JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jun 2008

Work Programme: Discussion.

Chairman

Today's meeting aims to review the implementation of the joint committee's work programme. Members have been circulated with the papers detailing suggested topics for the committee to address between now and the end of the year. The committee may wish to prioritise items for consideration and a programme of meetings will be drawn up based on the priorities identified and any other topics committee members wish to suggest. The western Balkans and the Middle East were two areas that the committee had previously listed for particular attention although I am not certain what members have in mind in that regard.

We may have another referendum before the end of the year. We do not know about that as yet. I am sorry for mentioning the word "referendum", but referenda do have the habit of making an appearance from time to time. There may be some indication to the contrary or a referendum may be held next year - we simply do not know.

In the meantime, I will take suggestions from members as to where we should go with regard to the remainder of the work programme.

Deputy Noel Treacy

Taking into account the importance of this committee and reflecting on the events of the past week, it is important that we would focus on the contribution the European Union has made in different ways to our country. I suggest we visit the College of Europe in Bruges, from whence many outstanding Irish Europeans have graduated over the years. That would be well worth doing. We should also visit all of the European institutions in Ireland, in Loughlinstown, Dublin, Grange and elsewhere, so that we can see at first hand the democratic structure of the European Union. We should also look at its function as an "umbrella" organisation, the commitment to each member state and the collective commitment and contribution it makes to every citizen, individually and collectively, within the EU.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I am glad to see an item referring to reflection following rejection of the Lisbon treaty in Ireland on the work programme activity list. It also refers to continuous exchange with the Minister for Foreign Affairs regarding GAERC meetings and a hearing with the French Ambassador regarding the approach of the EU Presidency.

That is all very well but I respectfully suggest deepening that aspect of our work over the next six months. In a comprehensively debated referendum campaign, with a significant turn-out and a significant majority, the proposed Lisbon treaty was rejected. The central thrust of that treaty was a deepening engagement between Ireland and Europe. The voters said "No", that they did not want that deeper engagement. They may change their view in the future but that is a matter for another day. We must start from the fact that people said they did not want the treaty. It would be useful for this committee to try to understand why the people rejected it. This does not necessarily mean listening to groups on the "No" side who had their own agenda in proposing a "No" vote. It entails trying to understand why so many ordinary citizens - to use that horrible phrase - voted "No". Is there a sense of alienation between ordinary citizens and the EU institutions? Is there a lack of information? Was this occasion used to voice concern on other issues? We are the Joint Committee on European Affairs and if there is a genuine feeling that Ireland is engaged to a certain extent in Europe and does not want to go further, that is very important for study and debate.

I support what Deputy Treacy has suggested, that we visit all the good things the EU has done but that is not is in dispute. Even on the "No" side there are very few people who do not accept that the EU has provided great benefits to Ireland. Perhaps that is beside the point. Maybe people did not want to dilute sovereignty by some extra degree. I do not know how this research and study could be done but it is worth considering.

There is another Oireachtas committee dealing with EU scrutiny. It was proposed that the national parliaments have a yellow card system of scrutinising proposed legislation at the same time as the European Parliament, such that if so many national parliaments voted in a certain way, proposals would be sent back to the Commission. That was a good part of the Lisbon treaty and I never heard anyone on the "No" side saying it was a bad idea.

Chairman

They did not mention it at all.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

We can take it from this that it is a universally accepted good part of the Lisbon treaty. There is nothing to stop the Commission introducing these proposals on an informal basis, without legislative support. There is nothing to stop the European Commission sending proposals to the committee or to the Chairman with a certain timeframe at the same time as to the European Parliament, and there is nothing to stop us communicating our reasoned opinion on them to the Commission. Would that not be a great signal from Europe, that despite the fact that the Lisbon treaty may never come into effect, it would be prepared to introduce this procedure on an informal basis to enhance the democratisation of the Union? Somebody will come up with ten good reasons that should not happen.

Chairman

I can come up with one.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I look forward to the Chairman explaining that. This is logical. This one indubitably good aspect to the treaty should happen. Many people I met on the campaign trail who voted "No" feel there is a disconnect and a democratic deficit and they do not know what is going on in Brussels. What better way to address that than by deepening the scrutiny process between national parliaments and the Union? Given the momentous importance of last Thursday's decision, a large part of our work should be engaging with people and studying not only the reasons for a "No" vote but the entire attitude to the Union. It is too negative to look at this as a "Yes" or a "No" division. Many people voted "No" because they did not know what was in the treaty. Others may have voted "No" because they had another axe to grind but that is not our business. We can only take the vote as it was expressed. The people voted "No" against a treaty that would deepen the powers of the Union and give away a little of our sovereignty and that must be fully respected.

The third issue I raise, which I encountered a great deal when I was canvassing, is immigration and EU enlargement. Many people are concerned the Union is going too far, too fast - although I disagree with them - with the proposal to include the Balkan states, Turkey and our friendship programme with the Ukraine. Nobody knows where this will end and there was no clarity about that aspect of the equation. I am in favour of Turkish membership but many people, perhaps a majority, disagree with that. The Irish and EU attitude to enlargement and neighbourhood policy is a key issue, reflected in the campaign and it is worthy of study.

