Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jun 2008

Vol. 657 No. 1

Lisbon Treaty: Statements.

The Taoiseach

Last Thursday the people gave their verdict on the proposal to change the Constitution so that this State could ratify the Lisbon treaty. The people have spoken and the Government accepts their verdict. It is for the Government to manage the political situation that develops as a result, both at home and internationally.

There will be no shortage of those who will rush to judgment about the reasons for such an outcome. However, beyond rejecting the proposal to change our Constitution to ratify the treaty, it is too early to understand fully the significance of last week's referendum as this will take time.

Today's debate is part of the national discussion we must now undertake. We must be honest with ourselves now that our country has taken its decision. Today is about contemplating not just the events of last week but what they might mean for our nation in the years and decades to come. It is many decades since Ireland took a decision to turn outwards to face the world in an effort to improve the welfare of her people. I have acknowledged previously the significance of that shift and the wisdom of those who had the courage to bring it about.

For some 35 years, much of our place in the international arena has been realised through our membership of the European Union. Throughout that time, the people have been largely comfortable with the overall direction of the Union, which has responded to international developments. Those developments have required responses which involve countries co-operating with each other and sharing sovereignty in a way that might not have been envisaged decades earlier. This globalised world has worked for Ireland because we have become globalised ourselves. In the past, this was in part because our people were forced to emigrate but today's globalised Ireland is by choice. I believe it is the right choice, but it is not without consequences or responsibilities.

If we want to manage international crime we must do so by working with our neighbours; if we want our voice to be heard in international trade negotiations, we must do so by identifying and co-operating with allies; if we are to conceive of an effective and humane management of international migration flows, we are powerless to do so without willing collaborators; if we want to contribute to the peace and stability of those parts of the world, or indeed Europe, still divided by hate and distrust between communities, we can do so only in conjunction with our partners; if we want to secure a sustainable future for our planet, we must act on a global scale in concert with others.

The European Union has been the most effective and advanced response to globalisation which the world has seen. For 35 years, Ireland has been comfortable with its place in this evolving Union. Last Thursday, the public rejected what the Government, the main Opposition parties and others, recommended to them as the next step in that process. As a consequence, we now face uncertainty.

It is appropriate today for me to give this House my initial reaction and my assessment of the referendum outcome which has given rise to that uncertainty. I will begin by repeating that the will of the people is sovereign in our democracy and in Europe democracy is no less sacrosanct. The principles of democracy are the threads that weave the fabric of the European Union.

The debate that has taken place in Ireland in recent months saw many disparate views, and in some cases contradictory positions, put forward by those advocating a rejection of the treaty. That makes it particularly difficult to analyse the key messages underlying the outcome of the referendum. I recognise the considerable unease expressed about an apparent diminution in Ireland's representation and influence in the institutions of the Union. I note in particular that the fact that for five out of every 15 years, there would not be an Irish Commissioner was an issue which weighed with people. This is despite the fact that under the Nice treaty, which the Irish people accepted and which Ireland ratified, a reduction in the number of Commissioners will occur next year and not in 2014 as proposed in the Lisbon treaty which was rejected and without a settled basis for the equal rotation between the member states as provided for in the Lisbon treaty.

Arguments were repeatedly advanced about a threat to our right to maintain our tax system and tax rates, even though the Lisbon treaty provided for a continuation of the legal arrangements that currently apply under existing treaties. This was in part due to continued references to the Commission bringing forward a proposal on a common consolidated corporation tax base, despite the maintenance of the unanimity requirement in the Lisbon treaty.

Many people were reportedly uneasy about a perceived risk that Europe would develop a common defence, requiring Ireland to abandon its military neutrality. This was compounded by concern that, at some hypothetical future date, this could give rise to a European army and an attempt to project European interests by military force, to which Ireland would be obliged to contribute. The balancing of possible commitments in this area with assurances about the right of Ireland and other member states to maintain their defence traditions was not perceived to offer sufficient safeguards. Moreover, commitments to improve military capability, which in Ireland's case would be necessary in the context of our continued programme of humanitarian and peacekeeping activity, were perceived as implying a further erosion of our militarily neutral stance.

Many groups and individuals expressed fears that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice would develop in ways which would require Ireland to accept and provide services which are repugnant on grounds of public policy. In particular, concerns were expressed regarding abortion, despite the specific assurances in terms of Ireland's legal arrangements in this regard.

Similarly, concerns arose about the possibility of a legal regime that would require the commercialisation of public services and introduce requirements to convert what have been regarded as essential public services into market opportunities.

The charter of fundamental rights featured prominently. Some regarded it as giving rise to an undesirable degree of uncertainty because of the scope for judicial interpretation in the European Court of Justice. Others felt that they did not see sufficient assurance about the application of the rights covered by the charter within domestic law and practice. More generally, this was echoed by a debate about whether, on the one hand, the Union gives rise to too much regulation and unreasonable burdens on business and, on the other hand, that it involves too little protection of the rights of workers and trade unions in the face of globalisation.

Other factors, less directly connected with the treaty itself, impacted on the campaign. These included the deep unease within the farming community regarding the current strategy being adopted in negotiations at the World Trade Organisation. Other more generalised and less specific anxieties, as in all referendum campaigns, contributed to the disposition of people as they approached the act of voting in the referendum. These doubtless include also the current tightening of economic conditions internationally and the associated rising unemployment and inflation figures.

For those of us who supported the referendum, the core message of the need for the European Union to function more efficiently, democratically and effectively in the international arena did not register sufficiently with the public. In contrast, many were more comfortable citing examples where they felt the EU was not sufficiently in touch with the concerns and needs of people at local level.

The format of the treaty, too, became a frustration with the electorate. Despite the fact that an extensive range of explanatory material was made widely available, much was made of the apparent complexity of the treaty and the fact that, unlike the 2004 constitution text, it was a series of detailed amendments to existing treaties.

It is worth pointing out, as others have done, that any perusal of the range of claims being made by opponents of the Lisbon treaty highlights that some of them are contradictory. To take just one example, it has been suggested by some who argued forcefully against a centralised super state, that the lack of accountability perceived to apply in the European institutions should be remedied by providing for a directly elected president of the European Council. This is the ultimate federalist project and one which would not serve our national interest.

While I respect the outcome of the referendum — we are now dealing with its consequences — I do not share some of the wilder interpretations that have been aired in recent days. Nor do I accept that there is any clear or obvious set of conclusions that can immediately be drawn.

Tomorrow, I will travel to Brussels for a number of bilateral meetings. I will attend the European Council tomorrow and on Friday, accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche. It will be an honour for me to represent my country at the European Council for the first time as Taoiseach. That honour is in no way affected by last week's outcome. My European colleagues will, naturally, wish to hear my assessment of the referendum and its implications and much of what I will have to say to them will mirror what I have just said to the House.

