JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union) debate -
Thursday, 20 Nov 2008

Public Understanding of the EU and Ireland’s Membership: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome our guests and will briefly explain the format of the meeting before I invite them to speak. The sub-committee was set up after the Lisbon treaty referendum to look at Ireland's future in the European Union. We were given four terms of reference which cover a broad variety of issues. They focus on people's attitudes to the European Union and their understanding of it; what can be done to improve the role of the Oireachtas in European matters; the implications of the referendum result for the country and our national interests and what we can do to further citizens' understanding of what is going on in the Oireachtas, particularly with regard to the European Union. We are expected to produce a report on the issues we have discussed by the end of the month. We have completed seven weeks of public hearings and this meeting is almost the last part of our deliberations.

We have invited our guests because this week we are looking at how the European Union can be communicated. A variety of people have addressed the sub-committee but we wanted to invite people such as guests who have a gift for communicating and are broadly aware of how people feel about the European Union and their attitude to it. We are grateful to them for taking the time to attend and their participation. As we had an eventful start to our day, I am interested to see what kind of performance we get from our guests. I hope it does not top the earlier performance but I am sure it will be full of drama and important contributions, which we look forward to hearing. Each guest may speak for ten minutes.

Mr. George Hook

As a citizen, this is crucially important. I think I speak on behalf of everyone when I say we are privileged and honoured to be asked to submit a proposal to the sub-committee.

The European Union is a concept, not a product. No one cared one hoot about Albert Einstein's theory of relativity until two Japanese cities were incinerated. Similarly, no one looks upon life assurance as a financial package but rather as a way to care for one's loved ones after they die. The problem Europe has in selling itself to the citizens of Ireland or the other 26 member states, lies in the fact that it is selling the sausage and not the sizzle. It tries to sell the concept rather than how it affects the people of this nation. Ever since the Pharisees in old Jerusalem, there has been a policy of playing on the ignorance and fear of the citizenry of new and innovative ideas. It is extraordinary that people really thought Lisbon had something to do with abortion or neutrality. As radio broadcasters, we heard from many people who voted on issues that were not in the treaty. The first failure was one of communication.

The question of how to sell a product is a crucial one for parliamentarians. Many young men from this island, from both sides of the religious divide, went to a war in 1914 from which many failed to return. They thought they were fighting for the freedom of little nations, defending the helpless Belgians against the dreaded Hun who was bayoneting babies and raping nuns. As we know, nothing was further from the truth and it remains the greatest exercise in killing of any generation.

The problem seems to be the methodology used in selling the treaty. Every analysis in the past decade of the citizenry's view of elected representatives shows that the profession lacks credibility. There have also been credibility issues for parish priests and medical consultants but they are not charged with pointing out the direction the country has to take. In marketing and sales terms, the product is being sold by people whose credibility is damaged before they go before the audience.

It is no coincidence that a black brew can be sold by a pop star or a sportsman. Marketing people use the fact that, for example, Ronan O'Gara wears a particular watch, because the citizen makes a connection between the sportsman and the product. We failed utterly in our attempts to convince people about Lisbon because of our failure to realise that fact. It is interesting that Bono can be pictured with the president of every major democracy on earth to save the starving and teeming millions of Darfur but we do not know what his view is on the Lisbon treaty. There is a belief that people like Bono do not pay taxes and so do not vote or have a view on the issue but, to engage the citizenry, we must use people to whom the citizenry already listens. Bono even helped Munster to beat New Zealand. It is extraordinary that we can beat New Zealand and save Africa's millions but cannot pass legislation which is crucial for the 4.5 million people who live here.

Irish people today can cross the Atlantic in five hours and eat a three-course meal on the way. They can sip water at their place of work and choose whether to drink still or sparkling. They can travel to their place of work on roadways undreamt of a few decades ago but the correlation between those activities and membership of the European Union has never been made. It is extraordinary to reflect that, had we not entered Europe, we might well live in a country which one of its founding fathers imagined, in which we travelled on asses and carts to a crossroads to watch comely maidens dance. The country has improved out of all recognition.

The people are uninformed about the Lisbon treaty and Europe as a whole and are not engaged in the issues, which is why this meeting is being held. The United Kingdom and, in more recent times, Ireland, has had a principle of public service broadcasting. For most of my life there was only one radio station which played sacred music on Good Friday and did not broadcast the spoken word. If a coup d’état was announced in this very building tomorrow we would tune into the national broadcaster to find out what was happening. As a result, there is a belief that only public service broadcasting exists. These Houses have attempted to treat all broadcasters as if they were in the public service but that is not the case around the globe.

It is not a coincidence that the other sector in the broadcasting space is known as the independent sector. The word "independent" is one we should treasure and be proud to bear because we do not get money from the licence fee. We are not just independent from a financial point of view, however, but are independent in terms of our views. Nobody knows how Pat Kenny votes or what his views on Europe are and that is as it should be. He is a public service broadcaster and plays devil's advocate in every interview he conducts, which is his role as part of the public service. However, the majority of people here now listen to stations that are not of the national broadcaster and it is wrong that those broadcasters are not allowed to have an opinion.

The belief that equal time should be allowed to each side of an argument and that an independent station should be even-handed is based on a failed principle. Any cross-section of broadcasters in Ireland, across Europe or around this table, would break down into sides that were pro or con. The elected representatives of the nation should not be afraid that broadcaster A or station A has an opinion contrary to their own.

The Lisbon treaty has been the greatest single failure of this elected body since we became an independent nation. It is extraordinary that even though representatives of between 80% and 90% of the voting public and all the major parties were as one as to what was right for the nation they could not persuade the citizenry to follow their view.

I am honoured to come before the sub-committee because it represents the view of people on this committee that there is a better way forward and that should be looked at as an opportunity. We are opinionated and members can be absolutely certain that, over the next 40 minutes, they will get an opinion.

Deputy Joe Costello

We have heard an opinion for the past ten minutes.

Mr. George Hook

That opinion may be right or wrong but it is no different from the opinion that the All Blacks would or would not beat Munster. It is not that the opinion is right or wrong but that it is an opinion and the viewers, listeners and readers can make up their own minds. This nation has, perhaps, the highest level of newspaper readership on the globe. Therefore, we must trust them. If we fail to do so by putting in place rules that suggest we must cosset them, we will fail and get similar results.

It is important that opinion-makers, people with recognisable faces and credibility are engaged when we discuss the European Union. "Credibility" remains the most important word. It must no longer be spoken of as something that happens in Brussels, a place European parliamentarians visit for substantial dinners, large expenses and to avoid paying tax. The European Union must be seen for what it is. For the first time in the memories of so many of its citizens, Europe has not gone to war. Imagine what the unfortunate punt would have looked like this morning had we been set free in the exchanges of the world and not had the euro wrapped around us.

I make no apology for being a believer in the European Union and contributing passionately to the European debate. We are in the right place at the right time. We must allow our citizens to make an informed decision, as must be the case in a democracy. The tragedy of the last referendum was the citizens of Ireland were not informed. In the words of my hero, Winston Churchill, I say on behalf of the broadcasting industry, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job."

Mr. Bill Cullen

Someone said, "Give me the child and I will answer for the man." I am delighted to hear what Mr. Hook has said because I was a "Yes" voter on the Lisbon treaty and felt the disappointment that many people felt at what had happened. We all know what happened: the people charged with responsibility for our national and international interests let us down. They took their eyes off the ball as their minds were engaged elsewhere. They were not able to put the proper resources in place to do what had to be done.

In recent months I have realised that most of the people do not see the European Union in any shape. It does not exist, except as two letters: EU. They do not know its history and do not understand what it is about. Therefore, there was no way that anyone could have engaged with them. As Mr. Dunphy said, one should not engage with people's heads but their hearts.

Mr. Hook said, "sell, sell, sell." I started selling cars 52 years ago. As an old age pensioner, I am probably the oldest man here, but I can tell Mr. Hook that we are not selling anything anymore; we are helping people to buy. This is where we have failed because we did not help the people to buy into the European Union, we let them down. The "No" campaign succeeded in getting people to buy into its message. It got away with half-truths and misconceptions because we were neither prepared nor able to help people to buy into the European Union.

Does anyone in this room know where all this started? Am I the only person here who remembers how we got into the European Union, then the European Economic Community? Mr. Hook will remember what happened in June 1972. An aeroplane crashed one Sunday morning and 16 members of the Irish delegation which was negotiating our accession to the EEC were killed. All of the passengers on the aeroplane, some 47 people, were killed. I had the privilege of knowing most of the people concerned and sold cars to many of them, including Guy Jackson, a director of Guinness — I sold many cars to employees of that company. Also killed were Michael Rigby-Jones, the owner of Irish Ropes in Newbridge, and Neville Miller, the boss of Rowntree Macintosh in Islandbridge, who bought 50 cars each year from me. Con Smith, the founder of Renault Ireland and probably the best businessman in the country at the time, was also killed. The head of IBEC, Michael Gray; the head of the chambers of commerce, Michael O'Reilly; Hugh Kilfeather of An Bord Tráchtála; and Ned Gray of the Confederation of Irish Industry were killed. A Fine Gael man, Michael Sweetman, was also killed. Michael Smurfit was scheduled to be on that aeroplane but, being the businessman he is and an early bird, left three days early to try to get a business deal done while in Brussels. The crash got us the sympathy vote six months later and we got into the EEC as a result. We might not have got in but for the crash because Ireland was looked on as a country in need of much help and support.

Ireland has come through 60 years of tough times and I remember when children had no shoes on their feet. We owe what we are today to the European Union. Has anyone told the people how much we get from it? In today's terms, the figure would be €50 billion. In 1998 Albert Reynolds came back from Maastricht with €9 billion for us. It all helped to create the Celtic tiger and get us where we are. The people must be told what the European Union is all about. We are not trying to sell anything; we are trying to tell them the truth about what the Union is about and what it has done for Ireland. That is what I am trying to get across: we need buy-in.

Professor Richard Aldous

I thank the Chairman and the sub-committee for inviting me. As it would be hard for me to follow the moving and emotional contribution of Mr. Cullen, I will not try. My perspective of this debate may be slightly different. I came to this country as an immigrant and have benefited from living in an EU country as a citizen of another member state in the past 13 years.