It was an important referendum and there is a great deal to discuss. Perhaps we should have one or two special meetings solely to discuss it.

Chairman

We will discuss that at the end of the meeting.

Deputy Joe Costello

Many of us put a great deal of work into the referendum campaign and, therefore, we should have an initial discussion. I agree with Deputy Mulcahy that we should determine the reasons for the "No" vote and, ostensibly, the public had a difficulty with deepening the EU's powers and integration. I agree that whatever the reasons for the "No" vote, they could be traced back to that.

The certain fact is that the treaty was comprehensively rejected. Today's Irish Independent suggests it was rejected because, as demonstrated by a Eurobarometer poll, 70% of the people thought it could be renegotiated. Some 70% of the “Yes” voters probably also felt it could be renegotiated, because that is what happened with the Nice treaty. Therefore, that is not the reason the treaty was rejected. There is not much sense in renegotiating something that is already good, which leaves us hanging as to the reason the people rejected the treaty.

The rejection of the treaty is either a problem for Ireland or Europe. In the case of the Nice treaty, the rejection was a problem for Ireland and we had a rerun with the Nice II referendum. However, when France and the Netherlands returned a "No" vote, it was a problem for Europe and we had a period of reflection. We did not have a rerun then, but got a new treaty, not a constitutional treaty, but the Lisbon reform treaty. The situation is unclear now and will only become clearer in the fullness of time.

It seems to me that the people sought reasons to vote "No" and that deep down there was fundamental suspicion of the European Union and that the reasons given for voting "Yes" were not necessarily the real reasons for doing so. Deputy Mulcahy has probably come close to the mark in saying that there is suspicion with regard to EU enlargement and the manner in which it has taken place which has resulted in substantial immigration into this country. That may not be the main reason, but it was certainly one of the issues. It seems that people were looking for reasons to vote "No", and we need to discover why that is the case.

A decision was made at the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny this morning, following a proposal put by Deputy Dooley who is here, that there should be a joint committee meeting of both it and this committee. That would be worthwhile because both committees did significant work on the issue of the treaty. This committee travelled the country to hold meetings on the Lisbon treaty and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny did significant research work on the enhanced role of the national Parliament. It would be important to see what can be done in respect of those areas.

There was much goodwill around this table towards the greater and deeper involvement of our Parliament, along with other national parliaments, in playing a significant role in the drafting and moulding of legislation as proposed in the Lisbon treaty. I wonder whether that process can continue on an informal basis and at an administrative level. That cannot, obviously, continue on a legal level because it lacks the legal authority that would have been given by the Lisbon treaty. The principle was clear, but whether we can proceed with putting it into practice in terms of the involvement of both committees is worth considering.

These are issues the two committees could usefully examine and we should sit together to do so. The dust will have settled a little after a week or two and there will be an opportunity after the consultations have taken place between Heads of State and so on to see what we feel, as central players, in the Joint Committee on European Affairs. Given that there is quite an overlap between membership of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny we could see what progress we could make, hopefully, in a joint capacity.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I thank the Chairman. Purely from a committee's point of view, this is one of the most exciting periods in which we could find ourselves as an Oireachtas committee. A very significant challenge has been placed before us, following a decision of the Irish people. Clearly there is an extensive range of views as to the reasons for the "No" vote. I have my own opinions on that but it is too early for any us to come to any conclusions. It is a rejection of the reform treaty. I canvassed extensively as did my colleagues and the results from Clare show that. I note Deputy Pat Breen is present. There has been a rejection of the treaty for which there were many different reasons.

We talked about it in terms of it being a reform treaty. From canvassing it appeared that many of the people we met were not sure what we were seeking to reform. There is a great lack of knowledge of the institutions of Europe and of the treaties that have gone before. Much of this comes down to the fact that many members of the public see Europe as an ATM. It is all in terms of its transfers.

On this occasion there was not any hook upon which to sell a positive message. People were not interested in the back office management of the European institutions or their relationship with member states. They did not see a positive benefit. I could not count the number of doors at which people asked what was in it for them. If one goes back through the various referenda, there were many positives which people saw. They looked at the single currency and saw the importance from their point of view in their travels through Europe. We saw the opening of the markets on a previous occasion. I concur with Deputy Mulcahy, in that we saw the difficulty in trying to sell Nice I in particular where people were concerned about enlargement of the Union and the impact it would have on them. In Nice II, people had come around to the conclusion that we owed something to people who were less well-off than ourselves. Our deepened spirit overcame the suspicions and perhaps some of our greed at that time, and suggestions that others were in a worst situation than us and needed a break. That was the argument that carried Nice II.

There is a great lack of knowledge and information among the public as to what the whole European project is about. If anything, this campaign demonstrated that there was not a hook upon which to sell it, a pin number for the ATM machine, or an obvious financial or other benefit, we were talking about back office management systems within the institutions. There is a very exciting breadth of work for this committee to try to comprehend through extensive research.

We will have to take advice on how to do that because I have no interest in sitting here listening to various groups on the "No" or the "Yes" side as to why we should continue that. We have done that. We have to get much closer to the people and find a methodology to do that. That is probably our first job of work and I think we can do it. Yet again, it gives an important role to this committee where we can go beyond the standard workload. I look forward to participating in that work. I have no doubt the Chairman will guide and lead us through it.