I should acknowledge though, openly and honestly, that my assessment of the rejection of the treaty in Ireland will have to be viewed alongside its approval in the majority of member states. This is the difficulty which faces Ireland and the Union. There is no doubt in my mind that our partners tomorrow will express their strong preference to find a shared solution, something very much in the tradition of the European Union. I believe, too, that they will accord us the time we need to play our part in understanding last week's vote. For my part, I will impress upon them the need to avoid prejudicing the process which we must now undertake in Ireland.

I will underline that we will also continue to engage very closely with them. I want to emphasise the need for the domestic and European Union processes to proceed in tandem; for any outcome to be viable, it would not only have to be agreeable to our people, but also to all member states.

Many of our partners have already expressed their disappointment at the outcome of our referendum and their difficulty in interpreting the signals that it may send. However, their disappointment is not entirely universal. On the contrary, there are some individuals and groups across Europe who now wish to claim the Irish people as their new friends. They are headed by the likes of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Nigel Farage. No proud Irish man or woman could but be uneasy that they rejoice in our decision.

Deputy Martin Cullen

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

Let us be under no illusions about why they are rejoicing. It is because they believe they can use the vote of our people to serve their misguided political goals, goals that Ireland does not and never will share, goals that are inimical to our interests.

I do not believe last Thursday's vote was a rejection of Europe or of the need to continue to improve its functioning. My view remains that Ireland's future is bound with Europe's. As I said, we now face uncertainty and we face a great challenge. It is incumbent upon this House to ensure that we respond carefully and thoughtfully. We must ensure that the interests of our country are well served. As Taoiseach, I have already committed myself to the task ahead.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I have already publicly expressed my disappointment at the result of the vote of the Irish people on the Lisbon treaty. I make no apology for having stood by our country in supporting the treaty; this is because of its importance in terms of our connection with the European Union and as part of the EU in facing the challenges we all face globally from China, India, South Africa and elsewhere. Having expressed that disappointment, the will of the people is absolutely sovereign. The votes were cast and counted, the decision was made and the Irish people have spoken.

I want to put on the record my thanks to the director of my party's campaign, Gay Mitchell MEP, as well as all those from parties supporting the "Yes" campaign. There are serious lessons to be learned from the result of the Lisbon treaty vote. One must consider that, with the exception of one party and a number of Independents, all parties in this House supported the treaty. In addition, the treaty was supported by various economic organisations, job-creating agencies, the farming community and business organisations. They all called for a "Yes" vote, but the people decided to do something entirely different.

Looking at Ireland's place in Europe, it is fair to say that we never had the shared history of our European colleagues, encompassing elements such as the Napoleonic era, two world wars and fascist movements, including Nazism. This time we were left in the position of being the only country to vote by referendum on the treaty and therefore decide the future outcome for, or change to, the European institutions. In essence, the poll showed that Ireland is not just divided on the question of Europe, but that the country itself is divided. The large "No" vote in what have been called poorer areas shows disaffection and a disconnection between citizens and the Government. This was exemplified in myriad views about the way in which European directives have been and are being interpreted. The only interpretation one can take from the result is one of which we are all aware, namely, that those who took the opportunity and time to vote demonstrated that the most important public office is that of the private individual and citizen and the right to cast one's ballot in secrecy through the ballot box.

I make no apology for having strongly supported the "Yes" position on the Lisbon treaty because of the link my party has had with Europe since the early 1970s and through it being an integral part of the European People's Party, the largest voting bloc in the European Parliament. The Fine Gael Party has been central to the EPP and is pleased to continue to contribute to it.

I propose to make a number of points about the referendum campaign. As I pointed out publicly on a number of occasions, complacency and confusion are always the enemy of a referendum. It is difficult for a Government in Ireland or any other country to sell an international treaty by way of referendum. The Prime Minster of the Netherlands pointed out to me that despite all the parties in the Dutch Parliament supporting the original constitutional document, it was voted down for a variety of national reasons. This also occurred in France for a range of similar reasons.

Bunreacht na hÉireann is normally amended on the basis of one or two amendments at a time and there is always a lead-in period to facilitate explanation and understanding of what is involved in the Oireachtas putting forward a Bill to ask the people for permission to change the Constitution. In the case of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty, for which a popular constitutional endorsement was required for the transfer of competency in certain areas, it became too much for some people and this resulted in great confusion. That confusion was increased by the fact that when I asked the Taoiseach's predecessor on numerous occasions to name the date for the referendum in order that we could get on with it, he chose, for his own reasons, not to do so. As a result, we were left with a vacuum in which misinformation began to seep into people's minds and negative attitudes about a range of issues emerged during the course of the campaign. Confusion about the treaty was a contributory factor.

Complacency is always the other enemy in that if people see all the political parties lined up in favour of a positive answer to a referendum question, some of them will inevitably conclude the referendum will pass while forgetting that it cannot pass unless people vote for it. Around the country, people told me that with Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Green Party and what is left of the Progressive Democrats Party supporting the Lisbon treaty, the referendum would fly through, but they did not follow through on this thought process and conclude that the referendum could not pass unless people voted in favour of the treaty.

It is very easy during the course of a referendum campaign to make negative arguments, for example, the treaty will cost us because we will lose a Commissioner, tax will be harmonised and so forth. It is difficult if one has to spend most of one's time trying to respond to these arguments before one can speak of the positive aspects of the treaty. For example, the brilliant measure to have the Council of Ministers meet in public would allow citizens to hear what Ministers say at Council meetings and know how, if the Council chooses to vote, Ministers vote on particular issues. Increased responsibility for Members of the European Parliament elected directly by citizens is also a positive feature of the treaty. These two issues constituted real progress in making Europe more connected with its citizens, an area in which there is undoubtedly a drift.

After 51 years, one and a half generations of Europeans may not appreciate the reasons for the establishment of the European Economic Community and its successor, the European Union. We need to reaffirm what the European project is and where the European process is headed, and deal with the legitimate concerns and fears some people have about super states, federal entities, European armies and so forth. A conclusion will not be reached until Irish interests have been recognised and respected and seen to have been addressed, and we, as a sovereign nation, can contribute to the betterment and progress of the European Union. That is the complex problem faced by the Taoiseach and the Government.

It is not for me to enter into a blame game about the reason the referendum was not passed. One cannot argue with the voice and decision of the people. One can perhaps argue about better co-ordination or a better emphasis in terms of the manner in which the "Yes" campaign made its case and so forth.

I spent two and a half months as party leader travelling around the country. Some of the material I received in the post was appalling — I have never seen the like of some of the documentation and correspondence I received. There are clearly people whose view of life is very different from mine and that of my party and of most people. It is sad that the negative campaigning in the course of the referendum campaign did nothing to help the cause of Ireland or Europe. I suppose one could argue that that is politics and the people have made their decision. While I respect the decision, claims being bandied about on doorsteps on issues such as tax harmonisation, European super armies, conscription, abortion, euthanasia and prostitution had nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty but stayed in people's minds and were expressed as a fear and anxiety when they went to vote.