I wish to bring forward reflections on the Lisbon treaty campaign and point to some of the strengths and weaknesses of the "Yes" campaign, particularly the weaknesses. The message is the obvious place to start. The treaty was put to the country as a tidying-up exercise that would pull together loose ends but this message was never going to engage people. Nature abhors a vacuum and the "Yes" campaign's message left a vacuum that others filled with a more ideological message. The treaty sought to draw a line in the sand on the 20 years the European Union had spent on a process of thinking about itself and dealing with its own governance. An opportunity to say, "This is how we want to run the EU" was missed. The "Yes" campaign could have pointed out that when the 27 Heads of State met, they would not look inwards and worry about technical issues of how the European Union was run; they would start thinking about big issues such as climate change, nuclear proliferation and the global economy. From the beginning of the "Yes" campaign, its message failed to engender any enthusiasm.

There were other aspects of the "Yes" campaign that doomed it to failure. Looking at it from the outside, as a person from Britain, it seemed obvious that there was no figure like Peter Mandelson involved, no strategic supremo. Nobody was prepared to force things through and set the agenda for the campaign. I am sure somebody was running it; I do not know who that person was. The lack of a strategic vision was clear to observers. The lack of strategic vision or a strategic supremo also had a direct impact on what happened on the campaign, in particular in two respects. It was fairly obvious to me, as somebody coming into this country that is perhaps used to the quite vigorous debate within the UK press, that the Irish political establishment was caught cold by the euroscepticism of the British-owned media during this campaign.

The Daily Mail, whatever one may think of it, is a highly effective newspaper in getting its message across and convincing people of the rightness of its case. The Sunday Times does things in a slightly different way but, equally, it is very effective at getting its message across. It is a well-respected newspaper in Ireland, is read by many people and is an opinion former. The “Yes” campaign failed to take into account that changed media environment because, by and large, in previous debates, for example, in the Nice referendum, there had been pretty much a consensus within the media.

The knock-on effect of this was the huge contrast between the speed of rebuttal of the "Yes" campaign and the "No" campaign. If the "No" campaign felt something had been said that it wanted to get its argument across about, it was in immediately. I experienced this directly when I was hosting "The Right Hook" for George Hook over the summer. An interview was done with Gay Mitchell following which Libertas immediately came in with a rebuttal, literally within minutes of the interview having happened. The "Yes" campaign did not get its rebuttals in quickly enough.

It was a mistake by the "Yes" campaign and is still an ongoing mistake to play the man and not the ball. There was a sense of going after the leader of Libertas, Declan Ganley, in particular. Most ordinary observers, particularly those who do not follow politics on a day to day basis, felt that to see the entire political establishment descend on the person taking a lead in the "No" campaign was wrong. It offended many people's sense of fairness and it enabled Declan Ganley to play the role of the plucky little insurgent who was running against the entire political establishment, a case which he made very skilfully.

In addition, there was a sense that although we could see the political establishment behaving in a particular kind of way, those from the outside also looked in and saw that while the biggest parties in Ireland had all signed up to the "Yes" campaign, there was no real sense of genuine cross-party co-operation. There was no genuine sense that the political leadership of the major parties were working together on a co-ordinated strategy that put aside for the course of that referendum the everyday politics that are inevitably the bread and butter of this place. Not only does this seem to have been the reality, it was perceived by ordinary voters as being the reality.

Finally, and in some ways this comes back to what I said at the beginning about the message and perhaps in some ways captures all of what I have said, there was about the "Yes" campaign a fatal sense of entitlement, a sense that "We know what is best and you should just take us at our word and vote "Yes"". This came across particularly through the language of the referendum. The language of the "No" campaign, putting politics aside, was direct and expressed in the language that people understand. Mr. Cullen has a poster in front of him which states "Bad for Ireland, Bad for Europe." That is very simple, clear and encapsulates their message succinctly in a language people understand. There is a language of the European Union, a kind of eurospeak that frankly alienates more or less everybody who is not engaged in European politics. I certainly find it a put-off. The inability of the "Yes" campaign to move beyond that eurospeak and to express a clear message in the language people understand while giving off this sense of entitlement was at the absolute core of what went wrong for the "Yes" campaign in that debate.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

Good morning. I thank the committee for inviting me to attend. I declare my interest in supporting a "No" to the Lisbon proposition. The principal reason is that it was unreadable and did not convey any meaning to a reader, and, therefore, one could not engage with it.

The author or drafter of the European constitution, Mr. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who is a former French President, admitted in an interview with Le Monde that the constitution he drafted had — I am paraphrasing him — hidden within it propositions that the citizens would not accept if they knew about them, therefore it was necessary to hide those propositions. I found that offensive and I found the document itself offensive because it asked me to do something I would not normally do, and I am pretty imprudent in some of my behaviour, as committee members will know. I certainly would not sign a contract or a piece of paper I did not understand — it is bad practice. That was the reason I voted “No”.

I had another reason, however. It goes to the heart of what the committee wants from us, namely, can we sell this thing, can we re-brand Europe and make it a popular brand? My belief is that we cannot, because the project itself has failed. It has failed to explain itself. To take the position right now, in its response to our and the world's economic troubles Europe has been notable by its absence from our daily experiences. It offers us nothing. Mr. Gordon Brown is leading the European response, and he is the British Prime Minister.

There are several ways of looking at this. It was not disengagement that cost the "Yes" side. A high proportion of people turned out for the referendum, higher than for other referenda. There is a coalition of people, some of whom walked out of here this morning. There are people on the left, people on the right and people who are concerned for social values, and then there is a bloc in the middle to which I think I belong. I am relatively pro-European, moderate but gravely concerned about how democratic this project is.

I will give some examples. Bulgaria is a new member which recently had to be fined a vast sum of money. It is a state whose democratic values are questionable, shall we say. Did we want enlargement on the scale we got? Have the people been consulted about this? When they voted for Nice, how many people who voted "Yes" knew that within that treaty there was a clause that meant we would lose a Commissioner? We should reflect on this for a moment. The people were hoodwinked. That issue never arose during the debate on Nice I or II.

Informed consent, I suggest, is at the heart of any democratic movement, whether it is a county council, a football club, a government or a European community. There was no informed consent, nor is there informed consent for much of what is happening in Europe all the time. For example, have we had a debate in this country or do we propose to have a debate on whether Turkey should join the European Union ten or 15 years from now? That is something that will have profound implications for us as a nation and for our children. We are semi-detached from this project, not just emotionally but intellectually as well. It is difficult, therefore, to persuade people if they do not understand what the committee is about.

I do not intend to use the ten minutes available to me; I would rather we had a dialogue. Mr. Hook is an outstanding broadcaster who has done a great job in Newstalk but he needs to be reminded about public service broadcasting when he talks about people in broadcasting being allowed to say whatever they want. That is the case in America. People such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are damaging the American democratic process. Public service broadcasting in this country is the most popular form of broadcasting for news and current affairs because it is the most credible form, which is to take nothing away from Mr. Hook, but he made the comment, and I wrote it down, that independent means we are independent. Au contraire, independent means we might need another licence next year so we better be nice to the Government. RTE is the source of uncontaminated news and current affairs in this country and I strongly defend it, although I have attacked it in the past and have been on both sides of that fence.

I will conclude by putting a proposition to the committee. We have had the most inspiring political event in the past 20 years with the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America. That is what politics is about. He embodies the United States of America for now, its hopes and its dreams. Europe cannot and fails to inspire in the way that Barack Obama inspired. I am so pro-European I would like to see elections directly to the Parliament, the Presidency and a cabinet that I could vote for, but I will not give my consent to something I do not understand and, effectively, to a Commission over which I have no control, not to mention the Council of Ministers and all the other boring stuff we know about.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Dunphy for his contribution and I thank the other witnesses for their contributions. I will hand over to my colleagues. The running order is Labour, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and then Independents. I call Deputy Costello.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank the witnesses for attending. We are pleased to see them. A conscious decision was made by this committee that we would invite people who would not be regarded as the mainstays in standard news in terms of what might be seen. We were looking for a broader picture of both news and entertainment, and an open forum in that respect. Those are the people we wanted to come before us and the witnesses filled that bill very well.

Mr. Hook stated that the public broadcaster was not the be all and end all in terms of news etc. and that independent production was now the largest sector. That is clear and we, as public representatives, realise that probably more than most, but I want to refer to the newcomer on the Lisbon treaty scene, namely, Libertas. That organisation was a new phenomenon. It was very effective and did a tremendous job but, as director of elections for the Labour Party, I noted that the first thing Libertas did was buy full page advertisements in all the public media and to that extent it established itself in a commercial context before it even began its campaign. I will not say that editors were compromised in any way but nevertheless it realised that this is where the media came from in many sectors because the commercial side of it is very important. I ask Mr. Hook to comment on the fact that in respect of a newcomer which had no credentials or track record in this country — Mr. Ganley had a record abroad but his contacts were questionable — no proper analysis or criticism was done to determine who he was, the purpose of his organisation or where it came from.

We got the figures from RTE on the vote share, which would be different from that of the witnesses. Libertas had 25% of the "No" side and Sinn Féin had 27%, but Roger Cole, who had fought in every treaty campaign on the side of neutrality and so on, got 3% while Richard Boyd Barrett got 2%. A gentleman came on the scene from nowhere and got all this coverage. The witnesses are the experts and I would like them to respond to that.

Mr. Cullen's contribution was impassioned and came from experience of the bad and the good times, but perhaps that was our problem. The Celtic tiger generation did not see any of the people in the past as having contributed to their new-found wealth. They did not attribute it to the European Union or to anybody else. They felt they were responsible for the circumstances in which they found themselves, which was a new phenomenon for many of us around the table but not for a whole generation. The young generation in particular was negative in its voting. It may not have appreciated the money transfers, the work on the peace process and other such matters. Were we fighting the wrong battle? Even if we had got that message out, would those young people have listened to it?