I support what Deputy Costello has said in regard to a joint meeting, with the permission of the committee, in order that we can begin the discussion at that level but we need to do some work in this committee in deciding how we should proceed.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

From my experience on campaigning for a "Yes" vote on the Lisbon treaty, it became clear that for a long time the European Union was seen as a vehicle by which people could progress their individual economic and social interests. However, during the past number of years the European Union was viewed by many people not as a vehicle for progress but as a barrier to achieving progress or as a cause of many of the difficulties we currently face.

We have focused considerably in this discussion on the European political institutions with which we engage and it is appropriate that we discuss them given that this is a meeting of the European affairs committee, but we must acknowledge, having regard to the outcome of last Thursday's referendum, that the role and status people accorded to our domestic political institutions are very low. That was a contributory factor to the outcome of the referendum. The fact that only 22% of our population currently trust our domestic political institutions, as recorded in an opinion poll taken earlier this year, was a factor in the outcome of the referendum. If people have an issue with the faith they place in the workings of the Dáil and Seanad and the Members of these Houses, that will affect the attention they give to what is said by us as Members. While addressing that issue is a major matter that is outside the remit of this committee, given that we are discussing the subject before us, we need to acknowledge that the issues we face are not only ones concerning the European Union but issues concerning how people view these institutions and those of us who work in them.

The work of this committee must focus on, first, understanding what the people think about Europe as opposed to the Lisbon treaty and, second, what we can do to contribute to the thinking of a way forward. I would question the value of any work the committee would engage in that would not focus on those two topics, having regard to the crisis of faith regarding the European Union, the Dáil and the Seanad.

Three topics in particular that need to be addressed stand out. First, during the Lisbon treaty campaign I was struck by the fact that we spent so much time talking to the converted, those who already had a view on this matter. Other people made the point, which I endorse, that we should spend time trying to better understand what our citizens, particularly our young people, think about Europe. I was also struck by the fact that people who are three or four years younger than me have a completely different attitude to the role of Europe Union and what it has contributed to them personally.

Second, labour markets, immigration and the opening up of our economy played a major role in the outcome of the referendum. We need to focus on our understanding of what people think about those issues and anything that could be done to address those concerns would be time well spent. Third, there is the issue of people's attitude to the euro. I read some information recently on people's attitude to the euro a number of years ago. People had trust in it and the role it played in our economy, but that view has changed. That was also a contributory factor to the outcome last Thursday.

The role of this committee should be to spend time examining why the treaty was rejected and thinking about what we would do differently. The attitude of our people to the Europe Union as opposed to the Lisbon treaty, the role of the European Union in our labour markets and the opening of them, and people's attitude to the euro are the three areas on which we should focus in our work programme.

Chairman

I did not encounter that view - I do not know if other members did. In referring to the people's attitude to the euro, I gather the Senator means that it has resulted in higher prices or costs.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

The view is that the euro is a source of higher prices.

Chairman

If people considered the possibility that if we were not in the eurozone at present, they would realise that we would have been in a serious economic position, particularly in terms of oil imports and other energy product imports. When people are looking for something to blame, that aspect could be part of it, but the economic argument does not stand up.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I know that is the case, but we must be careful at present not to blame or criticise the people who voted "No". If we get into that loop - I am not suggesting the Chairman is - we will not move forward. We should focus on understanding the reasons. All I can offer is the evidence I found, which is that people saw the euro as a source of higher prices. The fact that we could be worse off is for debate on another day. However, it was a factor in the negative views towards the Lisbon treaty.

Deputy Pat Breen

I apologise for arriving late to the meeting.

Obviously, the people have spoken and we must respect their view. Five words dominated the referendum: "If in doubt, vote No". I got that message from most people on the canvass. They did not understand what they were voting for. Most referenda are complex and this one was particularly so. As other speakers mentioned, there was little in it for ordinary people. They were not interested in how the European institutions worked. In previous referenda there was something of substance in the treaties relating to new institutions, preparing for the euro or increasing the membership of the European Union.

What is required is a period of reflection. Would the treaty have been more heavily defeated were it not for The Irish Times poll in the previous week which got the “Yes” campaigners moving? Undoubtedly, those campaigning for a “No” vote conducted an effective campaign that was much sharper than the “Yes” campaign. It captured the imagination of ordinary people. We will not deal with what was and was not in the treaty at this stage; there will be another day for that. The political parties will conduct their post mortems to find out why the people rejected the treaty. The committee should examine the issue also.

I spoke to some of my European colleagues when I was away for two days during the campaign and they would agree that if a referendum was held in any other member state, the treaty would probably be rejected. People use their vote in a number of ways. Some use it to protest against the government, while others use it to respond to other issues. We must examine the way issues are put to the people in referenda. I agree that we must discuss the result in the next few months. However, we must also move on. The people have spoken. I do not believe the people who voted against the treaty do not wish to be part of the European Union. I believe they do and want to follow the European dream. It is very important to have a large unified Community to compete with countries such as India and China.