People understand the issue of the Commissioner because one either has a Commissioner or one does not have one, even if only for a specific period. The absolute equality which applies in this regard, whether a member state has a population of more than 80 million or fewer than 400,000, did not seem to register with the voter. This issue must be addressed before the end of the year in so far as the Nice treaty requires that the number of Commissioners be reduced below the number of countries unless the Heads of Government unanimously agree to do something else. This will become an issue at some point towards the end of the year. The Taoiseach and the Government will have to reflect on this issue.

It is necessary, in not reflecting on what was wrong in the campaign, to examine the possibility of having a stronger source of independent assessment of the facts. I refer not only to the Lisbon treaty but to all future referendums, whether on children's rights, European treaties or any other matters. A stronger independent assessment is clearly needed. The purpose of the National Forum on Europe, which has been operating for a number of years, is to provide information on pros and cons to the ordinary citizens. While the forum drew in the different pillars and strands to make their case, it does not have the same relationships as political parties. I am not sure what assessment the Government has carried out on the forum or in respect of the Referendum Commission to which eminent legal people and personalities were appointed. The document the commission sent out was readable but some confusion arose about answering questions on a number of occasions.

While all Members of the House are elected under the same conditions — by virtue of votes at the ballot box — there were 160 Deputies on one side of the argument and six on the other. Due to the interpretation of the Supreme Court decision, the national broadcaster felt required to give equal coverage to both sides which meant that if one had a string of Ministers making a case for some element of the "Yes" campaign, coverage was given in equal measure to the other side. That is a factor obviously arising from that Supreme Court decision.

We must move on to what the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs face in the future here. The fact is that this country has rejected the Lisbon treaty and it cannot come into effect on 1 January 2009 being ratified by the 27 countries.

I respect also the right of other countries to do their business in their way the same as they respect ours. One can argue the point that governments elected directly by the people represent the people and that if, from their point of view, in their country they say they will do this by majority vote in the parliament, that is political democracy as well.

An Ceann Comhairle

Níl ach nóiméad amháin fágtha don Teachta.

Deputy Enda Kenny

The other countries presumably will go ahead with the ratification process. I do not know whether they all will agree on this. There may be problems in the Czech Republic or wherever. Britain is supposed to do the business today.

If they come back to the Taoiseach later in the year with a proposition that 26 countries have ratified the Lisbon treaty and Ireland has not, political discussion must have taken place in the interim period. I will support this, to get to a point where Ireland's concerns can be met. We do not want a situation where 26 other countries decide to move off in a different direction or at a different speed, which would be the worst of all worlds for our citizens.

This was not a vote against the European project, the European process or the European concept. It was a demonstration of the right of people to put down a clear marker, which has had reverberations all over Europe and beyond. From that point of view, the challenge facing the Government is to see that Ireland's concerns, anxieties and fears are reflected, dealt with and clarified and at the same time that we contribute to the solution of the progress of Europe given that we must meet the challenges from China, India, South Africa, Brazil and Russia, and the challenges of having a fair immigration policy, demographic movement, energy security, food security, economic shifts etc. We want to be part of that. We are feeling the pinch in terms of the economic challenge, impacted upon by external forces to an extent.

There is a big job to be done, principally by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government. I would like to think that we, through our grouping in the European Parliament, can assist to some extent in that regard and we will do so, and that at the end of this process Ireland's claims, concerns, anxieties and fears are reflected, clarified and dealt with while we contribute to the greater progress of the European Union, given what we must meet on a global scale.

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.

The 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.

Sinn Féin's agenda for the future of the EU is much broader and deeper than this list of demands which are, in our opinion, modest and achievable. They represent the detail of the better deal we argued for during the referendum campaign and what we believe to be the minimum changes required for any new treaty to be acceptable to the electorate. Of course, the Government will say this list is too ambitious, too detailed and undeliverable. However, already we are hearing from a range of voices across the EU, in governments, opposition parties and social movements, supporting some or all of the above. Smaller member states are interested in our proposals on the Commission and Council. Trade unions and social movements are supportive of our position on workers' rights and public services. Peace organisations and anti-war movements are ready to mobilise on those issues that resonate with them.

The question is whether the Irish Government has the political will and courage to give voice to the concerns of the electorate as expressed in last week's referendum. Politics is the art of the possible. When entering negotiation one must be ambitious and realistic. Crucially, one must gather as much support as one can, both domestically and in other member states, to secure the most advantageous outcome.

As I stated yesterday, Sinn Féin is ready to play its part in a constructive manner. We believe that many others are willing to do likewise. All eyes are on the Government and, specifically, on the Taoiseach as he faces his first European Council meeting as Taoiseach. The question that arises is whether he will listen to the will of the people and work to secure a better deal for Ireland and the European Union or — I hope this will not prove to be the case — collude with those political forces across the European Union who seem unwilling to respect the outcome of referenda in Ireland, France and the Netherlands and who, like Mr. Barroso, encourage a continuation of the ratification process in other member states in order to create a situation through which Europe can apply even greater pressures in Ireland not alone on Government but on the entire political representation of this State and try to force the Irish people through this process once again. This is absolutely unacceptable. The opportunity presents for the Taoiseach to translate the words "respect" and "acceptance" — words used by him time and again since last Friday's count result was announced — in a manner which will assure the Irish people he intends to act in accordance with their decision and those of the French and Dutch electorates. The Taoiseach must demand a cessation of this process given the Lisbon treaty quite clearly cannot proceed or be adopted without the unanimous support of all 27 member states. The Irish people have said "No"; it is their final answer and it should be accepted and acted upon.

The first option I mentioned will strengthen Ireland, our place in the EU and will strengthen the Union. People will see that the democratic voice of not alone the Irish people but of people across the European Union is sacrosanct and that it will be respected not alone within their respective democracies but right across the European Union. This is an important test.

The second option will deal yet another blow to the democratic credibility of an already faltering European Union and the disconnect that is deepening by the day between the peoples of the member states and those at the helm and the heart of its administration. Go raibh maith agat.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Dick Roche)

It goes without saying that all of us who supported the Lisbon treaty and who believe passionately in Europe as the way forward for peace and progress are disappointed with the outcome of the referendum. The people have made their decision, however, and that decision must be respected. It must also be understood and it should certainly not be distorted. The Taoiseach made clear last Friday and again today his respect for the views of the people as expressed in the ballot box.

The Government strongly supported the Lisbon treaty on the basis that the member states had reached an agreement which would allow the European Union to work more effectively in the interests of member states and, of course, in the interests of Ireland. On the basis that the aim of the treaty was to equip the countries of Europe to deal with the global challenges that face us collectively and individually, big and small, this was a good treaty. On the basis that Ireland's national interests were best served by a place at the centre of Europe, playing a constructive, realistic and engaging role, this was a good treaty.

When we analyse and examine such evidence as has become available, particularly today and yesterday, it is interesting to see the views of people who voted "No". They too shared the belief that Ireland's place is at the heart of the European Union. In our support for the treaty, we were joined by all but one of the political parties in this House, by representative groups, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, IBEC, chambers of commerce, the farming organisations and others who played a committed part at national and local level. This should not easily be dismissed. I am very grateful for the support, in particular of the main Opposition parties, and I have put that on record several times.