Professor Richard Aldous's point that there was no vision and no strategic supremo hit the nail on the head. The "Yes" campaign was leaderless. It did not have any defining material that was effective, succinct or cogent. We are the first people who must take the blame for, as Mr. Hook described it, one of the greatest failures of this body.

Mr. Dunphy made the point that he would not give his consent to something he did not understand. A large number of the people who voted "No", according to the Millward Brown and Eurobarometer surveys, took that standpoint also. If they did not understand it, they would not vote "Yes" and they went for the "No" option.

I ask Mr. Dunphy to elaborate on his statement that the Europe Union was a failed project. There is no doubt that it has contributed enormously to the Celtic tiger, as Mr. Cullen said. It was extremely successful in dealing with the recent conflict between Georgia and Russia. The jury is still out on the financial crisis. It has come up with some firm proposals regarding the way Gordon Brown's recapitalisation initiative was to be done, although Ireland did not take that route. It provided money from the European Central Bank for small enterprises, which are the backbone of any country, to be drawn down immediately. Ireland is not doing that to the extent that it should. Nevertheless, Europe is proactive and it has linked up with the United States in a global context to respond to the crisis and it appears that it is doing the business. I appreciate Mr. Dunphy's point about Barack Obama, however. We could do with a few Barack Obamas in terms of getting our message out.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

I take the Deputy's point about my saying that Europe was a failed project. I will express myself more clearly. It is in danger of failing for want of explanation. Where are we going? Why are we going there? What will it mean for my life and my children's lives? There has been a fundamental failure. We have gone from 12 members to 15 and then 27. Where are we going next? What have we got in common with Bulgarians? Can one harmonise for 27 nations all the economies and differing levels of prosperity? We have lost the fishing and farming industries. I could go on and on about the costs to Ireland as well as the benefits. I accept what Mr. Cullen said about benefits. We all grew up in hard times. I had shoes, by the way——

Mr. Bill Cullen

Mr. Dunphy was lucky.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

——but I got a pair of Guccis for the Libertas dinner. I had to spruce myself up. I want to see Europe succeed. I am a European. I have a home in France and spend a great deal of time there. The people of France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution when it was put to them. Other people in Scandinavia have rejected proposals. Rejecting something does not mean one is anti-Europe. I am pro-Europe. I want to see EU reform. That is the debate we should have. The behaviour of people who advocated a "Yes" vote towards Mr. Declan Ganly in particular has been disgraceful. It endeavours to smear him. I have followed this committee's proceedings very closely. It was unfortunate, to say the least.

Deputy Joe Costello

What was said is on the record.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

This man has not a whiff of anything from him, and I can see a CIA man at 50 yd.

Professor Richard Aldous

I thank Deputy Costello for his comments. I will respond to his important generational point. Part of the problem is that there was a fundamental flaw in the way Ireland and Britain joined the EU in 1973. It was not sold as a union but as a common market. It was an economic project. Anybody looking at it during the 1970s and right through until the middle of the 1990s could see the economic benefits, particularly here in Ireland, as being part of that project. One of the difficulties Ireland faces is that those economic benefits are harder to sell when Ireland is a net contributor, there are the kind of issues Mr. Dunphy just raised about enlargement and people can look at, for example, decisions by the European Central Bank on inflation throughout the late 1990s and into the beginning of the 21st century which were clearly in the interests of big economies such as Germany but went against Ireland's interests. These issues came out during the referendum. All those issues come together and take one back to the 1970s when there was never a sign-up to the idealism of the European project. It was always put in economic terms. That issue must be addressed now. We must work out exactly where Ireland stands on a point of principle and idealism regarding that European project which was, in the beginning, a French and German creation.

Mr. Bill Cullen

I am back to selling and buying again. Mr. Dunphy said it is difficult to sell something when people do not understand it. I think it is the opposite, and that is how Mr. Ganley and Libertas found it. People did not understand it but accepted his positiveness about not doing it. When one sells a car one helps people buy the benefits. We did not help people buy the benefits. We did not even explain the benefits to them and that is the most significant problem. That is easy. We all know what the benefits are. We said we have not had help from Europe but, particularly in these tough times, the help is and will be there, and we will part of it when it comes. It will probably happen in the next few months. I want to ensure this country is part of all that and we do not get left in the corridors because of our attitude to the Lisbon treaty.

We have a new generation of people who are very influential in voting terms but who do not understand the European Union. The Government needs to examine educating them. It is about educating them to know the benefits and see the good side of it, instead of what I would call, with all due respect, scaremongering. My child might end up doing military service, we will lose our neutrality, there will be major tax implications, the abortion and religion issue — all these issues were scaremongering and could have been easily dealt with but were not. It is back to Deputy Costello. There was a major flaw and lack of care and responsibility from our Government. That came about for many reasons we all know.

Since the EU's inception in the Treaty of Rome we have had 50 years of peace and prosperity in Europe. In the 50 years before it we had two world wars, both generated in Europe. We must examine all those matters in the minute detail we need to understand them. Our Government should do all that for us. It should not be necessary for the citizens to go and get the treaty because 99.9% of the citizens of Ireland could not even think of sitting down to read that treaty. Some of our Government people did not read it either.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

The Taoiseach did not.

Mr. Bill Cullen

That is right. So we have to tell the Government members they are in their seats, have the power, money and specialists to do all that, and they should tell us what we should do. Tell us the benefits, and the country will follow that. Libertas gave them that and they followed. It was a very small margin, so I am one of those who think that at all levels — Ministers, Deputies, Senators and local councillors — we must get the message on what they believe out there. Europe is good for Ireland, and that is the message the Government should get out. The Government members have that responsibility; they must take hold of it, work with it and sell the benefits.

Mr. George Hook

I am grateful to Mr. Dunphy for proving my point at the beginning that there would be a difference of opinion on this side of the House, although if Eamonn ever went to school without any boots it can only be because he was too big for them. He is investing me with slightly more importance than I deserve when he suggests that as an independent broadcaster I might bring down the State by my rantings between 4.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. It is interesting to be compared to Mr. Rush Limbaugh, whose show is franchised to more than 170 stations in America and at the last count had an audience of 47 million. There is no liberal talk radio in America; it is all right wing. Yet a liberal was elected President of the USA, a Democrat rather than a Republican. We can over-exaggerate independent radio.

Deputy Costello asked about Libertas taking large advertisements. Politicians and all of us know that the 8 inches of plasma in the corner is the single most important reason one gets elected or fails. We saw that in the first great debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon lost the election because he did not shave. I saw it in the debate between Deputies Bertie Ahern and Michael Noonan when he was leader of Fine Gael. The make-up artist for Fianna Fáil was immeasurably superior to that of Fine Gael. Libertas was a better performer on television and radio than the combined might of the three major parties. Mr. Ganley was better and Mr. John McGuirk, his chief strategist, was superb. Professor Aldous alluded to the reaction time. They were more professional, faster and better. They won on that basis.

I chaired debates in the city for all parties across the political divide. Given that the committee had to raise the ceiling to accommodate the substantial egos that just came in to address it, I suggest that if, instead of 100 people attending in Navan town square for a debate organised by the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, or the debates organised by Fine Gael in city centre hotels, Dunphy and Hook had been put on the podium with their conflicting views, the organisers might have reached a bigger audience. I put it the way I started — it is not whether Eamon Dunphy or George Hook are right, it is that they differ. I happen to have more faith than Eamon in the common sense of the Irish people who, after all, can make sense of PR more than any other country in the world. They will always arrive at the right answer however long it takes them.

Chairman

It is over to Deputies Timmins and Creighton now. Are they sharing time?

Deputy Billy Timmins

I would like to share time with Deputy Creighton. I thank the gentlemen for coming here today and for their contributions. I have a few brief questions. This is one for everyone and it concerns the reliability of the research. Mr. Dunphy mentioned the uncertainty over where the European project is going and I think that was a huge factor for middle-ground people. When it came to research, they picked up on issues such as the commissioner and conscription, but deep down it was "Halt, we don't know where we are going, let's see what's ahead of us." It was difficult to explain that in research and put it into words so people picked on an issue. I find it difficult to understand how stuff that came up in the research and that has been repeated in every referendum on Europe over the past 30 years has never come to fruition, such as conscription, neutrality and abortion. Of course, it will affect a certain percentage but not to the extent that it affected people this time. I would like a view on this.

Mr. Hook spoke about the diminution of politicians' credibility. If there was to be a re-run of the Lisbon referendum, although I do not know if there will be, do the witnesses think it would send out a bad message? Would a second referendum be undemocratic and portray Europe as a bully? Will the credibility issue still be there if politicians are trying to sell it?

Mr. Dunphy straddles both generations and he is a bit of a rebel. Before he voted, did it enter his head at any stage that, with those boots, he would administer a kick up the establishment's behind? Did he think "Here's a chance to lay a kick on them, I'm going to do it"? Was that a contributory factor to his vote?

As regards Mr. Cullen's passionate contribution, I do not know if he was on radio during the campaign, but Ben Dunne and other high profile business people got on. Mr. Cullen has had a high profile recently with his television programme. If there was another referendum would he like the opportunity to outline his message on radio so that he could put it to the people? Does he feel his voice was not heard during this campaign?

To take up the point Deputy Costello made, I certainly identify with the appeal made by Mr. Cullen. It is a message that resonates with a certain generation, but is it possible that it does not resonate with people now? The view of many younger people who voted "No" is that it is not about what happened in the past but what will happen tomorrow. Does Mr. Cullen find that we have moved on from the old methods or systems which operated 15 or 20 years ago and that loyalty is not there? Perhaps we need to refine our message for a different generation.

I wish to ask Professor Aldous about the Mandelson figure. I agree with him about the Second World War, which reminds me that the "Yes" campaign was like trying to carry out the D-Day landings as if each country went off on its own trying to land on Omaha beach, Utah beach and elsewhere without co-ordination. The "Yes" campaign was a bit like that and as a result everybody was in charge and nobody was in charge. The buck did not stop anywhere and everyone abdicated responsibility. I am not trying to pre-empt the re-run, but if there was another campaign on Lisbon or anything else, does Professor Aldous think the political establishment would be better off coming together with one war office, for want of a better term, so it could respond like the "No" campaign? Is there not an inherent difficulty then that one is reinforcing the might of the political establishment which is arrogant and aloof, trying to tell the general populace what they should do? Where does one cross the border line?