We should discuss the huge amount of misinformation during the campaign. When I spoke to people a day or two after they had cast their vote, I was still astonished by their reasons for voting "No". They had nothing to do with the treaty. People were afraid. One woman told me she had voted "No" because she was afraid her grandchildren would be conscripted. Abortion was another issue. These issues had nothing to do with the treaty but stayed in people's minds. We spent most of our time trying to show that they were not included in the treaty when we should have been promoting what was contained in it.

I congratulate the Chairman on the role he played during the past six months. The committee did a great deal of work in the context of meeting the social partners and various other groups. In addition, we held meetings at various locations throughout the country. The political parties, Government and Opposition, also held meetings. The small attendances at these meetings reflected the level of interest in the treaty. We must try to relate the concept of Europe to people to a greater degree, particularly because they perceive the EU to be far away. They may also perceive the Houses of the Oireachtas in that way at times. We must work on getting the message across in the future.

Senator Terry Leyden

The committee carried out its responsibilities. The turnout in the referendum was an indication that there was a great deal of complacency regarding the Lisbon reform treaty. I am convinced that there will be another referendum. The exit poll taken by the European Commission on Thursday last indicates many of the issues which should and must be clarified. It was an error not to send a copy of the treaty to every home. Everyone on the register of electors had the opportunity to vote on the treaty and, therefore, there was no reason for not circulating it. Clarifications in respect of the treaty will be forthcoming.

When Ireland first applied to join the then EEC, its application was rejected. However, it reapplied and was accepted. Ireland subsequently became a very successful member of the European Union. We must review the position. In my view, this committee and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny will have a role to play in that regard. Deputy Costello proposed this morning that a joint meeting of the two committees should be held in July to discuss all aspects of the referendum and the issues raised during the campaign relating to it. We must try to clarify, as best we can, the issues to which I refer.

The situation in which we find ourselves is serious. I do not want Ireland to be on the periphery of the European Union, it must be at the centre and it must continue to play an important role. I hope there will be an opportunity, before January 2009, to revisit and deal with the issues and to obtain clarifications and protocols.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is an important aspect of the treaty and certain elements used it to support their argument that the treaty could be used to introduce abortion. Two documents on which the image of the Pope was depicted, were circulated at my local church last week which stated that people should vote "No". The argument was put forward by those to whom I refer that people would, under the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be able to go to the courts in Luxembourg and demand abortion as a human right.

These where the types of issues raised. It would be best if we dealt with them and considered the position. We have six months to examine where we stand. I hope there will be another opportunity - good, bad or indifferent - to review matters and to put the treaty to the people again in order to see what decision they will make.

Deputy Michael McGrath

During the campaign, I became aware of the serious lack of awareness among people regarding the content of the treaty. The referendum became a contest involving soundbites and simple messages. To be frank, we lost the battle hands down. The soundbites from the "No" side, while misleading and disingenuous in many cases, struck a chord with people. Those on the "No" side sowed the seeds of doubt in many people's minds early in the campaign. We were never able to counter this and make up the ground that had been lost.

If one examines the overall trend in respect of referenda relating to Europe held in this country, it is clear that a percentage of people always vote "No". Regardless of what we say, we will never be able to win these individuals over. On this occasion, however, we lost the battle in respect of the middle ground. That is extremely disappointing. We must engage in a careful analysis of the reasons for our failure to win the middle ground.

An analysis of the "No" vote in this referendum is going to prove exceedingly difficult as a result of the disparate reasons which led people to vote against the treaty. Single-issue groups used the referendum to highlight matters in which they are particularly interested, even though these had no direct connection to the Lisbon treaty. Owing to a class-size issue, all the parents in one school wrote to me indicating they would vote "No". E-mails I have received outline other reasons such as the cost of living. The day before the vote a man in his 80s came to my office. As he was convinced the treaty would introduce abortion he intended phoning all his family to tell them to vote "No". That gives an idea of the disparate reasons for people voting "No". Many people who are deeply committed to Europe, and impressed and convinced by the case Europe has made and the achievements Ireland has secured from European Union membership, voted "No" on this occasion for reasons that had nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. The result throws up fundamental issues, upon some of which Senator Donohoe touched, including lack of trust in the political establishment - a term I do not like. Some people said to me that if all the main parties are for it there must be something in it. We, as public representatives, need seriously to address that suspicion of conspiracy because it goes to the very heart of our body politic and our democratic system.

There has not been much talk about the second issue. Analysing the voting patterns shows a breakdown along social class. There appears to be a growing suspicion, particularly among working class people, of what the European Union is all about and its implications for them, including immigration, workers' rights, the cost of living, etc. These are the issues upon which we must focus. The main message I take from the referendum is that this committee should make its work as relevant as possible to the day-to-day lives of ordinary people. While this is an Oireachtas committee and we must focus on the broad brief we have, some of the issues we might be tempted to investigate might be regarded as quite abstract from people's day-to-day lives. Let us keep it as relevant as we possibly can while working within our terms of reference. It is clear that suspicion exists. If there is another referendum on a mark 2 version of the Lisbon treaty or on any future treaty, these issues will come up again and must be addressed. The political representatives will deal with the fallout from the referendum on the Lisbon treaty over a period of some time. These matters must be addressed by us as a committee. My main message is to keep the work as relevant as possible.