The Taoiseach has stated that we will need time to analyse the result properly and to look for an acceptable and practical way forward. It is clear that the result of the referendum brings about considerable uncertainty and tremendous difficulty for this country. It will not be resolved easily and the Government understandably will need time to reflect. I certainly do not share the interpretations made by the previous speaker, Deputy Ó Caoláin, as to how we should deal with the problems which we face. We must reflect on the way forward for Ireland and for Europe, and that will take time. There is a need to avoid snap judgments and there is certainly a need to avoid hasty decisions. We must avoid setting the bar too high and we must see that this is an important point in the history of Ireland's hugely successful engagement with the European Union. That engagement has been at the centre of our progress since 1973. Our social, economic and political progress has been dependent on and greatly assisted by our membership of the European Union. The peace process on this island has been significantly assisted by our membership of the European Union. It is a very strange person who would suggest that we should easily dismiss all that.

With the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, I attended Monday's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council where our counterparts were briefed on the referendum. While there was understandable disappointment, there was also understanding of our position and our need to consider matters in light of the referendum result. There was also a wide degree of support and solidarity because Europe is not built on bullying by the large of the small. Europe was built by the members states operating in unison and solidarity, not in the perverted view that somehow it is an undemocratic process. That is precisely the opposite of the truth, but many of the arguments and allegations made in this campaign have been the opposite of the truth.

One good and positive factor at the meeting in Luxembourg is that there was no attempt to isolate us. As Members of the House will be aware from media reports, there is a general strong desire that ratification should continue in other members states. That is their right. We have had our say and it is right to measure the views of other member states and to let them, within their democratic processes, have their view. It is a strange and distorted view of democracy to suggest that we should have our say and then prevent others from having theirs.

In my contacts with my counterparts I stressed the need for us to take sufficient time to analyse what has happened and to consult both domestically and with our European partners in order to find an agreed way forward. Dialogue is the way forward. I recalled that the European Union's record of success in overcoming past setbacks of this kind and expressed the hope that working together we can do so again on this occasion. The European Council meeting tomorrow provides an early opportunity for the Taoiseach to give his initial assessment of the referendum result and its implications. I have no doubt that he will be heard with the same quiet and supportive attitudes in which we were heard in Luxembourg the other day.

An important point that the Government will stress in the period ahead is that the Irish are committed to the European Union. It is interesting to note, looking at the flash Eurobarometer poll published in the The Irish Times today of those who voted “No” last Thursday and surveyed in this report, that 80% support Ireland’s European membership. If one presumes that 100% of those who voted “Yes” also support that membership it suggests that politicians, rather than posturing and adopting attitudes, should now find a way forward to ensure that Ireland’s European membership continues to be strong and central to this issue.

It is also interesting to examine in the same survey the issues and concerns. We know the type of campaign through which we have just come. We know there was a blizzard of misleading statements and distortions of facts, that the truth was simply chucked aside and that there was a mendacious effort to mislead the people. The interesting point, however, is that the positive attitude which has been reflected towards Europe in all other opinion polls is again visible in this poll. I believe it is important that Europe plays a positive and important role in our future.

Another interesting point reported in the press today was that approximately three quarters of those who voted against the treaty believe that the Government can renegotiate exceptions within the text. They did not suggest that the process is completed and should be rejected. I point out that 18 member states have effectively ratified the treaty and it will not be long before 25 or 26 members states do so. The Government must work hard, therefore, to reflect the people's concerns as we move forward. At the same time we must respect that there are 26 other parties to this agreement.

The previous speaker is right, we should stick with the facts, but that, of course, is not what happened in the recent campaign. One undeniable fact, however, is that those in Europe who celebrated last Thursday give everybody pause for thought. I speak of Mr. Le Pen, or the extraordinary sight of an Irish pub in Brussels converted into a den for the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, group which showed its respect for this nation and what we stand for by using our tricolour as the tablecloth for their drinks. That speaks volumes about those in Europe who welcomed this decision.

The reality is that we have a difficult situation and it will not be made any easier by posturing. It is a matter of some irony that newspapers from across the water which have attacked the European Union for decades presented themselves as pro-EU, even pro-agriculture, after assaulting the Common Agricultural Policy from the outset. All that, however, is about yesterday. What we should be concerned about is tomorrow and the next day, where we go from here and how we build on the position in which we are now. I agree with the Taoiseach's earlier comments that today's debate should be part of a national discussion that we must undertake. Today's debate is about being honest with ourselves in light of the decision we have taken. It is about reflecting not only on the events of last week but also on what they might mean for our nation in the decades ahead. Ireland and the rest of the Union must learn from the campaign.

It came across in Luxembourg that there is an understanding that Europe needs to reconnect with its citizens. We need to simplify the message and try to centre debates on the European Union on facts rather than myths. We need to examine why people voted against the treaty and establish how to address their fears.

As a country, we face just about the greatest diplomatic and international challenge in our modern history. We must convince ourselves and others that we want to find a solution that places Ireland at the heart of Europe. I agree with Deputy Gilmore's comments that we should not lose sight of the advances we made through our EU partnership and membership, particularly in terms of social Europe.

Last Thursday's vote was not a rejection of Europe or of the need to continue to improve the European Union's functions and effectiveness. Ireland's future is bound to Europe's future and this is the view of the vast majority of Irish people. We face uncertainty and a great challenge and we must do so with great care. It is incumbent on us all to ensure we respond carefully and with the interests of Ireland at heart.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I, too, am disappointed by the result of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Fine Gael strongly supported a "Yes" vote because it believed it was in the interest of Ireland's citizens and those of the Union. However, 800,000 voted against the treaty and it is important we recognise, by word and deed, that it was defeated. The people voted "No" and their decision must be respected.

I cannot recall the date of the announcement of the referendum. This may seem like a small issue but it is not. I remember the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, going to the Phoenix Park prior to the last general election and I remember his resignation speech. Can anyone tell me when the referendum date was announced officially? That I cannot remember speaks volumes about the campaign. I am not into the blame game but believe there was complacency on the "Yes" side.

I remember Deputy Kenny asking the former Taoiseach in the House to confirm whether 12 June 2008 was to be the date of the referendum. As the former Taoiseach sat down into his seat, he confirmed it. Will the Government state when the official announcement was made to this effect?

George Bernard Shaw once observed that the problem with communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished. That was certainly a problem for the "Yes" side. The National Forum on Europe does a worthwhile job in many respects but, whether it is due to a lack of interest or its actual format, it does not really get its message out to the public. I am a member of the forum. The Referendum Commission came under the spotlight for the first time due to errors in its information. I do not state this with a view to criticising those involved but we must consider such organisations' contributions to informing the public on what Europe is about. There is very little knowledge in circulation.

