliged to be imaginative and thought provoking following the result of the Nice treaty referendum. I welcome that debate.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. A huge volume of work comes before that committee and under our terms of reference we are obliged to scrutinise directives, regulations and statutory instruments coming from the European Union. When we are sitting in the committee room I have no doubt we are talking to ourselves. I doubt if anybody watches us on the monitors in Leinster House or if anybody from the media considers our deliberations. We go through endless pages of directives, regulations and statutory instruments and we do our best to scrutinise them. Nobody listens to us and obviously that is unsatisfactory.

In any discussion on how we should proceed, we need to establish the role of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Is it to be responsible for scrutinising this legislation or is there a greater role for all the members of the Dáil, who would be fascinated to learn of the legislation that is proposed in these directives, regulations and statutory instruments? If people in this House knew what we were considering, they would pay much closer attention to our deliberations. The Joint Committee on European Affairs must be central to our debate on how we make the European institutions more open, transparent and accountable.

Reference was made to the low turnout in the Nice treaty referendum. The low turnout was not specific to the referendum on Nice. A low turnout is a problem at all elections. This is true not just in this country but in the UK and other European Union countries as well. It is a much bigger issue and one to which we need to turn our attention.

There has been much talk about the McKenna judgment and the referendum commission. We should not now attempt to change the rules in advance of any new referendum. We can consider that issue at a different time. If we propose changes to the McKenna judgment and the referendum commission it will be seen as us trying to change the rules in order to change the result. We should examine that issue when the Nice treaty referendum is off the agenda.

Mr. Bradford

I wish to share my time with Deputy Connaughton.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this debate. There has been more said about Europe and the broad European project since the defeat of the Nice referendum than we heard in the previous 12 months.

I strongly disagree with Deputy Haughey that there has been a degree of arrogance shown by the Opposition leaders arising from recent comments by the Attorney General and other spokespersons for the Government. The arrogance during the debate and during the run-up to the debate was shown by the Government. It was arrogant to believe that the legislation could be rushed through the Dáil. It was arrogant to believe that firstly four and then three referenda could be held successfully on the same day. The Government was very arrogant in believing it could run a pathetic political campaign and believe the public would support it. The political parties that make up the Government, namely Fíanna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats were arrogant to believe the sort of campaign they ran, or did not run, could pass as a political campaign.

The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, is in the House and I saw very little campaigning from the Progressive Democrats. I saw no posters representing that party's point of view. I saw some Fíanna Fáil posters advocating a "Yes" vote on Kildare Street and maybe a few on Grafton Street. A magnifying glass should have been supplied with each poster because it was impossible to see the name Fíanna Fáil or what the message was about. While the flowers on the poster would be lovely in a living room, it did not get the message across. That sort of campaign was arrogant, if it was an attempt to get people to vote "Yes". However what we have since seen and heard from some Government sources makes me wonder about the strength of its desire to have the referendum passed.

The result was not just disappointing but depressing. I was very depressed by the low turn out. I accept what Deputy Haughey said that there has been a difficulty in getting the electorate to engage in the political process in recent times. However, it was profoundly depressing that significantly less than 40% of the people came out to express a judgment on this issue.

I readily concede that the work of the Referendum Commission was a failure. The concept of trying to present both sides of the argument by the Referendum Commission through newspaper advertisements clearly does not work. If it was designed to confuse people, it worked admirably. Notwithstanding people's difficulty with the issue, it is not acceptable to suggest that 65% of the people were so confused that they stayed at home. This country has benefited profoundly from Europe and the decision by the majority who voted "No" to Nice and in particular the decision by the majority of people to say nothing at all to Nice signals a bad day for politics. The lack of leadership shown by the Taoiseach and the Government resulted in this disappointing outcome.

We in Ireland had an ideal opportunity of accepting the Nice treaty and becoming a leader among the small countries in a broader 27-country European Union. Many people were wondering, perhaps understandably, what Ireland would lose. That is somewhat mean-spirited and reflects a very narrow vision. When we come to reflect on our decision, we will see that we lost greatly by saying "No" to the Nice treaty. There was an opportunity for Ireland to have the moral leadership of the ten or 12 smaller countries which would be a very significant bloc in the new European club of 27. It is disappointing that this opportunity has now passed.