Senator Phil Prendergast

I will not repeat many of the views already expressed. There was a myriad of reasons why people voted as they did. People such as us who are involved in the process have had exposure to all the information on the Lisbon treaty. Members of the committee have been involved in the process of providing information on the canvass, etc. and had that knowledge base. However, the ordinary punters were exposed to the "No" side and the credibility of its arguments. One of the big issues that was parlayed to me on many occasions was the prominent media people who appeared on populist programmes expressing the view: "If you don't know, vote No." It had a considerable impact on voters and was repeated many times during the campaign. There was a feeling of frustration in having to explain my position when involved in a radio programme panel or whatever. There was an element of always being on the back foot. I give great credit to the consultant to the committee, Mr. Peter Doyle, and the committee secretariat for preparing briefs and giving us the in-depth background we have.

We must accept the rejection of the treaty by the electorate. However, it makes it almost personal, which it is not meant to be. We had a great knowledge base and not everybody was privy to that. Ordinary people on the ground who were presented with the "No" and "Yes" sides concluded that they did not really know what it was about and therefore voted "No". Much of that took place.

A meeting between the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and ourselves will be a positive development. We will have to see where we go from here. Congratulations to the committee on all of the hard work that was done, which will not go astray. I only wish it could have been a different type of meeting today.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I recognise and appreciate that a referendum is the purest form of democracy. It is not like voting for Mr. A or Mr. B. It is voting straight "Yes" or "No". Having paid due tribute to the voice of the people, I must say that it was a campaign based on lies. Everybody is afraid to say the word, but that is what it was. I called to houses over eight days and was told amazing things. I met women with flocks of kids who said that any child under three would be taken from them if they voted "Yes". That was said to me on doorsteps but I cannot find that anywhere in the treaty. I cannot find the information anywhere that children will be taken from their parents. That is a very powerful and negative message.

Another issue raised was abortion. I saw the same faces out during this campaign that I saw in 1983 abortion referendum. They were determined to use this occasion to get their point of view across again, that the treaty was about abortion. The notion was also put about that peoples' sons and daughters over the age of 16 would be forcibly removed from them. If they managed to stay at home beyond aged three and were not snatched from their parents, they would then be taken at 16 and put into a European army. We may laugh but these are huge fears which were peddled incessantly, door to door. We found ourselves having to rebut the untruths and trying to make progress. It was like dealing with a big, fat eiderdown. The minute one made a dent in one part of the eiderdown, the dent came out in another part. One could not get through with anything positive.

There was a very clever job done on posters. They took on mottos such as "Strong in Europe - Vote No". Posters can be very arresting. I understand an enormous technological campaign was also engaged in via social networking sites on the Internet, particularly aimed at young people. I do not know if there was any way to combat it. Certainly, as a political party, we started too late or at least got cranked up too late.

There is a little bit of the subversive in everybody and it appears to be quite subversive and smart to say "Vote No". People used to follow us around housing estates, shouting, "Mary, we are for No". Kids had the catch cry, "Vote No" and just kept shouting it. I never met anyone who was voting "Yes". I was asked, "Are you the Yes woman?" when I was canvassing.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

It must have been great craic watching that.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

In an effort to beat the untruths of the "No" campaign, we had nothing sexy to sell. It was a very minimalist treaty. One could say that Europe will work better if people vote "Yes", but people did not give a fig about that. They just did not give a fig.

The most alarming element now is that we are being told to come up with a solution. The "No" campaigners gave us an opportunity - weren't they wonderful - to hold our heads high and to come up with an excuse but they have not given us a pretext for the "No" vote.

My esteemed colleague, Senator Leyden, to whom I will give a box later when I see him, spoke about another referendum. No way - there cannot be another referendum. There will be no foot soldiers. They will be on strike, if that is possible. I do not think there should be another referendum. As we speak here there are mandarins in the Department of Foreign Affairs talking to mandarins in Brussels who think we will have another referendum and are planning it, thinking that they can persuade those ungenerous Irish people. It is equally alarming that there are people who say that if they were given several things, they would agree. Once that is granted, the next crowd will want gold dust under every mushroom.

Chairman

Or magic mushrooms.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Magic mushrooms, maybe. There is no way of placating every group but a referendum is not on either. I hope the disenchantment felt with Europe will not spread to the political parties. They say we are out of touch and elitist. I do not know how one can be out of touch if one holds clinics three or four times a week, goes to churches and goes shopping. Europe is out of touch to think that people were foolish enough to buy a pig in a poke. They were not foolish enough, but layers of untruths were sown. I am all for the voice of the people, which is how we are all here, but the voice of the people needs to be founded on veracity. I thank the Chairman and the secretariat for the work in the whole operation.

Chairman

I feel sorry, and I am sure the members do too, for the staff of the secretariat and Leinster House and members of the committee. They were sincere in their efforts, as opposed to being cynical. I predicted in December that the referendum would be lost. I tabled a Dáil question last week, before polling day, asking the Minister how he proposed to handle the aftermath of the referendum.

Many members have set out the multiplicity of reasons. As a society, we have become mercenary and money conscious to a great extent. I worry about the reference by Senator Donohoe to blaming the euro. Whatever else it can be blamed, there is no economic ground for that.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Senator Donohoe should forget that.