We should never allow a treaty so linguistically complex to be put to the people again. If any political party produced a general election manifesto similar to the referendum wording, it would be laughed out of existence. Let me quote the part of the referendum text put to the people:

It is proposed to delete the current subsections 9° and 11° (in italics above)

Subsection 9° is re-cast as subsection 15° with the additional reference to the Treaty of Lisbon; Subsection 11° is effectively redundant as the Luxembourg Patents Convention never came into force

I read the treaty but found many parts of it very difficult to digest. This extract is an example.

In recent days Mr. Ulick McAvaddy asked why people would vote for something they did not understand. He implied that someone would not sign a contract for a house unless they understood it. I fundamentally disagree because my experience suggests that over 95% of people do not understand what is in the contract they sign for a house or insurance policy. They rely on expert advice, which they take from their solicitor or legal adviser. I have no doubt the public was as unfamiliar with the detail of previous treaties, including the Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam treaties, as it was with that of the Lisbon treaty, but when it was voting on them they trusted their politicians. At present, they do not. This is certainly food for thought.

I reiterate that I am not into the blame game because what has occurred is a plague on all our houses. A news headline during the referendum campaign stated, "The Taoiseach calls for a Yes Vote". The next headline claimed the former Taoiseach said he won money betting on horses. The current Taoiseach received much publicity after saying to Deputy Kenny during Leaders' Questions that he was neither qualified nor able to deal with the issue. He made a more telling comment thereafter to the effect that he believed the former Taoiseach was giving his evidence at the tribunal in a truthful manner. The Taoiseach talks about loyalty but one must be loyal to the truth. I believe the Taoiseach to be an honourable man and ask him to move away from his denial of the facts.

How can the public act on trust or on the advice of a Government if that Government does not acknowledge that it has stood over lies and misinformation over the past year? Its having done so was a contributory factor, albeit not the main factor, to the public's failure to understand the complexity of the treaty. It simply did not believe what it was being told. In a nutshell, those who sign contracts for houses do not know the content of the contract but rely on expert legal advice. However, in the case of the referendum, the public did not believe the advice of the political establishment. We must address this.

Most of the "No" campaigners are not pro-Europe while many of the "No" voters are. I therefore distinguish between campaigners on the "No" side and those who voted "No". It gives me some consolation when I hear Sinn Féin because, strangely enough, I believe it contributed to the "Yes" vote. This is because many people did not believe it. If everyone had voted "No" who told me he or she was going to do so, the result would have been 20% in favour and 80% against. Many voters changed their minds in the last week. Some of the programmes run by the national broadcaster were very helpful and people gleaned a lot of information from them. When they were told the truth about the content of the treaty, it assisted people in making up their minds.

One constant mantra of Sinn Féin during the referendum campaign was, "Ireland can do better. Let us renegotiate." I do not know if Ireland can do better. The mantra came from a decade of saying "No" in Northern Ireland, during which the Government facilitated it at every hand's turn to the detriment of the SDLP. Saying "No" worked in the past for Sinn Féin but it is very difficult to envisage how doing so will work in the future.

I do not wish to re-run the campaign but have a few points to make, the first of which concerns the constant claim that the voting strength at the Council would be halved if the treaty were accepted. This is not true. I am surprised so many people on the "Yes" side and so many independent commentators let this belief go unchallenged. Many media commentators advocated it as a reason to vote "No". If anyone has the time and wherewithal to go to the press ombudsman on these issues, he or she will certainly have a field-day. In real terms, it can be argued quite legitimately that our voting strength at the Council would double. There are two legs — the population leg, on which the "No" side concentrated, and the member state leg. The latter leg would have resulted in an approximate doubling of our voting strength at the Council. Our voice would therefore have been strengthened at the Council but, regrettably, this message was not circulated due to a lack of knowledge on the part of some "Yes" campaigners and some commentators and also due to some commentators being disingenuous.

Let me hone in on the solidarity clause. Many constituents asked me what obligation there would be on Ireland to assist another member state subjected to a terrorist attack. On this point, most commentators responded that the exact form of the response was not decided but that it would be subject to our own special constitutional arrangements. If we had the equivalent of the former Twin Towers and an aircraft were flying towards them, we could do nothing about it.

We should not have been overly worried about how we were going to assist other countries as we are unable to assist ourselves. Had the Lisbon treaty been ratified and had Ireland signed up to it, we would have been able to call on our neighbours, be it France, Britain, Germany or whoever, to assist us. At present, we are unable to call on anyone. I considered the solidarity clause to be a positive development for Ireland that was depicted in a negative light.

As for some of the other issues, I refer to the constant references to unelected bureaucrats. How can one reconcile the claim about unelected bureaucrats with seeking to have a permanent Commissioner? What is a Commissioner other than an unelected bureaucrat? As for all the claims the "No" camp made about more democracy and the difficulties that Europe was causing, this treaty was going to reconcile and solve many of them. It would have dealt with issues such as the lack of democracy or accountability. As for the loss of the veto in 40, 50, 60 or whatever number of areas, it is important to retain a veto in respect of vital national interests, such as the Common Foreign and Security Policy or taxation. However, how does one reconcile a veto with democracy? It is its antithesis. Ireland must deal with such issues.

I do not believe that 27 countries conspired to bring upon their citizens something that would not assist them. A few other issues were highly important. Issues such as creeping bureaucracy regarding — to frame it in plain terms — the size of tomatoes, the killing of meat or the selling of eggs and of brown bread resonated. While such issues were not articulated by the "No" side, they had an impact on "No" voters. Europe's creeping bureaucracy is a matter that must be addressed and is a reality about which something can be done. People believe their voices are not being heard and this is partly due to the Irish Government. An incident has arisen in County Wicklow regarding the proposed disposal of substances at Kilbride ranges. Politicians have no power because they voted it away from themselves, which is their own problem. Members must ascertain how to make people accountable and give power back to politicians. Deputy Burton mentioned foreign workers.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joe Costello)

The Deputy's time has expired.

Deputy Billy Timmins

We have been left in a certain stage of paralysis. The Government must acknowledge and represent the views of the people who voted "No" and must protect Ireland's interests in the months ahead, as we try to ascertain how this will affect us.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this highly important issue.

Acting Chairman

Does the Deputy wish to share time?

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I wish to share time with Deputy Michael McGrath. I seek five minutes each, if possible.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I respect the decision of the Irish people as Deputies are the guardians of the Constitution and must respect the principles of democracy. Notwithstanding this, a real challenge has been posed to those who are elected to represent the Irish people. These challenges existed before this vote and the Lisbon treaty sought to resolve them. I refer to matters such as energy security, environmental considerations, the challenges posed to our economic future with particular reference to the emergence of the economies of China and India, international trade and immigration and migration. We also must deal with potential conflict zones around the world and how they may affect the safety of our future, as well as with international crime.

While it had been hoped these issues would be addressed by the passage of the treaty, that has not happened and the challenges remain. Members were elected to deal with these complex matters and, as I predicted, those who campaigned for a "No" vote have disappeared like summer swallows. They have departed to leave the rest of us deal with such issues. As an elected parliamentarian, I take on this challenge with a degree of vigour and excitement because it drives all Members on behalf of those who they represent.