How much time do I have left, Chairman?

Chairman

Deputy Timmins should finish off his question and I will then hand over.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I do not think the word "arrogance" was used, but it seems to be coming through. Does Professor Aldous think there was an arrogance on the side of the "Yes" campaign? My view is that there was.

Mr. Dunphy mentioned the Nice treaty. I was heavily involved in the Nice campaign and the issue of a Commissioner never resonated with me. During the Lisbon treaty campaign, however, we said "Ah yes, but you voted on that in the past." Was that detrimental to the "Yes" campaign because we were saying "Fooled you the last time"? The reply was "But what's in this?" That was part of our arrogance in saying "That's not an issue, you don't know as much as I do, but we fooled you the last time." Was that a big issue in the campaign?

Do witnesses think the slogan "If you don't know, vote No" is good enough? Should the message not be "If you don't know, go out and learn; don't participate in a decision that will have implications for the country if you don't know"?

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I welcome the speakers. It is great to have colourful guests before the committee to liven things up. I found Mr. Cullen's contribution the most thought-provoking and emotional one. I am glad to see that because I do not think we have seen emotion in any of the debate so far on the Lisbon treaty or on Europe since our accession. The campaign was characterised by people who were completely emotionless and detached, to use Mr. Dunphy's word, and that filtered down to the public. There were politicians, in particular, at the forefront of a campaign who gave the impression of simply not caring abut the outcome, not really feeling that it was all that important and certainly not portraying a sense of leadership or of this being absolutely vital to our national interests. That is the crux of the matter and where it fell down.

It was characterised by a Commissioner and by senior Ministers saying that they had not read the treaty. They had not bothered to read it and some of them made it very evident that they did not understand the treaty or the basic mechanisms of the European Union — for example, not knowing how many Commissioners there are. It led to members of the public turning their backs on politicians and losing faith and confidence in them. How can we inject some passion into this debate? How can we make it an emotional debate on either side? I am not coming at this just as a strong proponent of the European project and the Lisbon treaty, but how can we have more emotion and raw debate on these issues from both sides? How can we inject that into the campaign? I am not convinced that if we have a re-run of a referendum, some of the politicians who led a flat campaign previously will not do so again.

Mr. Hook and others alluded to the issue of knowledge. The key findings of polling and research conducted since the referendum have illustrated that a lack of knowledge was the main reason for people voting "No". There is no question about it, they had no understanding of the basic workings of the EU. By and large, they did not have a clue about the content of the Lisbon treaty. It is not arrogant to say so and I certainly do not mean it in an arrogant fashion. Knowledge is the key to unlocking the future direction of Europe and Ireland's place in it. The phrase "To know me is to love me" is appropriate because the more people know about it the more inclined they are to vote "Yes". That is statistically proven by Eurobarometer and other pollsters. Do the witnesses think it is feasible or possible to communicate to people a real understanding of how the EU works and how it impacts on their lives? Is it possible to communicate how important everything that happens at EU level is to their daily lives in a short time? There is an institutional crisis in the European Union and a solution must be found, although we have yet to work out how. This committee will make certain proposals and the Government will take up some, all or none of them, but it will have to run with something. Is it possible to do that in less than 12 months? Is the lack of knowledge too great to overcome in that period?

I agree with a great deal of what Mr. Dunphy stated with regard to people's emotional and intellectual detachment from the European Union, but I fundamentally disagree that it is a failed project. I am of the view that it is the most successful political project in the history of the world and I make no apologies for that. I accept, however, Mr. Dunphy's concerns regarding a lack of democracy. Will he indicate what he would do to enhance the level of democracy within the Union?

Declan Ganley came before the sub-committee in recent days. I do not believe Mr. Ganley was subjected to a hard time. It is important that we put certain questions to people. Many individuals supported Mr. Ganley's perspective because they are anti-European or because they do not believe in the European project. However, he is on record as stating that he supports the concept of a European superstate, a European supreme court and a treaty of 25 pages that would bestow major latitude and scope upon the European institutions such that the concepts of subsidiarity and of controlling our own destiny in respect of social issues, etc., would be diluted to an even greater degree. What are Mr. Dunphy's views on this matter? Does he support Mr. Ganley's proposal for a federal Europe?

Chairman

Before calling our guests, I should point out that, in light of what happened during our earlier discussions, this day has so far not been lacking in emotion, passion or rawness.

Professor Richard Aldous

I wish to respond first to a point made by both Deputies in respect of whether the treaty is unintelligible and whether people have actually read it. I will then comment on Deputy Creighton's point regarding a lack of knowledge.

It seems that this is one of the mistakes politicians often make. Is the treaty intelligible? No, of course it is not intelligible. Just as most legislation passed by these Houses is not intelligible to people other than experts. I think it was Bismarck who stated "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made".

The problem with the treaty is not that people do not understand it line by line. The difficulty with it lies in the area of advocacy. I refer here to a belief that politicians understood it and should then have been able to communicate to people the sense of vision relating to it. Why should citizens be expected to understand the concept of subsidiarity? A referendum is not about such matters; rather it relates to politicians' advocacy of the message. This ties in to a sense of entitlement. If one refers to a lack of knowledge, it is as if one is saying that people took the test and that somehow they flunked it and need to work harder. If there is another referendum, that will play even less well the second time around.

Deputy Timmins inquired about the strategy. There is a danger that it might be perceived that the full weight of the political establishment was being used to ram this through. Equally, however, there must be a much tighter war room mentality. A P. J. Mara-type figure, working not for Fianna Fáil but on behalf of a cross-party consensus, must be put in place to take control of strategy.

Mr. Bill Cullen

I agree with the comments relating to the generation gap. There are not many people of my generation left who would remember when people went to school without any boots. Mr. Dunphy should have contacted the Evening Herald boot fund, which used to give us shoes for nothing.

The question of how one should convey information in respect of this matter is interesting. In order to convey the message and to get through to people, there is a need to talk from the heart and one must understand the matter at hand. If those trying to convey the message do not understand it, then the people will, as Mr. Dunphy stated, vote "No". People must be made to understand the message. This can be done in a simple way. We should follow the example of Libertas in respect of this matter. Let us consider the arrogance of the politicians. When they suddenly woke up to reality a few weeks prior to the referendum, what did they do? They put up posters on every bloody lamp post throughout the country. Some 75% of the area of each poster was taken up by a picture of a particular politician stating that people should vote "Yes". That is not leadership.

I have spoken about this matter on "The Apprentice". Leadership is about persuasive communication. How can one get people to do what we need them to do? The answer is by encouraging them to want to do it. That is it. One must also understand what it is one wants them to do and one must believe in it. Too many of our politicians were not interested in doing this. In fact, the majority to whom I spoke could not provide an argument with regard to what the treaty involves. The big difficulty was the total arrogance of politicians. People were obliged to look at posters which stated "Vote Yes" and which had a further message, namely, "Don't forget me". These posters were really election advertisements and had nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. I know some politicians and I know they have some common sense, so I am aware that this was not the intention.

Those in authority missed out on encouraging people in the public arena to work for them. Let us consider what happened with Barack Obama. Who was the first person out of the blocks to support him and get the ball rolling? The answer is Oprah Winfrey, whose television programme is probably the most watched in the world. Who was the second person to become involved? Caroline Kennedy. When that happened it was a case of "Wow, what a switch. If she is for him, we will have to go with him". Perhaps that is what is needed here, namely, those with famous faces stating that they understand what is involved. That would be a good way to proceed. I am not, however, putting my name forward in that regard.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

However, Mr. Cullen is not ruling out doing so.

Mr. George Hook

Deputies Creighton and Timmins seemed to make key points in respect of credibility and whether it might be possible to rerun the referendum. The first thing is that I believe it is absolutely possible to rerun the referendum and I will tell members why in a moment.

Before that, however, I wish to state that if there is one group with less credibility than politicians, it is that comprised of second-hand car dealers. Perhaps that is why Mr. Cullen was invited to come before the sub-committee. I am making a serious point and I do not intend to convey any sense of disparagement or humour. The overwhelming majority of car buyers do not understand the workings of a motor car. Were I to return to Mr. Cullen and state that I was dissatisfied with last year's motor car, the first comment he would say is that he would get a different salesman to talk to me on this occasion. The second comment he would make would be to the effect that green is an extremely unlucky colour for motor cars and that perhaps I should buy a red car on the next occasion. What he would definitely not do would be to state that the car he was trying to sell to me delivers 50 mpg at 120 bhp on six cylinders because he would be aware that I would not understand him.

If I were a young fellow, Mr. Cullen would inform me that the seats tilt backward and that this would aid my romantic life. If he were talking to someone of my age, he would state that the car has seat belts and extra durability in the event of accidents, etc. In other words, he would tailor the message to suit the customer.

I am of the view that on the second occasion the model, bhp and the colour relating to the Lisbon treaty will have to be changed. Regardless of what is done in this regard, however, I am also of the view that those in authority have the wind behind them because we are living in a completely different economic climate and there is not a citizen who is not fearful with regard to his pension, his future and his job. He may well see that this is one of the most important factors in retaining those and if he does not do so, then politicians have to tell him it is so. I concur entirely with Mr. Cullen's assertion that a different salesman must be used and that the message must be dressed up in a different way. There is no possibility of selling last year's model.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

The question of rerunning the referendum would go to the issue of arrogance, not just that of the political elite but also that of the national newspapers and the EU. The people said "No" and that was a democratic decision. Let me put it this way to Deputy Creighton. She is an ambitious, rising star in Irish politics with every chance of being a Minister in the not too distant future. She would not take a seat in the European Parliament in exchange for the glowing future ahead of her. People like me, an ordinary guy who lives an ordinary life, know what Europe is. It is not the place for great leaders or rising stars, it is the rest home for people who have failed in Irish politics. If one wants to get Charlie McCreevy out of the Cabinet, one sends him to Europe. If Deputies lose their seats, they go to Europe. People understand Europe is not the first preference.