Chairman

It would be delusional and negative if people were to go down that road. The Eurosceptics across Europe played a major role in this campaign. They accessed and influenced a great number of people. They did not tell the truth all the time. Afterwards, they went to the Kitty O'Shea pub in Brussels, rejoiced and regaled everyone about how wonderful it was to have a negative response from Ireland. The negativity towards the euro comes from that group as well. The Times, The Daily Mail and the Rupert Murdoch group of outlets were geared to promoting the alternative to what we promoted. The people were in a mood to find something against which they could vote and they did so. In my constituency, along with a handful of others, they did not vote against it but we were conscious of it.

The CAP reform came back to haunt us and the WTO matter remained in the air, whether we like it or not.

Deputy Pat Breen

We warned of that.

Chairman

The fisheries issue was deeply damaging to the cause.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

No fish, no turf.

Chairman

People dumping their fish off harbours at the same time as we imported fish was deeply damaging. There is no way that can be explained and it was deeply damaging to a much wider group than those depending on fisheries. It went way outside that community and said there was something wrong with this system. It is immaterial but it happened.

I refer to the WTO. Deputy O'Rourke mentioned those with licences to cut turf in a bog.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

They have turbary rights.

Chairman

Suddenly they received an order from a bureaucrat somewhere that this could no longer happen. What a load of nonsense. An idiot came up with this proposal which was absolutely ludicrous, particularly since turbary rights have been exercised extensively by Bord na Móna and others. It is putting down the individual and reducing his or her scope. That is still happening but the French ignore these measures. They continue as if it did not happen. Their small industries behave the same way they did 100 years ago. Lessons can be learned from this.

Price increases had nothing to do with the treaty. Deputy O'Rourke also mentioned untrue posters. If somebody erects a poster during a general election campaign that is untrue or scurrilous, he or she can be sued but nobody can be sued for erecting such posters during a referendum. Anything can be put on a poster with impunity and nobody can be blamed. A significant number of posters carrying threatening forebodings had no authentication or name on them. Nobody knew who sourced or funded them, which is a serious problem. I only learned who the owners of the three monkeys were the day after the campaign.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Youth Defence, Cóir.

Chairman

The other threat was that it would cost people. The "No" campaign stated it would not be bullied but it engaged in bullying. It stated, "It will cost you", which was a direct threat. It was a simple message, whereas we were trying to explain something else.

We were coming from a negative position. This was the third country to hold a referendum on essentially the same subject matter after two other countries had rejected it. It was foolish of other Europeans and ourselves to expect us to win it. That lesson must be learned, once, last and always. It is all very fine for others to say we have benefited greatly from Union membership but it was pointed out a number of times that two countries had rejected the same proposal under a different name.

I am worried about the issues of xenophobia and immigration. This could be a nasty undercurrent that we refuse to accept or recognise but it is worrying. We need to give leadership on it. It must be explained that the Irish, above all races on the face of the earth, cannot afford to put up barriers to those who wish to enter the country to work, given that we have travelled everywhere when we had to do so. There is no good marvelling at the degree to which people will attempt to stay in an economically viable environment or blaming them for it. We did it ourselves and are past masters at doing so. There is no use pretending we are new to this.

I will go into the details when the committee goes into private session. A number of serious faux pas damaged the “Yes” cause. Timing was also an issue. I always believed the referendum should have been held in the autumn. There is a series of reasons for this.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Prices will be sky high by then.

Chairman

There is for and against but it should have been held in the autumn.

The issue of class was mentioned also and I agree that it may have had something to do with it. We need to take another look at all the issues. Committee members know, as public representatives, that local authority funding was great for house buyers and for housing people who were upwardly mobile. That has changed and that area of funding has been cut off generally. In urban areas around Dublin city and in adjoining counties, local authorities are no longer of benefit to people seeking housing. People now go to voluntary agencies, or banks and building societies. We will discuss this issue of class in a private meeting of the committee.

I agree with the point made by Deputy O'Rourke that it is difficult when one is attempting to explain a particularly intricate subject if a person is automatically entitled to come along and say "No, I disagree" and then give a totally different version of it. It is particularly difficult to conduct a debate if every discussion must allow disagreement on that same basis. I cannot understand how we will ever be able to give our time to such issues given that the numbers game is not relevant in the debate. We could have a hundred people on one side saying "Yes", but the one person on the "No" side could claim he or she is entitled to time to say "No" a hundred times. It is peculiar that this is how it is.

Deputy Mulcahy raised a question as to how we will work in the future. Currently, we have the right to get information before the Minister goes to Brussels. We are doing that now, but again I note there is a matter on the agenda with which I want to deal in a private meeting.

I thank Mr. Peter Doyle and committee members for the huge effort they made to bring the facts to the people, which has turned out to have been a wasted effort. I hope we have not become sceptical as a result. There are already many sceptics and scepticism will achieve nothing for us.