This matter requires a period of reflection, analysis and dialogue with the people. Fundamental to this debate will be a discussion about the evolution of the European project. Clearly, some who campaigned for a "No" vote have a particular view on Europe. It is a view that seems to be echoed by people such as Jean-Marie Le Pen and others for whom I do not believe any Member would have a great regard. Those of us who campaigned for a "Yes" vote also have views on Europe.

However, a public debate on the EU project is needed and a question as to what is the European project is fundamental in this regard. I canvassed extensively, as I am sure did other Members, and found a great lack of knowledge, interest and care on what is the European project. Unfortunately, it has been characterised to an extent as an ATM machine. For many years, the citizens of Ireland have seen Europe as nothing more than the provision of cash to build our economy and infrastructure and to support various initiatives. This lack of knowledge certainly played a considerable part because the "Yes" side was left trying to convince people of the necessity to reform something about which many of them lacked clear knowledge in the first place.

This debate also must involve a question on Europe's direction and what are our views and expectations as a people in this regard. It will be difficult but not impossible to disentangle the views as expressed in the referendum and that is the target Members must set for themselves. The campaign was set against a backdrop of changed and straitened economic circumstances. Our economic circumstances are part of a global phenomenon that is working its way through at present. Those difficult circumstances provided fertile soil in which to sow the seeds of doubt, which the "No" campaign certainly did.

Having canvassed, I have a fair idea of the reasons people voted "No", although they came from different backgrounds and disparate groups and made the decision for many different reasons. First, the treaty sought to carry out administrative changes that did not seem to provide obvious tangible benefits as did many treaties in the past. I refer to matters such as the expansion of the free trade area, the single currency or, in respect of the Nice treaty, allowing other people to enjoy the same benefits as had previously been enjoyed by people in western Europe. All previous treaties contained a hook to encourage people to vote positively. On this occasion, people failed to discern the benefits associated with reforming something about which they lacked a clear picture in the first place.

It certainly allowed the "No" side to play on the fears of those who were going through difficulties regarding the economy and who were concerned about their mortgages, jobs and the welfare of their children. The "No" campaign was highly disingenuous. I believe they clearly told lies. I do not know whether it is appropriate to use that word in the Chamber, but I consider them to have told lies. I saw documentation and literature proposing that abortion, the death penalty, conscription, child tagging and tax matters all were issues. While they had been dealt with, unfortunately we were unable to convince the people of the lack of merit in that debate.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I thank Deputy Dooley for agreeing to share time on this debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to a debate on the Lisbon treaty referendum result last week. Like the majority of my Oireachtas colleagues, I am acutely disappointed by the result of the referendum last week. However, the people have spoken in a democratic fashion and, as the Taoiseach noted, one must accept and respect that decision. It is important to point out that people voted "No" for a disparate set of reasons in this referendum. The issues have been well-debated and well-rehearsed and include the issue of corporation tax, which was dealt with comprehensively by both the Taoiseach and the Referendum Commission. As for the issue of neutrality, despite Ireland's constitutional prohibition from participating in a common defence, the "No" side continued to trot out the line that in some way, we would be compelled to participate in common defence, even though the country's position in this regard has long been clear. The issue of abortion, which was drawn into the debate, was completely irrelevant. When the "No" side continued to put forward arguments that clearly were disingenuous, when they misled people on issues of fact, when they put forward notions and sowed the seeds of doubt in many people's minds on sensitive issues, they did the Irish people some disservice. This will become clear over time. They often spoke during the debate about unelected and unaccountable people, but the vast majority of the proponents on the "No" side were themselves unelected and unaccountable. It was open and free to them to put up whatever they wished on posters and polls and nobody could ever hold them accountable for what they were saying. The majority of them never campaigned or fought for Ireland in any sense of the word. The research by the European Commission following the vote highlights some of the points that I am making. Some 70% of the "No" voters thought a second treaty could be renegotiated easily. The majority of people who did not understand the treaty voted against it. There is a lesson for us to learn in any future votes that we hold in this country.

There were two subtle undercurrents in the campaign and it would be remiss of us not to mention them. The first is the issue of immigration, which was lurking in the background and which influenced voters who have a negative perspective on the impact of immigration in Ireland. We would be unwise to ignore that. It is an issue that must be addressed apart from this referendum. The second undercurrent was the emergence of voting trends along class lines, probably for the first time. We must recognise that there is a suspicion among some working class communities of Europe and the impact it is having on their lives. That is something which we must ensure is fed into our domestic policies. These two issues are intertwined.

The requirement for equal coverage in the broadcast media is a crude instrument and it contributed to widespread confusion about the treaty among many people. Many news clips featured comments from the "Yes" side or the Referendum Commission which were completely contradicted, falsely in most cases, by the "No" side. This left the electorate utterly confused, which appears to have been the legacy of that particular provision.

The way forward today is unclear, but over time a consensus will emerge. During the period of reflection, we must consider where we want to take Europe and Ireland's role within Europe. If the remaining 26 countries proceed to complete the ratification process and if they want to move ahead with the reform of the Union, Ireland will indeed be in a very difficult predicament and will face a fundamental political choice. In that scenario, it will be our right, based on the democratic vote last week, to be the sole country on the lower tier of Europe. The question facing our people at that stage may well be whether we are on board the train that is leaving the station.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I am pleased that the Taoiseach has allowed this debate to take place. It should have taken place yesterday, given the crisis in which we find ourselves.

I believe last Friday was an extremely black day for Europe, but a particularly black day for Ireland. While I acknowledge and respect the decision of the people, I cannot but express my disappointment at that decision. It was taken for a great variety of reasons, many of which unfortunately have nothing to do with the European Union or with Ireland's place in the Union. The reality is that we are now in a grave political situation. Without ratification of the Lisbon treaty, Europe faces what can only be described as stagnation and paralysis. That is simply disastrous. We are facing huge global economic competition. In 20 years, the population of the EU is likely to represent about 6 to 7% of the world's population, and we have taken a decision that will undoubtedly impact on Ireland's and Europe's competitiveness on the world stage.

Energy security is one example of this, where we have said "No" to the opportunity to participate in a combined EU effort to give ourselves energy security in the future and to negotiate as part of a very strong and powerful economic bloc. We have retreated and have decided that as a tiny island nation, we can do it ourselves. I am sorry, but we cannot do so. We will not be able to provide the same opportunities to tackle this issue on the world stage in the years to come. That is frightening, especially given that we have seen the sharpest rise in the price of oil in history in the past couple of weeks, with predictions of it hitting $200 per barrel. Our response is to bury our heads in the sand. This is a disastrous position for us to be in.

We need to look at how we arrived at this stage. I did not engage in a blame game on the outcome of the Lisbon treaty, even when the writing was on the wall. However, we must acknowledge a few things. All of us on the "Yes" side must accept a certain portion of the blame, but the Opposition cannot and should not be expected to carry a referendum of this nature. The Government must show leadership and must be expected to deliver. Unfortunately, we have seen an abject failure by the Government to lead from the front. There was very little leadership from Ministers. The campaign got off the ground far too late, as though we could have a crash course on EU institutions and how we should vote to democratise them and improve them. That is not how things work. There was a job to do in laying the foundations and in giving people the time to understand the positive arguments. Instead, there was a vacuum into which the "No" campaigners jumped, with their distortions, untruths, myths and propaganda. The Government must accept responsibility for allowing that to happen.