In assessing where we go from here, we cannot ignore the fact that the electorate has said "No" for various reasons, ranging from right wing fundamentalism to left wing philosophies. I found it difficult to understand why the Green Party opposed this treaty, seeing that Europe has been the only protector of our environment. Any progressive development in an environmental context has stemmed from European regulations, directives and pressure. Although the vast majority of the green movement throughout Europe was saying "Yes" to build a better Europe, the Green Party in Ireland said "No". I was disappointed to see people who claim to be socialists saying "No" to the Nice treaty. The great social advances in this country over the past 20 years have been directed, funded and provided by Europe and much more social progress needs to be made. Being part of a strong, expanded and dynamic Europe would be helpful in that regard. Considering the progress required in our health services, the scope for fuller participation by women in every aspect of society and the need for further child protection, it is disappointing that the greatest guarantee of all these necessities, namely Europe, has in one sense been rejected by our electorate on 7 June.

I hope, as a result of that decision, we will now begin to debate more fully what we want from Europe and what part we want to play in Europe. Since 1973, the European equation, from Ireland's perspective, has had a very economic focus. We have benefited enormously from economic transfers from Europe and, over the coming years, we could become financial contributors rather than beneficiaries. We still have a major role to play in developing and shaping the continent. Arising from the decision we made on 7 June, I hope we will begin to debate the European project in its broadest terms. At least, let us put it before ourselves, as politicians, and the people of this country to decide what role we wish to play in Europe. I look forward to the establishment of the Forum for Europe as a step in that direction.

Mr. Connaughton

Having a life-long interest in the European Union, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. Some 30 years ago, when I was involved in the farming organisations, we organised canvassing teams to go into the cities to generate interest in Europe. My vision of Europe and its importance to Ireland has not dimmed, although I have my own views on how far one should go. Without wishing to digress into party politics, I recall that some four or five weeks before the referendum, the Fine Gael leader, Deputy Noonan, asked the Taoiseach to initiate a debate in the House on the future of Europe after the Nice treaty. There was a sort of guffaw to the effect that the Nice treaty was on the immediate agenda and the next intergovernmental conference would talk about whatever was to happen afterwards. I do not know if such a debate might have influenced the outcome of the referendum. Naturally, I voted "Yes".

From my observation in East Galway and other west of Ireland constituencies, people were genuinely afraid of what would happen afterwards. That was their big concern. Paradoxically, all the applicant countries have more in common with us, in terms of size and structure, than some of the original member states. It is reasonable to suggest that we would be more comfortable with the incoming states and that we would see them as helpful colleagues in the event of future internal EU difficulties. That is obviously a difficult message to get across. If the referendum was to be held tomorrow, it would be even more heavily defeated unless certain things happen. The Forum for Europe is an excellent idea and I expect that all political parties and interest groups will take it seriously. It will force people to say exactly what they mean and to back up some of the slogans which were used. Both the "Yes" and "No" campaigns need to give their underlying rationale over the next six or 12 months. It will require more meaningful contributions than just slogans on posters. The Irish public needs high quality information. They want to know what will come after the Nice treaty.

Many people are concerned and frightened about creeping federalism and the notion of the super state. They are unhappy with so-called progress being advanced without reference to a connection or relationship with people, no matter where they are. Deputy Haughey was quite correct in his comments. I have no doubt that if a referendum was held in some of the other countries, they too would have trouble with it. The reasons might be different, but it would all come out in the wash. While a certain course of action may seem appropriate to the Brussels bureaucracy, it is quite a different matter to bring the people along as part of the process. Europe has not been doing this. I am reminded of a general leading his army so far in advance as to be shot in the back by his own troops. It is not enough for the Brussels bureaucrats to issue directives if they fail to bring the people with them.

A very highly regarded professional person told me that he voted "No" in the referendum. When I asked why, he outlined his concerns as to the source of all the EU directives and protocols and the difficulty of making direct contact with the person in the EU system who originated any given directive or finding out the reason for a particular decision. The same experience is applicable at national level and in local authorities. It can be very difficult to make a connection in relation to some schemes and regulations. One hears the phrase "democratic deficit" used. It is time for people to begin using simple language. We are losing contact with Brussels.

Certain events here in Ireland have also had the effect of turning people off. The last budget is one such example. Many people said to me quite openly that they did not like a system whereby their personal taxation was being interfered with. That brings us back to tax harmonisation and all the things that go with that.

It is important that we do not sit back at a time when we want to do for other countries what was done for us. The incoming countries must achieve many standards. The judiciary and the democratic process in most of those 12 or 15 countries have been turned around for the better. Would it not be unusual for us, as a nation, to stop them in their tracks from doing what we believe is right? There are a number of other side issues on this into which I do not have time to go. Suffice to say that when we have another referendum on this issue, there will have to be a very hard sell. What the Government and others here say will have to be absolutely clear. Nothing should be taken for granted. We talk of having a forum after the referendum but it was an awful mistake on the part of many not to have had one before the last one.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 21 Jun 2001