This addresses something interesting which Professor Aldous said about the process of sausage-making or treaties. He was right to point out that every Bill that goes through this House could not be read and understood by the electorate, which is the reason we have political leaders. It is the reason we have the Barack Obamas, the Seán Lemasses, the de Valeras, the Winston Churchills, the Gordon Browns, people in whom we repose trust because we know or believe they act in our interests. That does not translate to our EU experience because there is nobody we can elect, de-elect, get rid of or kick in the bum. There is nobody to whom we can do that. Therefore, there is a democratic deficit and there is no use denying that.

With regard to Mr. Hook's point, I have the utmost respect for the Irish people. I think we have an inherently wise and well informed population. However, we cannot be expected to give our consent to people we do not know in Brussels. We simply do not know them. The Parliament that is making these grave decisions needs a human face. Therefore, it needs reform.

I take the point made and temper what I said about the failed project. It is a wonderful project in many aspects, but it needs to reflect on its future. The Deputy asked about a federal Europe. Personally, I would have no trouble with a federal Europe, nor with a 25-page constitution that would be open to interpretation because I trust in the democratic values of European people. However, the boundary should have been drawn at 25 countries. That is my personal point of view. The addition of Bulgaria, in particular, is troublesome and the possible accession of Turkey is also troublesome. Nobody bought into this. Professor Aldous said that we signed up for the Common Market in 1973. We have come a long way in a very short time with this project. That is my genuine concern as someone who is pro-Europe.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome the guests whose contributions have been thought-provoking for us. I will not delay the meeting too long as a number of my points have been dealt with. Mr. Dunphy addressed the issue of what we want the project to be, particularly with regard to a federalist Europe. What are the opinions of the other guests on that?

I am not in favour of a federalist Europe because I am satisfied with the structures as they are, albeit not as openly democratic as one might like. The notion of directly elected positions would disenfranchise member states, particularly member states like Ireland because of the size of our population. Clearly, one could say that process is democratic because everyone has the capacity to have a say, but it would lead to the biggest suspicion of all in the minds of the people I represent that the Franco-German alliance would become the central arc of Europe. That has been part of euroscepticism in Ireland for some time, the belief that there is too much power somewhere else.

Libertas seems to have hooked on to this and to use this democratic deficit in its arguments. The democratic deficit among the so-called elite is a structure that keeps Ireland at the heart of Europe. It gives us an influence we would not have as a population of 4 million or 5 million. I am not so sure the people want a federalist Europe, but they buy into the notion of these undemocratic institutions people talk about.

Will our guests comment on what they think the understanding is of the main institutions, particularly the European Council and the Council of Ministers, who are directly elected and clearly have a mandate from the State and other states? People tend to talk more about the Commission than the Council. While decisions are taken at the Council, the Commission is largely like the Civil Service or the bureaucracy within our State and is often given greater relevance for the purpose of putting forward the notion of this unelected democratic elite. Perhaps the guests will address these points.

Mr. Bill Cullen

To be honest with Deputy Dooley, I am not too au fait with the way the European Commission and Council work. As we said earlier, we elect our politicians to do all that for us. All I say is that the European Union has been very good for this country. It is a necessity for us for the future if we want growth for the country, particularly in the troubled times we are in currently. It is very clear that the people do not believe the current Government is the one to do this for us and so they voted “No”.

Mr. George Hook

In response to Deputy Dooley on the issue of federalism, the great vision of Monnet all those years ago to bring together warring nations — huge numbers of people — into an economic community was an extraordinary vision which ultimately came true. What Irish people see Europe as can be seen when they go to Paris at the weekend and walk through with their passport, which is a passport in the truest sense. It is a passport to travel, to work, and they understand that. They also understand what Europe is when they look in a shop window and can understand the price of shoes versus the price elsewhere.

This is an inherently understandable project. However, we have raised fears by using words like federalism, the Council and all these things. Bring it back to basics. How many of the electorate understand the workings of this kind of committee? Very few, but that does not change their view that this is an intensely democratic country. These fears are the reason it all fails.

We should start worrying about the minutiae instead of the great vision of Monnet. We should bring back the fact that we have done something as Europeans. This morning's edition of The Irish Times carries the headline that we have taken in more migrants than any other country in the EU. The xenophobes among us will jump on that, as xenophobes throughout history have done, and say this is a failing of the European community, totally forgetting our entire history when we were on that side of the fence. We need passionately to espouse the big picture rather than the minutiae. If the opponents of the committee’s view want to tackle minutiae, dismiss them.

We talked about this great strategist. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, who worked tirelessly and was, in many ways, the one coherent voice of the campaign. This is what we want. We want visionaries talking, not people who are experts on minutiae.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

"Dick Roche the visionary" is a concept I am unfamiliar with. Perhaps I missed something. To respond to Deputy Dooley, if someone is a farmer from a rural constituency and Peter Mandelson is representing him at the World Trade talks, that farmer might feel a slight democratic deficit, given Mr. Mandelson's, and his party's, attitude to rural England and the devastation the new Labour project has wreaked in rural England. One might have a real problem in that regard.

There is, therefore, work to be done. Mr. Mandelson might not think Ireland is the most wonderful place in the world — most people feel he does not. That is a democratic deficit and it is a problem if one is a farmer. We have lost our fishing industry and much of our farming industry. Much of rural Ireland is desolate. We have paid a price for our membership of the EU. Many of us believe it is a price we ought to question. We do not want depopulated areas. I lived in west Cork and I love this country. What we have sacrificed for young people in rural Ireland and their future is a hell of a lot, when they deserve accountability. They deserve a degree of transparency. I fundamentally disagree with Mr. Cullen. I am not prepared to let politicians make my decisions for me and I do not want my children to grow up that way. I want them to make decisions for themselves in a healthy and democratic Europe. I am pro-European, but there is a big picture here. We need accountability when actions are taken.

Professor Richard Aldous

I wish to wrap up. I believe that Deputy Dooley is right, there is a sense with the European debate that there are two discussions going on. There is the Franco-German discussion driving forward the federalist project and countries like Ireland, Britain and the Scandinavian countries with most of the new states that do not want that, so there is always this conflict between the two. I believe that the Lisbon treaty, in some ways, represented an advance because it said, "OK, this is the way we want to run ourselves, let's stop talking about this and start getting on."

We talk all the time about Europe acting as a counterbalance to the United States or the growing Chinese power, or playing a role in issues like Iran and nuclear proliferation. One of the ways in which Europe will be able to do that is if it stops talking to itself all the time and agonising about its own internal organisations and actually gets on with exercising influence. In some ways that ties in with the second point I would make. In all this discussion today we have been talking about what Ireland is to do. There has not been a single mention of the forthcoming summit in December. The other question in all this is what Ireland's European partners think about it and the presumably very difficult discussions that will need to take place, in particular if Ireland comes to that summit with very little to put on the table and Ireland's European partners throw their toys out of the pram. That is something that needs to inform this debate and the committee's report as much as what is going on internally in Ireland.

I come back to the other aspect of the Lisbon treaty. As Yogi Berra said: "It is déjà vu all over again.” We have been discussing this for the past 20 years. It is time to move on.

Chairman

Before I hand over to Senator de Búrca, our next session is due to begin at 2 o'clock and I want to get the agreement of the committee to move it to 2.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I welcome all the speakers today and thank them for their very interesting and thought-provoking contributions. I wish to address one point to each of the speakers, starting with Mr. George Hook. I apologise for missing the beginning of his contribution. I believe he objected to what he would see as some of the restrictions on the independent broadcasting sector, particularly when it comes to debates on European treaties and the obligation to provide equal or balanced coverage to both sides. Having access to the airwaves, independent or public, is a privilege. In this country we are lucky that we do not have the scenario that applies in the United States where, as Mr. Hook said, there are many right wing talk show hosts on radio stations. We are lucky to have that sense of balance, particularly on something as important as an EU treaty. We are now in a phase of considering the possible consequences of the decision we made on the Lisbon treaty and how that might affect the future of the country. It is important for the Irish people to get an opportunity to hear both sides of the argument on a treaty.

If we were to give independent media completely free rein, opinion could be expressed regardless of whether it was on a treaty or any other matter. Many of the radio stations are privately owned often by rich business people with their own agendas, Rupert Murdoch being an example. Does Mr. Hook not believe there would be a danger of those individuals' agendas being played out on the radio stations and through the particular talk show hosts that they use, resulting in nothing equal or balanced or in the public interest? Does he not believe the restrictions on the independent media are very good and healthy and will hopefully ensure a good and informed debate on any subject of interest but particularly one as important as a European treaty?

Mr. Cullen said it was up to politicians to sell the treaty and we need to do a better job. In recent EU referendum campaigns there seems to have been a greater divide between on the one side politicians, for whom there seems to be a credibility problem, which is likely to continue, and on the other side civil society groups of ordinary people that form because of strong beliefs — loosely they may be described as political groupings. This results in the politicians versus the small people and very often that in itself helps to influence public opinion.

Does Mr. Cullen not believe that the European project belongs to all of us and is not just a politicians' project? Anybody who believes in Europe has a responsibility to promote it, regardless of whether it is just talking to friends and family or expressing views about it. If we want to see European treaties passed in future we will need to have coalitions of political parties and high profile credible public figures like the witnesses before us, who might be interested in being part of the civil society element, if one likes, of the "Yes" campaign. That is likely to be far more successful than leaving it to the increasingly discredited political class to sell treaties that are very hard to sell and probably need the kinds of skills that people such as the witnesses have.

Mr. Dunphy said that most people know that Europe is not most politicians' first preference, but I disagree with him. Europe was my first preference and that is where I would like to see myself eventually. He might call me a failed politician.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

No.

Mr. Bill Cullen

He did not say that.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I know he did not say that, but I believe he said the European Parliament was a home for failed or retiring politicians. I disagree with him. Any time I visit Brussels I find it full of the best and brightest people, whether they are in the Commission, the Parliament or the Council of Ministers, which contains all the ministerial representatives of the various member states. I regard Europe as an amazing project that has been extremely successful despite all the challenges it has faced. I would argue with him that what happens at member state level is often considerably less interesting, progressive and exciting than what is debated at European level.