There was also a great degree of arrogance. The Taoiseach and the Commissioner in Brussels said that they did not read the treaty. It is preposterous to expect the Irish people to trust politicians and especially their Ministers and leaders who tell them to trust us, yet also admit to not reading the treaty. Coupled with an absolute lack of knowledge and understanding of the EU institutions, as evidenced by the Tánaiste's behaviour, this was absolutely disastrous for the campaign. I am not making this up. I heard it on many doorsteps, shopping centres and church gates. People could not vest their trust in senior Ministers and the Taoiseach. That makes last Friday a really sad day for the people of Ireland and it contributed to the disastrous outcome.

It is crucial that we learn lessons from another issue raised today. I was at the count at the RDS on Friday morning and I looked at the tallies in my constituency. I was pleased that it was carried there, but looking at the divide from area to area, I have no doubt that there is an issue with social exclusion and with the socio-economic breakdown of the people who voted for and against the treaty. When we are in difficult economic times, it should be an instinctive reaction of the Irish people that we look to Europe for hope, inspiration, opportunity and security. This has not happened because we have allowed a mindset to develop, particularly in working class areas, that believes when we face difficult economic times there is a major threat from foreign workers in this country. It is a reaction to immigration, and there has been nothing in our society in the past six or seven years to prepare our society for immigration, to enable it to adapt and ensure we have a successful immigration policy. We do not have such a policy and this is an abject failure on the Government's part. This resonated throughout the country during the referendum and absolutely played a part in last Friday's result. I have no doubt about this from knocking on doors and from all the campaigning I did. We need to face up to that now and make people realise that our economic growth and the development of this country would not have happened without the able-bodied men and women who came here from all over Europe and elsewhere, contributing to our growth and our wealth and doing jobs many Irish people would not do. We need to instil that into the minds of people. That is what leadership is about and I am appealing to the Government to show some.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

To undo the politics of fear.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

Absolutely. The response from Government over the past few days has been pathetic. I have seen no enthusiasm on the Taoiseach's part to solve this problem, no motivation or evidence of a sense of urgency about the crisis we find ourselves in. I appeal to the Government to show some energy to try to find solutions to this problem. Speaking for Fine Gael, we on the Opposition benches are willing to help in that regard. We want to solve the impasse, the stagnation we are facing in Europe. We want to see solutions and respond to the concerns of the people which are varied and multifaceted on taxation, neutrality and so on. We need to react, come up with solutions and deal with the concerns expressed by the Irish people in voting "No". We need to put new solutions on the table.

I want to see some leadership from the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, and the Government. I want to see them working day and night to solve this problem. It is not going away and we need to find a solution. There are two options, in my view. One is to allow the Lisbon treaty to be ratified as Ireland stands back and becomes part of a eurosceptic fringe. The other option is to get our act together, to instil some hope, confidence and belief to show the Irish people that we have solutions to their concerns and can move forward with integration so that Ireland can be at the heart of it. I am fearful about Ireland's chances of getting a good deal, with the CAP health check coming around the corner and all the negotiations on environmental issues, carbon reductions etc., at EU level. How will the Minister for Foreign Affairs be able to represent us with any credibility, or, indeed, the Taoiseach? We need solutions. We on the Opposition side are prepared to work with the Ministers and Taoiseach, but we need to see some determination and commitment. I have not seen it in this Chamber over the past 24 hours.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I want to share time with Deputy Cyprian Brady, if the House agrees.

Last Thursday, 12 June 2008, the Irish people rejected the Lisbon reform treaty by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6%. Nobody can say that there was not a full debate, or query the level of turnout — 53.13% as opposed to 34.9% in the first Nice treaty referendum and 49.47% in the second Nice treaty referendum. Many different politicians and commentators have tried to explain and rationalise the "Yes" and "No" votes and various reasons have been put forward. However, all of this is mere speculation. Furthermore, everyone says we should respect the outcome. I agree, but respecting the outcome should not consist of advancing one's own hypothesis as regards why people voted one way or the other.

The only thing that may be said with certainty is that the Irish people rejected a proposed treaty which would have deepened our engagement in Europe and pooled an even larger part of our sovereignty. To fully accept this point is, I believe, to truly respect the people's choice. In this context the attempt by the Opposition to link the "No" vote with alleged failures of the Government is extremely disrespectful to both "No" and "Yes" voters. I believe most Irish people are supportive of the European Union as a scheme of co-operation between sovereign member states in areas of mutual concern and interest. I do not believe the people want a united states of Europe within which their sovereignty gets so diluted as to be negated. After centuries of struggle, Ireland is but a young nation. Hibernia has but started drinking from the cup of freedom. It is too early to dash it from her lips.

Our party leader, the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, together with our former leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern, did a magnificent job in securing agreement on the constitutional treaty where several other European Presidencies had failed. Unfortunately, a crucial influence in that treaty was a small clique of europhiles whose vision is that of a united or federal Europe that is greater than any one of its member states — people such as Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Jean-Luc Dehaene and, indeed, our own John Bruton. Their vision was first rejected by the people of France and the Netherlands. A slightly different vision has just been rejected by the Irish people and would, I believe, be rejected by virtually every other country in Europe were it put to a vote. The net conclusion is inescapable. The Brussels political elite is out of touch with the people of Europe.

Ireland is lucky to have a leader of the calibre of the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, at this most crucial time. His task is monumentally difficult. He must faithfully represent the views of the nation, as voiced last Thursday, while ensuring that Ireland can stay engaged in the heart of Europe at a level that is consistent with maintaining the sovereignty it so greatly cherishes. Members of the political elite in Brussels and elsewhere should, instead of seeking solutions to the so-called "Irish problem", spend a period of time engaging with their own citizens and try to build a Europe that has their genuine support and confidence. Hibernia has spoken and anybody who tries to drown out her voice will pay a terrible price.

Deputy Cyprian Brady

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this particular issue because over the past number of weeks, the people have spoken, made their decision and we are where we are now. As a local representative in Dublin Central, I had the privilege of working with committed members of the community who gave their time and energy to canvass for a "Yes" vote in the Lisbon treaty referendum over the best part of the last six or eight weeks — despite the fact that they had to spend most of their time correcting misinformation spread by the "No" team. On examination, one finds the "No" team comprised two international "Del boys" and, in our area, two failed candidates in the last general election. Our local canvassers were committed to ensuring that we in Dublin Central should continue to have access to the best EU knowledge and incentives available to generate employment, skills and infrastructure.