Jean Marie Le Pen did not appear in the debate at all. He did not come here, but there were a number of other eurosceptics from other European countries who came here to promote scare tactics. I will not rehash the raising of abortion as an issue. It was appalling the way rumours spread like wildfire. It was suggested that babies and children would be at risk, that everyone would be conscripted, that euthanasia would be a matter of course and other such nonsense. These rumours were put forward covertly to a great extent, which is a dangerous move about which we should be worried. That kind of thing can be dangerous in any country at any time.

I agree we should have a joint meeting with the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. We should also have a private meeting of this committee as soon as possible.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

This is like a wake.

Senator Terry Leyden

It is not a wedding anyway.

Chairman

We need to do a few things. We need to confront ourselves and the European institutions to some extent in order to find balance. We must also point out that we have benefited hugely from our membership of the European Union and that this does not come without responsibility.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

The Charter of Fundamental Rights was a big plus for us, but the "No" campaigners took the charter and twisted and presented it as full of everything evil.

Chairman

They presented it as sinister.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Yes, they made a sinister document of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was very odd, was it not?

Chairman

It was. We shall move on.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I wish to say a few words on reflection.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

That is the modern word.

Deputy Noel Treacy

It is important that we reflect because we are certainly in a crisis and Europe is in a crisis. There is a serious challenge ahead for the whole democratic process. Those of us who believe in democracy, the Union and the opportunities it creates for all our citizens have been dealt a serious jolt. We accept the decision of the Irish people. We lost the vote by 7%. We can point to mistakes that were made, and political and personal utterances which impacted 10% in some cases and 15% in others which seriously eroded the core vote.

I spent 12 days canvassing outside churches, houses, supermarkets, bingo halls and so on. The older voter voted "Yes". The people who voted "Yes" in 1972 who are still alive voted "Yes" because as some of them said to me, they saw the two days.

We had a serious issue with the young vote, young women in particular and young people. The difficulty I found with the "No" side was that they would not engage. When one tried to speak with them, they said they did not understand it and that they were not informed. When asked whether they got the documents, they said—

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

"We have no time to read that."

Deputy Noel Treacy

That is correct. They said they had no time to read them, did not have time to speak and would be voting "No" anyway. That was the line and it was a serious line. We have reached a serious crisis in our society. We are now an intolerant, selfish society on this island. Patriotism is something that can be gauged by the formula in which it is delivered. We have a very democratic state. Every sector on this island is involved in the democratic process of running this country by consultation, social partnership and so on. There was a serious lack of patriotism and a breakdown of trust by key social partners when they demanded a selfish commitment to protect either their personalities or numbers during the campaign which I thought was abhorrent and very sad.

The role of the Referendum Commission has to be seriously looked at.

Senator Terry Leyden

Absolutely.

Deputy Noel Treacy

The Referendum Commission is there in a tacit, passive way and people who have no mandate, who are not elected, can make the most outrageous and outlandish statements and there is nobody to contradict them. When we politicians speak, individually or otherwise, in group sessions or in debates, we are shouted down, the mob gets its way and the lies are sustained.

I found also that the media was not really interested in the campaign. It had a passive interest and it gave plenty of coverage to those on the "No" side who were personality driven. However, it was not interested in dialogue with those of us who had a mandate to represent the heart of Ireland and the positivity of the nation or in seeking advice or assistance from us.

I think it was Deputy Costello who said that two countries had already voted "No", a matter to which the Chairman has referred. There is a serious challenge for the future as to how a democratic country with a written Constitution, mandated by the people in 1972 to put every treaty before them, can sustain itself to a point where democracy can prevail and the truth can win out. That is a serious challenge for every elected politician on this island and every political party that believes in our Constitution.

Chairman

While I will not let everybody else in again, Senator Donohoe wants to make a brief comment.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I wish to make a brief response to what Deputy Treacy has said. I am conscious that Deputy Treacy has much more experience than I have of participating in and winning elections and referenda. It is important that we do not find ourselves in a place where we are blaming people who voted "No". He used language to suggest we are a selfish and intolerant society--

Deputy Noel Treacy

Yes.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

--and talked about people acting in an unpatriotic manner in terms of what they may have said. It is one thing to say that about leaders or people making their views known during a campaign, but in the work we have to do to allow the truth to win out, on which I agree with what Deputy Treacy said, we must find a way to allow that to happen in a mature democracy. We will not achieve that by blaming people who put forward a particular argument or who voted in a particular way. In the analysis and work we do on this as politicians, we must ensure we do not end up blaming people who voted "No" because in their minds they had good reasons for doing so. If we use the language of blame, first, we will not be able to understand those people and, second, we will not be able to change their minds. I want to change their minds rather than blaming them.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

We are not blaming them but blaming those who told lies.

Chairman

It is laudable to want to change their minds, but I have serious doubts as to whether the Senator will change the minds of some of the people we talked about. We met them at some of our meetings. The committee should recognise that during the course of our meetings throughout the country the "No" lobby greatly monopolised the platform from the floor. They were in all the time. Very few people on the "Yes" side came forward. The "No" lobby utilised that platform. None of the key speakers on the "No" side appeared before the committee. Not once did they appear on the platform. Declan Ganley was invited on several occasions to appear before the committee.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Was he?

Chairman

He never appeared before the committee.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Was he invited here?