He also said he would like to see a reformed Europe. What kind of reformed Europe does he seek? The matters he mentioned were a more human face, a more readable constitution, more consultation with people and more accountability. It seems that he could support the Lisbon treaty and still push for all those things to happen. The Lisbon treaty does not preclude them from happening, nor does it make them happen. Often when people are opposing a treaty they have an opportunity to express some of their concerns about the European Union, which are often not directly related to the content of the treaty. They may be expressing generalised concerns over the lack of accountability or that they cannot relate to the people in the European institutions and so on. Does he not feel he could seek to have many of his concerns addressed and still support the Lisbon treaty? Does he not feel he could push for the political representatives he has in the European institutions to bring about these changes but not to halt the entire project in its tracks?

I agree fully with Professor Richard Aldous that the European Union has been looking inwards too much and needs to look outwards more. We are seeing a changing global order. People mentioned Barack Obama's election. It will be a much more difficult presidency for him. America's power is in decline internationally and we are seeing the emergence of countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China. We need to look at the values they represent as opposed to the European Union which describes itself as a community of values. It is interested in promoting human rights, equality, solidarity, the rule of law and democracy. I do not know whether Mr. Dunphy and others feel it has not done so. Certainly on the international stage it is a more impressive and convincing promoter of these values than any of the other powers that are emerging. It makes sense for the European Union to try to advance itself and make itself more capable of operating on the global stage. I agree fully with him on that. Does he have any suggestions about how that could be done to more effectively help the Irish public to understand the importance of the European Union as a global player?

Mr. George Hook

I wish to respond directly to one of the points made by the Senator. I understand we were asked to come here to advise or suggest how the Oireachtas might engage with and inform the public on the issue of the European Union. I have pointed out that those who help to form opinions such as broadcasters are precluded from doing precisely this. Each of us is expected to operate as a chairman or devil's advocate. We are expected not to hold a view. We cannot declare how we vote, or what our views on a particular subject are. I have made the point that the State broadcaster which is supported by the licence fee is a public service broadcaster, whereas the independent sector does not receive any money from the licence fee and, therefore, is not a public service broadcaster. There is a difference in that regard. While I would not support it, one could ensure there was public service broadcasting across the board by dividing the licence fee across all broadcasters. In such circumstances, they could all be called "public service broadcasters". I suggest, however, one would not have the vibrancy of debate one may get as things stand. Fear has been expressed that the independence of debate could be damaged by businessmen who own helicopters, jets or châteaux, regardless of where they reside. I remind members that the Oireachtas established strong bodies such as the monopolies commission, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland and the Press Council of Ireland to ensure a limited number of media outlets could be owned by any one person. If members are dissatisfied with this — if they believe too much is in the hands of too few people — they have an opportunity to make changes. Mr. Dunphy who has thrown his opinions from the ramparts of his château in Deauville this morning and I have substantially opposing views on this issue. Surely that is the best way to engage and inform the citizenry.

Chairman

I call Mr. Dunphy, fresh from his château.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

I will respond to Senator de Búrca's point directly. I take it that she will be running in next year's European elections.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

Yes.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

I wish her luck. She has asked me why I am not prepared to approve of the Lisbon treaty by voting "Yes" and hoping something desirable, like reform, happens thereafter. I take the point she made about the intelligence and good intentions of those who work in Brussels. I am sure it is an interesting and stimulating place to be. The problem is that there is a lack of accountability. I voted "Yes" to the Nice treaty, but I thought it was time to take a stand in the case of the Lisbon treaty. I was concerned about the enlargement of the European Union to 27 member states. It is increasingly scandalous that the Union has failed, for 14 consecutive years, to produce accounts on which its auditors can sign off. That is not tolerable in any circumstances. It is outrageous. Whistleblowers have been treated very badly at EU level. A woman from Scandinavia, whose name escapes me, was kicked out because she refused to sign off on accounts. The European Union is the subject of many scandals. It does not have the redeeming feature of a human face. I would like everyone in Europe to vote on the same day. I would like the same slate of candidates to be put before all the people of Europe. I would like to do elsewhere in Europe as I do here. I would like a conversation and a debate. Dissent, approval and the acquisition of support and trust are the lifeblood of community and political life in any democracy. We do not have this within the European project. As Mr. Cullen said, we get our politicians to make our case for us in the national interest. I do not think that is sustainable in a 27-member Union. It would be sustainable if there was a smaller number of member states. I wish the Senator well in the European elections.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I thank Mr. Dunphy.

Professor Richard Aldous

Senator de Búrca asked me specifically about the international stage. I do not agree with her suggestion that the United States is in terminal decline. Rather like the report of Mark Twain's death, it is something of an exaggeration. As Deputy Dooley said, the Lisbon treaty would allow the European Union to take a more engaged view of the big issues. It would stop it from looking inwards. It would enable it to look at the big issues. However, that can only be taken so far. The European Union is not like the United States. It will never be able to act in that way. One only needs to recall the schism that the Iraq war caused within the European Union to realise that is the case. The majority of member states within the Union, as currently constituted, were in favour of the war. Those which were against it were so violently against it, particularly France, that they would not allow the issue to progress through the United Nations. The European Union has a long way to go before it is able to exercise a profound influence on the world stage. The Lisbon treaty would facilitate the development of a more unified European view, but it would be a slow process. The changes to which I refer constituted one of the problems those on the "No" side had with the treaty. Defence was one of the key issues in the referendum. Many see the proposal to allow the European Union to act in a more unified way as a severe disadvantage of the treaty. It is obvious that their concerns were not addressed during the referendum campaign.

Mr. Bill Cullen

Senator de Búrca asked me about the involvement of high profile people in politics. We have seen it work for Mr. Obama in the United States. It has worked during the years in that country. It does not happen to any great extent here, probably because we have always considered that most of our politicians are tough people who have come up the hard way. They know what their constituents and communities want from them and are prepared to fight for it.

I have been asked whether lack of leadership is a recent phenomenon. Reference was made to leaders like Lemass and Churchill. We had our share of leadership at Government level but seem to be in a vacuum for various reasons. The people concerned may be hampered by the issues they have inherited, including the problems that have developed in recent months. It is probably fair to say our political arena needs some high profile people in it. I would like to think they are available — we just have not seen them in action yet. I would like to think there are some talented people in this country's political scenario. I heard some of them when I spent a little time in the Seanad this morning. Perhaps we do not see that talent. When people ask me why I did not go into politics, I tell them it is difficult for politicians to express themselves within the party political system which may be holding good talent back. I would like to see some of the talent in the Government brought to the fore. We need those who know what it is all about, are in touch with their communities and able to express the good side of the purpose of the European Union to get those messages across. Like Mr. Dunphy, I am a European. I revere Europe. I would love to see it taken to a higher level. As I thought about that challenge this morning, I realised that I was prepared to get involved in the political side of it. If I were not prepared to do so, I would be reneging on myself.

Chairman

I would like to make a few points before I call Deputy Flynn and Senator Prendergast. The sub-committee has been in existence for seven weeks. It has had approximately 21 days of public hearings in that time. Those who have walked through the doors of this room have included cardinals, ambassadors, Cabinet Ministers and business people. In fact, a few of them walked out again this morning. The common theme in the contributions made by many of the delegations which have entered this room in the last seven weeks has been the need to engage the people with the idea of the European Union. Those present have touched on this in their own way. Can they make any practical recommendations to help the sub-committee in its work? How can we get the people to engage with the idea of the European Union? Given the experience of our guests, what is the one thing the Oireachtas and Government should do to make that happen?

My second point relates to the comments our guests have made about the role of politicians and the political classes. Some speakers stated the political class was discredited and failing to do its duty. At the same time, reference was made to the democratic deficit and the need for greater accountability and a stronger connection between people and their representatives. With one exception, all the speakers stated it was necessary for people who were not elected to get involved in the debate. Mr. Hook and Mr. Dunphy stated they could step in and draw greater crowds and so forth. If it transpires that people who are not politicians lead the debate, how does one address the speakers' concerns about accountability and a democratic deficit? If my electors do not like what I am doing, they can get rid of me at the next election in Dublin Central. We do not have a similar mechanism should our guests or other non-politicians decide to step in and perform a public duty.

Is it the case that rather that being one of how we replace politicians, the issue is one of requiring politicians to step up to the plate and perform the duties our guests are asking us to do better? The only way we can deliver the accountability about which all our guests are so passionate and which I share is through better functioning of the political system. Oprah Winfrey and others did not replace Barack Obama but supported him in performing his democratic duty. I ask our guests to comment.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

On the Chairman's question as to whether I could think of a reform that would help, an ideal European Union would be a political entity where one had cross-country or pan-European parties and everyone voted on the same day for a slate of politicians. That is the essence of democracy. One cannot have democracy at one remove, which is what we have.

As to the prospect of Mr. Cullen, Mr. Hook or Professor Aldous standing for election, I would be all for it but I assure the Irish people that I have never considered it — no way, José. I would not vote for me; therefore, the Chairman is safe. It would be an extreme situation which will never happen.

Chairman

A national crisis.

Professor Richard Aldous

I will take the second question about politics first. I profoundly believe politics is a noble calling. Politicians take an incredible amount of stick, much of which is unnecessary. Even though I am sure everybody in this room understands how to practise the Machiavellian arts, most politicians have, at core, a belief in service or they believe in something they want to get across. In some ways, that did not come across in the Lisbon treaty referendum where there was a perfunctory aspect to what went on, particularly on the "Yes" side of the campaign.

The Chairman referred to Barack Obama. It seems the lesson of his campaign is not the one he fought with John McCain but the one he fought with Senator Clinton. Much of what has been said about the "Yes" campaign has also been said about her campaign for the democratic nomination, for example, in terms of a sense of entitlement and doing things in an old fashioned, old style kind of way, whereas everything that is being said about Barack Obama, apart from the organisation and discipline of the campaign, is that there was perceptibly, whether one supported him, a reinvention of politics and dialogue which engaged people to levels not seen since before President Reagan. This was evident in the number of people who voted and engaged with his campaign by signing up for or contributing to it. It is almost a cop-out to say people are not really interested in politics anymore and we cannot do anything. A reinvention of what is, as I said, a noble calling is always necessary.

