Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

Does the Minister of State regard that the neo-liberal agenda being pushed to its extreme, for example, regarding the working day, the working week and the Aubert principles was an issue in the French referendum, in other words that the emphasis was on the competition side rather than the cohesion side, as it was in Lisbon?

The Minister of State referred to his "regrets". Does he think it was a mistake to call a document a constitution when it was primarily a co-ordinating treaty? In retrospect, that might have been a mistake in so far as it does not meet the conventional definitions of a constitution. It is a set of co-ordinating mechanisms for the existing treaties. On reflection, would it have been wiser to call it a co-ordinating treaty incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights?

Has the Minister of State considered the differences in opinion between the French and Dutch rejections? I have suggested that the neo-liberal agenda is important in considering the French case, while the Dutch commentary on the "no" vote suggests the primary reason for rejection may have been the failure of the European Union to establish a bond with its citizens.

Is the Minister of State convinced there will be a referendum in Britain, and will it influence the Government's thinking?

See this speech in context