Chairman

He was invited here and also to the regional meetings. He refused to appear before the committee. With the exception of those we invited here and those who were our guest speakers, several senior personalities on the "No" side who had ample opportunity to appear before the committee and have their views debated and questions raised did not do so.

I will finish on this point and bring the meeting to a close. I and other members of the committee met a group of young Dutch Members of Parliament two months ago. They were anxious to convey the view that they were the new generation. It was also said here that there was a difficulty in conveying the message in terms of the treaty referendum to young people and that we were more reliant on the grey vote, not that I would draw attention to the colour of a voter's hair. We need to think about that in the future.

When Europe starts to review itself and to change, it will note it has a sad history. It was mentioned that Europe is progressing too fast. Perhaps it is but perhaps it has had to. Perhaps it has had to do certain things to ensure other things did not happen. If Europe wants to learn from its history, the lessons to be learnt are traumatic and severe. We should always remember, regardless of our age, that the history of Europe has been very tragic. The European movement, for all the European Union's faults and failures, has generally been very helpful. It has brought Europe together, made it more cohesive and has made each country more conscious of its neighbour. It is important we realise that in the future. If we and people elsewhere in Europe lose sight of that, we will face a problem in the future, regardless of what generation we are talking about. We will not resolve that issue today. We will have this meeting and another joint meeting at which we will finish the discussion on this matter and move on. We will wait for the Eurocrats to make their decision and for the Taoiseach and the Department of Foreign Affairs to indicate what is proposed in this regard from here on.

Deputy Noel Treacy

Paragraph 2 under the heading "Action" refers to continuous exchange with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I suggest that it should state continuous exchange with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs.

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Noel Treacy

Perhaps there will be a roll-over in terms of this scene next year.

Deputy Joe Costello

Perhaps the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs could be invited to the next joint meeting to make an initial presentation.

Chairman

Is the Deputy suggesting that for next meeting.

Deputy Joe Costello

Yes.

Chairman

I will arrange for that.

Deputy Joe Costello

They will have been to Brussels and back by then.

Chairman

We will keep these activity proposals on the agenda and will solidify them in the next week or so. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 2 on the agenda is consideration of European Commission's annual policy strategy for 2009. We will not deal with that today. We will arrange a special meeting and will have a number of things to say about it. Is it agreed that we report in about two weeks? Agreed. In the meantime, we will be delighted to receive any motions members might have relating to the policy at present.

No. 3 is information on a proposal for a Council decision on the European Investment Bank. I suggest it be referred to a private meeting of the committee. A written brief on the General Affairs and External Relations Council was circulated to members last week. Is it agreed to note it? Agreed. The minutes of the meeting of 4 June have been circulated. Are they agreed? Agreed.

Correspondence received since the last meeting has been circulated. No. 155 is an e-mail from Senator Déirdre de Búrca proposing that the committee invite the following representatives to make presentations to the committee: the Latin American Solidarity Centre on the EU-CAN agreement and Ms Joanne McGarry of Trócaire on the EU's economic partnership agreements with ACP countries. Is that agreed?

Senator Paschal Donohoe

Did we not just have them before the committee?

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Yes. Why invite them again?

Chairman

We had some of them here.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

They were before the committee at the last meeting before we took the break.

Chairman

This was about a different issue.

Deputy Joe Costello

Perhaps we should wait until Senator de Búrca attends a meeting to explain why she wants to invite them.

Chairman

Okay. We will defer the matter.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

It will be a mutual ochón agus ochón.

Chairman

It is regarding the EU trade policy for developing countries. I see nothing wrong with inviting them to make their submissions. Is it agreed that we discuss it at a future meeting? Agreed.

No. 156 is a copy of the submission from the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions on the European Commission's communication, EU as a Global Partner for Development. It is proposed to note it for one of our meetings in the next few weeks. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 157 is an e-mail from Laurent Dauré and Dominique Guillemin enclosing an article on ratification of the Lisbon treaty in France. Do we really want that at this stage? It is noted.

No. 158 is a letter from the President of the European Commission acknowledging receipt of and thanking the committee for its report on the Lisbon reform treaty. That is noted.

No. 159 is a letter from Mr. Hans Zomer, director of Dóchas. It is noted.

No. 160 is a letter and enclosure from Amnesty International enclosing a briefing paper on engagement between the EU and Israel on human rights in the context of the EU-Israel Association Council. Is it agreed to note it? Agreed.

No. 161 is an e-mail from the European Commission wishing to correct an error in its annual report on relations with national parliaments. The report states that one opinion was received from the Houses of the Oireachtas in 2007. The Commission confirms in the e-mail that it received four opinions from the Houses of the Oireachtas. Is it agreed to note it? Agreed.

No. 162 is an invitation to the general assembly of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe which will take place on 1 to 3 October in France. There is no more peripheral region that I am aware of than this region. Is it agreed to note it? Agreed. Members are invited to attend. They will find they will have much explaining to do at many of these meetings in future. However, there is no problem with that.

The Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister, Dr. Mehdi Safari, will visit Dublin next week on 26 and 27 June. The Iranian Embassy has advised that the Minister would like to meet this committee and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on Thursday, 26 June, at 2.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.19 p.m. and adjourned at 3.25 p.m. sine die.