In terms of a practical recommendation, I come back to my comments to Deputy Costello. If there is another referendum, P. J. Mara should run the campaign.

Mr. Bill Cullen

Good old P. J. The Chairman's comments confirm my view that there are many good people in politics. I am privileged to know many of them as I meet politicians regularly for one reason or another and see how good they are. When I have a problem in any of my companies where things are not going the way I want them to go, I get everybody together, go through the issue with them, talk to them about it, listen to what they have to say and learn from it. I then have to make a decision. That is what is wrong here. Perhaps the wrong people are making the decisions and they are not listening enough to people on the ground, Deputies and everybody else. In that context, I believe we have the right people in politics. I concur with Professor Aldous's comments — I love using his title — on politics being a noble cause. That is true because politicians give up a great deal to put in time, effort and energy on behalf of the country. That is why I am always prepared to hand things over to politicians and allow them to get on with it.

As to the Lisbon treaty, I have said what it means to me. If it is necessary and high profile people are prepared to go out and support it, we should use them. That is what this issue boils down to. Perhaps credibility — a word that has been used in this debate — is lacking. I do not know if it is an issue of credibility. What has often happened is that Ministers seem to lose touch with local communities, while Deputies seem to be focused on local issues and ignore the big scheme of things as regards the European Union. Those are the two issues.

Mr. George Hook

My answer is short because the Chairman answered his own questions in using two crucial words, namely, "perform" and "support". He asked how we could get politicians to perform. We cannot get politicians to perform because they are not performers. While I appreciate the Chairman used the word "perform" in a different context, it struck a chord. My colleagues and I are performers who are paid to perform. I do not vote for a politician because he is a performer but because he is a legislator.

The second issue the Chairman raised was one of support. The debate, whether by broadcasters, rugby players or rock musicians, is in support of the argument. As I stated, nobody appears to have a problem with a rock musician telling the world what to do about starving millions but it appears they would have a problem if the same rock musician asked people to vote "Yes" or "No". I simply do not see that.

To take the word "perform" in the sense the Chairman meant it and answer the question as to how we could make the Houses of the Oireachtas more understandable to the populace, "Oireachtas Report" should be broadcast at 6.30 p.m. rather than 11.30 p.m. If the programme is broadcast at a minority time when nobody is watching it, how can one expect the population to be aware of how politics works when all the voters of the next generation are asleep? The Dáil and Seanad are crucially important and we should use them for education purposes.

Senator Phil Prendergast

I did a great deal of campaigning during the debate on the Lisbon treaty. I visited a day care centre in Irishtown in Clonmel to meet the people who attend it daily. They are the people who were targeted by Cóir which left leaflets at the back of churches stating we were trying to introduce euthanasia and abortion. I visited the centre again following the referendum result and asked what people thought. Many of them expressed a rather simplistic view that matters would have been clearer and simpler if it had been explained what the Maastricht and Nice treaties had meant for Ireland and what we had voted for and how this was linked with the Lisbon treaty. I realise that is a simplistic view and a singular aspect to it.

Last year the then Minister for Education and Science said water charges would be introduced for schools. She said it was due to a European directive and there was nothing we could do about it. There is a predisposition to blame Europe if something unsavoury comes our way and to wash our hands of responsibility, but then we call on the electorate to support a European Union that seemingly imposes how straight a banana must be or how small apples can be or other such decisions.

I have enjoyed the contributions of the witnesses this morning. I had the great pleasure of having coffee earlier with Mr. Cullen. I got the secret of his eternal youth. The Labour Party was founded 100 years ago in Clonmel and I wonder whether he was at that meeting.

Deputy Joe Costello

Senator Prendergast should not overdo it.

Senator Phil Prendergast

I am sorry. He said the informers were not the right informers. I listened with great interest to the contributions. Will the witnesses indicate who are the right informers?

Professor Richard Aldous

I take on board the Senator's exact point. There is a "Not me, guv" attitude when directives are introduced. The issue of knobbly vegetables and straight bananas is on a practical level. People find that ridiculous, but it is true on a broader philosophical level also. It was expressed in a speech last week by one of the leaders of euroscepticism in the United Kingdom, Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail. He referred to the encroachment of laws coming via Europe and being enforced by the courts and completely bypassing the legislative process. Both on a practical and a broader philosophical level, those are problems about which neither Europe nor national parliaments have been able to reassure people or to address. The sense of democratic deficit Mr. Dunphy mentioned earlier plays exactly into what Senator Prendergast said.

Mr. Bill Cullen

What Senator Prendergast outlined is unfortunate. That is called passing the buck, saying the European Union has said we must do something when we know that is not so. We can sort that out. It is a pity one of our senior politicians said something like that.

As for informers, Mr. Hook has hit the nail straight on the head — when one is in the kind of business he and Mr. Dunphy are in, it is showtime. That is what they have to do. I am a business man but I seem to percolate over into different arenas all the time. As for what we need to do in terms of the political aspect of it, we need someone who is in the background — that could be Mr. P. J. Mara — to run the project and people are needed out front to support the politicians. The word is "support". It is not a war office, what we need is a project success office with a back and a front to it.

Mr. George Hook

On the issue of the right informers, if one looks at the failure of democracy throughout history, the first act by anti-democrats was to burn the books, shut the newspapers down and close comment. There is no right informer, there is open debate. As long as the matter gets open debate, the right decision will be reached.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

As a citizen, I am not greatly enamoured of celebrity political messenger boys. The Irish people are too clever for that and they are right. That does not work. I do not think it is an issue. Mr. Hook posed an interesting rhetorical question as to why people are prepared to listen to Bono and Bob Geldof on AIDS and famine in Africa but not on the Lisbon treaty. The reason is because deep in their hearts people are concerned about AIDS and the problems of Africa and they respect Bono for the commitment he has made to that and for the achievement in getting governments to cough up, but they do not regard Bono, Mr. Hook, Mr. Cullen, me or even Professor Aldous as experts on the Lisbon treaty. They will not buy opinions from the likes of me and I would not insult people by standing for office. I would not expect to see Mr. Cullen standing any time soon without getting laughed at either. What we need is proper debate and analysis.

My home in Deauville was referred to earlier. It is in Normandy, which is an interesting part of rural France that has been stripped naked and promised more because of the Common Agricultural Policy, Mr. Peter Mandelson and globalisation. Real debates are about the rural and urban experiences and the desolation of Europe, where we are going to get our food from and how we are going to populate small towns, villages and townlands. That is something for politicians to do. The Irish people in particular will not listen to me any time soon, except on football.

Senator Phil Prendergast

I thank the speakers for their replies.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

I thank the Chairman and the delegates for their presentation this morning. I did not know what to expect but each witness has taken a particular angle and that has brought something important to the debate.

Mr. Dunphy's last comment is a good place to start. I would listen to Mr. Cullen speaking on the Lisbon treaty. I do not think it is important for everyone to know every single aspect of the Lisbon treaty. What they need to know is that Mr. Cullen, as a business man, has had a good and positive experience of Europe, that Europe has been good for him and has benefited his business and that he is a success story as a result. I will listen to that because it is a real life story.

By the same token I would listen to Mr. Ulick McEvaddy or Mr. Declan Ganley, or anyone else who has a position to outline. Mr. Cullen may not know that the European Court of Justice might have an impact on social and ethical issues in this country but he has a story to tell and that is important. Personalities and celebrities bring something to a campaign in the same way that they did in America. Barack Obama had Bruce Springsteen singing all over the place because he knew he touched a certain portion of the population and that brought something very important to his campaign. Barack Obama was a Senator for three years. There is a sense of expectation not just in America but all over the world that something fantastic is happening in America. We do not know what it is and nobody knows what will happen. We do not know whether Barack Obama will meet the expectations or fall far short but people have bought into the dream. He touched the heart of America in the same way that we need to get the European Union to touch the hearts of people in Ireland. Mr. Cullen made that point at the outset and I take it on board because it is a critical one.

We must examine how we view Europe. It consists of 27 countries that have come together for our mutual benefit, voluntarily on issues that will be good for us all. No one has forced us to join and nobody is out to get us. That has been our experience since 1973. Nobody is trying to get one over on the Irish people. One can ask why people are so suspicious about the Lisbon treaty.

Mr. Dunphy made the point that he voted for the Nice treaty. I was interested in that. I do not know whether he read the Nice treaty. Neither did Mr. Declan Ganley. He voted for the Nice treaty in the first and second referenda also. Mr. Dunphy made the point that if people realised they would lose a Commissioner because of the Nice treaty they might not have voted for it. In 2001 and 2002 people believed in representative democracy. They trusted their politicians and they voted for the Nice treaty. I do not remember it being a feature of the debate in 2001 and 2002 whether anyone read the treaty. I do not think there was an expectation that people did, but this time around it was a big issue. Is it reasonable to expect that the average citizen will be familiar with all aspects of the Lisbon treaty?

I return to the question of representative democracy. Mr. Dunphy made the point about the true democratic process; one man, one vote, that everyone would have their say and that he could buy into that. One man, one vote means that Ireland, as a small State, will be swallowed up in Europe. We represent 1% of the population.

Mr. Dunphy referred to Mr. Peter Mandelson and the WTO. We will have nobody but Mandelsons around the table if his approach is followed. Through the representative democracy of our Heads of State, Ireland, one of 27 member states, has the same say as every other large state in choosing a directly elected President of the European Council. If we were to opt for the true democratic process, we would count for nothing and would be consulted on nothing. It is a question of how one views the European project. If one views the European Union as a co-operative of countries working for their mutual benefit, one will surely agree that operating through representative democracy, in which each member state has an equal say, is a better way than having a system of "one man, one vote".

I agreed with all of Professor Aldous's points on why we had failed in the campaign, particularly in respect of eurospeak. I am always amazed that when people talk on media programmes about the European Union, they speak about intergovernmental conferences and the principle of subsidiarity. Half the population has switched channel by that stage. They probably switch from RTE to Newstalk.