One canvasser said to me the problem was that, thankfully, our young people never had to live in times when mortgage rates were 12% or 14%, unemployment was at a peak and we had no roads in the country. When we reminded people of the support Ireland has got from the EU, in terms of training, jobs, roads, schools and telecommunications as well as assistance in other areas such as the help we got in our area to rid the constituency of drugs and drug barons, this was viewed by some, particularly the young, as old news. As was said earlier, the soundbites from the "No" campaign were sexier and remained unexplained in the Referendum Commission's booklet, which was distributed to every house in the country.

However, the people have spoken and I respect their views and the manner in which they have come to that conclusion. Our job is not to look back at the old news, but to move forward and find a way for Ireland to remain an active partner within the EU. In achieving this, we must ensure that we bring the people in every house, street, community and constituency with us. We have to ensure that every citizen is fully aware of the contribution the EU makes in our daily lives. We did not get that message across. This has now to be done, every week and every month, not just three weeks before a referendum.

In my opinion, we cannot rely on a Referendum Commission booklet, or indeed the European Commission office in Dublin, to communicate this important message. It is up to us as public representatives to inform our constituents of the workings of the EU and the important role it plays in people's lives. This can be achieved through cross-party co-operation and with the assistance of the European Union. I urge all parties to agree an EU public awareness strategy that will be implemented on a regular basis every year. This would ensure that voters will not have to rely on soundbites and jargon to make informed decisions about their future.

Confusion existed about the treaty which we experienced on the doorsteps, at churches and shopping centres. The message we were endeavouring to put out was that Europe has played a central role in this country's progress in the past 30 years. In order for Ireland to continue this progress and play a part in Europe, it must be at the table. Ireland cannot be sidelined, as suggested by some. That is not the future for Ireland.

The Taoiseach and the team the Government has in Europe are very capable of ensuring Ireland continues to play a central role in the future of Europe. I have no doubt that every effort will be made by the Government and all Members on this side of the House to ensure the message gets out to the people that Ireland is part of Europe and has always endeavoured to play a prominent role in it and punched above its weight. Ireland has had appointments to senior structures in the European Union. The experience the Taoiseach has gained over the past several years in Europe will serve him well in the months to come.

Fianna Fáil has no problem accepting the decision of the people. The role Europe plays in their lives is a message we failed to get across because of the misinformation and spurious ideas that were put out by the "No" side. This misinformation was difficult to counteract because the "Yes" side was on the back foot, seen to be trying to fix something that was not broken. EU structures and systems have worked well until now. The Lisbon treaty was about making the Union more efficient and suitable for an expanded number of member states. This is the message we will continue to put out. The Taoiseach and his team will continue to fight to maintain our position in the EU.

Deputy Joe Costello

I wish to share time with Deputy Higgins.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Joe Costello

Friday the 13th lived up to its reputation this June. It was an unlucky day for the Irish establishment. Church and State, the business and farming communities were all found wanting in their support for a "Yes" vote on the Lisbon treaty. It was a memorable victory for the "No" side. A high turnout by the electorate and a substantial margin of victory means that the Lisbon treaty is dead.

The reasons for its demise are myriad and will be hotly debated for months to come. The poll of 2,000 voters by the European Commission immediately after Thursday's referendum is revealing in the categories of people who were solidly "No". Young people, women and first-time voters were solidly against the treaty. People who did not understand the treaty and believed it could be renegotiated plumped for a "No" vote too. Up to 40% of those who voted "No" said they did so because they did not understand the treaty. Clearly, a frustrated and disenchanted people, wanting to vote against the treaty and the Government, were only looking for a hook on which to hang their "No" vote.

The travails of the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, at the Mahon tribunal were the backdrop to the entire campaign. Even after his resignation on 6 May, the tribunal fall-out continued to poison the campaign.

The coalition Government which should have planned and directed the campaign was dysfunctional from the beginning. The Progressive Democrats was non-existent in the campaign while the Green Party was unable to decide a position with Fianna Fáil paralysed through its leadership crisis. Only the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, was the honourable exception.

Three months of the six-month campaign were wasted through inertia. No copy of the treaty or an abbreviated version of it was published. The White Paper promised for January, while excellent, did not appear until April, on the same day the Dáil began to debate the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008. The Referendum Commission was established late, took too much time to get going and was then sadly inadequate to the task and demands of such a complex treaty. The initiative was ceded to the "No" side from the beginning which it never relinquished.

The failure to provide an original text for every citizen while expecting a positive response in a matter as fundamental as changing the Constitution was too much for fair-minded and conscientious citizens. Many potential "Yes" voters went over to the "No" side.

Our national broadcaster scarcely covered itself in glory either.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

That is true.

Deputy Joe Costello

The requirements of the McKenna judgment for fair and impartial coverage of the treaty debates only provided set pieces on radio and television which degenerated into ding-dong and unintelligible debates. It gave coverage to a "Yes" commentator who was then negated by a "No" commentator in the same programme. It was a simplistic and crude approach to put across the complexities of the Lisbon treaty. The national broadcaster failed miserably.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

One could buy one's way into coverage too.

Deputy Joe Costello

Yes and the Labour Party did not get its fair share of the coverage.

The Labour Party, however, played an honourable role from the beginning. Its campaign started as early as 18 November 2007 when an overwhelming vote was given to support the "Yes" campaign at our national conference in Wexford.

As early as 12 December, the day before the Heads of State signed the treaty in Lisbon, the Labour Party had its first press conference to launch the seminal Charter of Fundamental Rights. For the next three months, the party screamed at the Government to get its act together, to publish and distribute information that people were crying out for and to put the ratification process in place.

A paralysed Government was also deaf. What should have been won was lost. The ball is firmly back in the Government's court. Our shell-shocked colleagues in Brussels and the other 26 member states are not jumping to conclusions, thankfully, but are waiting for the Taoiseach to explain the results and make proposals for the future of the treaty.

Past experience suggests two options — either a rerun of the same treaty as in the second Nice referendum or a period of reflection, as when France and the Netherlands rejected the EU constitutional treaty, with another fresh treaty presented for ratification by all 27 member states. Since nobody knows definitively why the Lisbon treaty was rejected, the remedy might prove worse than the ailment.

The third option is to leave well enough alone, accept the will of the people explicitly and perform the last rites as David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary adverted to. In this scenario there still remains a substantial residue of administrative and operational matters from the treaty that contains no constitutional impediment.

In this respect also, the original advice of the Attorney General on the constitutional implications of the Lisbon treaty would be valuable and I believe the Taoiseach should make it available. The Attorney General should also be asked to advise in detail on the specific innovations in the treaty to determine which and to what degree they may impact on the Constitution. This would be helpful towards planning the way forward. We cannot rerun Lisbon but we can reflect on it and move on.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

I share the sentiment of other Members that without reservation I accept the will of the people. The Lisbon treaty, as put to the people, has been decided upon and is over. We have a set of consequences which require reflection and an approach which should be original in moving Europe on. The approach must contain the fundamental component of examining Europe's role in the world. The debate must centre on Ireland's role in Europe and Europe's role in the world. This is a time of unipolar power in a world changed by events such as those on 11 September 2001.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.