Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms O'Connell for her comprehensive and thoughtful presentation, as always, to those of us engaged on European matters. As Deputy Richmond stated, Oireachtas Members use polling all the time and are impacted by it, regardless of what we say publicly. We are also focused on the nature of polling and know that the question put and the timing of it is extremely important to the result one gets. Some advocacy groups present poll findings to committees of the Houses and others with a question that is obviously weighted in such a way that it will get the result the group expects. However, this comprehensive view is important for us. I wish to drill down into the nature of the questions put. The overarching question with regard to whether the person supports continued membership of the EU is straightforward and clear and people understand that. It is remarkable that there has been such a high and consistent figure in favour of continued membership. I know from looking at polls from my constituency and political polls that a consistent figure in an area over several decades cannot involve the same people, so there are different cohorts of people who amount to the same number being won over.

The impact of the debate on Brexit has focused people on the EU, which had been a sort of passive backdrop to our lives for many people. The notion that a state can disintegrate itself or disentangle itself from a 40-year integrated trade and political co-operation arrangement has underscored the value of membership of the Union. Some people, including very many British colleagues to whom I have spoken, were also genuinely surprised by the degree of solidarity Ireland received. The view, certainly of the Brexiteers, was that we would be left alone amid the greater economic consequences of Brexit when hard economics came into play, and that was not the case. That has impacted people's positivity.

The more granular questions, such as whether there should be more health competence or more economic integration if it means less control, are too abstract to get meaningful answers from. Someone has to say specifically what he or she means if he or she is to get a meaningful response to a question such as that. The default system for most of us is the status quounless we have a compelling reason to support change. To the notion as to whether competence will be ceded, questions must be asked as to what end and what specifics? One cannot receive meaningful responses to those general questions.

This comes down to my last focus and question, which is on the future of Europe, a really important debate, and the nature of our interaction. We all love hearing from people. After every election defeat, the first thing a political party will say is that it will talk to the electorate again and reconnect. That is a really important thing to do, but the nature of that reconnection and that dialogue is important. We have a representative democracy, that is, an elected Parliament; we do not have a direct democracy whereby everything is put to a popular vote. People therefore expect suggestions, ideas and visions to be presented to them. My question is how the witnesses see the process unfolding. Should it involve the electorate in all their different structures and compositions being presented with alternative visions of the future for them to make their choice, or is it to be a passive listening exercise whereby someone goes into a room and asks them what they think, which is a lot less constructive?

Finally, I recall many years ago, when I was involved in local government discussions, that the local government organisation went around to communities to ask what they wanted in their communities. They said, "Here is a blank page. What do you want?" Everybody had a great dialogue and there were round tables and so on and at the end of it every community wanted a swimming pool, a bowling alley and a hospital. There was a list of items everybody wanted as opposed to a vision of what was practical and doable and what the options were. How do the witnesses see the dialogue meaningfully engaging with people to build a consensus as to what the vision of a new Europe should be?