Professor Aldous referred to looking outwards. The reason the Lisbon treaty was proposed was in order that we could stop looking inwards and get on with looking outwards. We are seeking the delegates' help in this regard. They have given us fantastic ideas as to how the campaign could be re-run, although we are not saying it will be. We would certainly be able to have a better stab at it because huge avenues have opened up.

I was very touched by Mr. Cullen's story, which I did not hear before. I was five at the time the company was set up. I was fascinated to learn how the whole project had come about.

On the credibility factor, I liked Mr. Hook's quotation, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." This is the desired approach in a nutshell. Had we sold the project properly in the first place and focused on its heart, as referred to by the delegates, there is no doubt but that the commentators, be they public service broadcasters or independent broadcasters, would have balanced themselves out. Ultimately, we would have got our message across to the ordinary people of Ireland. Let us hope we have learned from this.

Mr. Bill Cullen

I have no question. That was fantastic.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

I am not sacked.

Mr. Bill Cullen

The Deputy is hired.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

Mr. Cullen fired one of my constituents on the first night of his show. I would like to take him up on it. The person in question, David, was a fabulous, smart, clever and super guy but was let go.

Chairman

I should make some comments on our terms of reference but will not do so on this occasion.

Mr. George Hook

I suspect we are drawing near to the close and I would, therefore, like to wrap up on my position. I refer to Monnet's great vision. The Queen Mother was talking to a member of the UK negotiating team at the beginning of the United Kingdom's entry to the European Union and, no doubt befuddled by gin, she said, "It will never work with all those Huns, wops and dagos", in the belief they would never come to an agreement.

I grew up on Albert Road in Cork which was colloquially known among Leesiders as "Jewtown", essentially the Jewish ghetto in Cork. The first newspapers I read covered the great Holocaust and what the awful Germans had done to 6.5 million Jews and probably 40 million others. Twenty years later I married a daughter of a man who had died in the snowy wastes of Russia while retreating from Moscow in a German uniform. What this European experience has done is change us from an island people on the farthest extremities of Europe into an outward-looking people. The great challenge for the Latvians and Lithuanians, as well as the "Huns, wops and dagos" is to come together, as assuredly they must, to save their nations.

What the Irish people need to hear is a vision to which they can aspire. The challenge for the elected representatives and each of us present is to espouse that vision without party allegiance because this is about the nation. We must come together to offer the people a vision I am certain they will believe in and support.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

The point about the Nice treaty is interesting. Did Deputy Flynn inform her constituents, whom she wanted to vote "Yes" to the Nice treaty, that Ireland would lose a Commissioner under that treaty?

Deputy Beverley Flynn

No.

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

My point is made. However, let me refer to the answer I gave to the Chairman on improving the European Union by having one vote for one man. We must reflect on what was said. I concede that, as a small nation with 4.5 million people, we have a better chance of getting things done for the people in current circumstances than by way of a pan-European election. It is very much in people's minds that we are now becoming a little marginalised. We are net payers and do not get the money any more. We are small by comparison with Bulgaria and Romania and only one of 27 member states. This is also in the minds of the Irish people who differentiate between the circumstances that obtained in the past and those that obtain now. There is still a democratic deficit but I accept the point made on the Nice treaty referendum.

Professor Richard Aldous

I take on board much of what Deputy Flynn stated, including her point that we do not need to know how these things are done. She is absolutely correct. It is a complete red herring that a very complex treaty needs to be intelligible to us. The failure was in the advocacy and giving a sense of what that very complex document meant. The "No" campaigners were able to offer their interpretation but the "Yes" campaigners never really offered a clear sense of what the very complex document actually meant. Advocacy, regardless of the subject, will always be the role of legislators. The Deputy was correct to draw attention to the importance of representative democracy and to state the European Union was not a popular democracy. As Mr. Dunphy stated, we repose trust in our public representatives and, as the Chairman stated, if we do not like them, we can kick them out.

Sitting here with Mr. Dunphy and Mr. Hook reminds me that, whereas sports broadcasters usually must pretend to like people they do not like very much, political commentators — I include myself — usually must pretend they do not like people they do rather like and admire. In a sense, a referendum throws out of kilter and complicates the belief in democracy in the context of differentiating between popular democracy and representative democracy.

Deputy Flynn asked me specifically about the Lisbon treaty and looking outwards. I am glad of this because it brings me back to the first point I made which is in some ways the most important of my contribution. The failure at the most important level was that those campaigning in favour of the Lisbon treaty did not communicate that it was being discussed for 20 years, that we had finally reconciled all the different interests within the European Union, that we had decided how we wanted to run ourselves and that we wanted to stop looking inwards and using six-monthly meetings to argue about our own governance. It was not communicated that we actually wanted to address the really significant issues of climate change, globalisation, etc. That is actually the really big missed opportunity regarding the Lisbon treaty referendum.

Chairman

I thank the delegates. I shall allow each of my colleagues, if they wish, to make a further point. If the panel wishes to respond in any way, it will have the opportunity.

Deputy Billy Timmins

During the Lisbon treaty campaign or if there is a similar campaign, if the editor said he or she would have an item on the Lisbon treaty, what would run through either delegate's mind? Would it be a case of, "Wow, good" or "Oh, my God, let's get this over"? Mr. Hook's comments prompt me to say that in our subconscious we Irish still regard ourselves as a colony of Britain. As a result, perhaps we are ripe pickings for the eurosceptic media. Take Manchester United, "Coronation Street and "The X Factor". One can almost tell the age of Irish people by the premiership team they support. There is the Manchester United era, Leeds era, the Liverpool era and the Chelsea era now. That has an enormous influence on us and perhaps we are not as outward looking or culturally tied to Europe as we like to believe.

We will never have a single foreign policy in Europe. We may have common foreign policy, as regards matters that are common to us all, but we shall never have a single foreign policy. There are such differences. Whether it is South Ossetia or recognition of Kosovo, we will never get agreement between all the countries. However, I should like to hear what the delegates think of Irish neutrality and the battlegroup concept. I am a big advocate of the Irish being involved in peacekeeping. The "battlegroup" term, however, is unfortunate. It is a British military term and may have given rise to this fear of conscription. The delegates could give their views of Ireland's neutrality in the context that in the treaty campaign, one of the issues that caused concern was the concept of a solidarity clause. If there was a natural disaster or terrorist attack on one of the other member states, it would mean that we had to go and help — and people believed this impinged on our neutrality.

I would argue that we cannot help anyone since we do not have the resources. We could only have benefited from such an eventuality, but I should like to hear the delegates' views on this.

Senator Phil Prendergast

This morning's debate was very good. There was a good exchange and many ideas and I am delighted to have been here for today's proceedings. I thank all the delegates sincerely for their comments and insight on what lies ahead for us.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I thank all the delegates.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

An important point for discussion relates to representative democracy and the idea that celebrities should run for political office, support the Lisbon treaty or whatever. We are moving into an age of much more participatory democracy. People have lost a certain amount of faith in politicians that will be hard for us to regain. I do not believe participatory democracy will replace representative democracy, but it will run alongside it. The European Union needs to look at that and decide how it will facilitate it. People do not want politicians saying that they will do this or that for them, ratify the treaty or whatever. They want as much involvement as possible in making informed decisions for themselves — assisted and advised by politicians, as appropriate. I hope, if there is a re-run of the Lisbon treaty campaign, we shall see politicians and members of civil society — whether celebrities or representatives of different sectors — promoting the treaty, as happened with the second Nice referendum. If we are in favour of further European integration there is a much better chance, if we do that, of getting the treaty passed.

Chairman

A point made was that we are going from an economic union to a political community. Some of us seek to make that journey. How do we make it work? Perhaps a bridge in all this is representative democracy. The better functioning of representative democracy only means the people on this side of the table doing their job better, and that is what we are seeking to do. Certainly, many of the contributions and ideas put forward by the delegates today will help this sub-committee do its job better, and I thank them for the two hours or so of time that they have given. It will be taken on board in the work we shall do next week.

I shall call on Mr. Cullen, then Mr. Hook and Mr. Dunphy and we shall finish with Professor Aldous.

Mr. Bill Cullen

I am very privileged to have had the opportunity to be here this morning. I wanted to say to Mr. Hook, in view of his forthright comments about our neighbours in Europe, that I am sure they are very glad to work with us. I am talking about the Brits and the Paddies and that.

Mr. George Hook

I have a direct answer to the question on what I would do if my producer today told me to do an item on Lisbon. At the end of the day we are in the entertainment business. My first answer is, "Who have we got?". My view on the programme is that the third world war is not a story unless I have someone to talk about it. If the sub-committee, from within its ranks can give me somebody who delivers good radio, then I shall do the Lisbon treaty all day. It is about the performer and the quality of the debate. On the issue of neutrality, I shall just quote Edmund Burke who said "For evil to triumph, all it needs is the men of goodwill to stand by."

Mr. Eamon Dunphy

I concur with Mr. Hook and say it depends on who one has to argue the respective cases as regards the Lisbon treaty. Other than that, it has been a pleasure. I have no personal hang-ups on neutrality. However, I was astonished that The Irish Times led with a figure of 30% or thereabouts of people who said “No”, principally because of their fears about conscription. In fact the real figure was 2%, so there was misinformation on both sides.

However, I have no hang-ups about neutrality. If one is an ally of somebody, one should be prepared to be an ally.

Professor Richard Aldous

To take up a question from Senator de Búrca, I agree about bringing people into the democratic process. Picking up on Mr. Hook's point, I stand with Edmund Burke in saying that effectively we pay and vote for our representatives not to follow but to lead. In some senses the sub-committee should not pay attention to what we think, because it exists to make decisions — sometimes hard ones, sometimes unpopular ones, because that is what leadership and vision is about. it is not about just simply going with the tide, but a matter of saying, "This is what I believe in and I shall stand by it and put myself before the people at the next election".

I agree with the comments of all my colleagues to the effect that it really has been a privilege and an honour to be involved in this process. I certainly have come out of this process better informed, both as an academic and politically as well. I am very grateful to the Chairman for extending the invitation.

Chairman

I thank the delegates.

Sitting suspended at 2.07 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.