Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

Last week's summit shows that Europe is going through a storm. However, it is not yet time to take to the lifeboats. The public comments made by Heads of Government during and after the summit were unprecedented in their tone and content. That said, it was the week that saw the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo.

Naturally, the results of the referendums in France and the Netherlands made ratification the major subject of the summit. However, the budget proved equally fractious. I will address that first. The budget negotiations have been inconclusive, divisive and have left a bitter legacy. Britain did Europe no favours by using the outcome in the referendums to link a deal on the UK rebate with a further scaling back of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. I regard the UK's action as dishonourable. It was an unworthy negotiating tactic and an excellent illustration of why people have become unsure about Europe. They see governments blatantly using Europe for their own domestic ends, regardless of the damage they do to the European ideal in the process.

In that sense, Britain was out of order. In terms of the CAP, it was equally so. The policy has undergone such radical reform over the last 15 years as to see spending on agriculture as a proportion of EU budget falling dramatically and so-called commodity "mountains" virtually eliminated. Further modifications in the context of world trade must be a matter of negotiation, not unilateral attack. It is wrong for a member state to attack the CAP in an attempt to gain leverage on a separate issue.

It is now said that the imminent UK Presidency of the EU will stagnate. However, that is not inevitable. In fact, the British Government now has an opportunity to repair some of the damage it did last week. If it makes a real and sincere effort to achieve progress on the budget in the context of the constitution, it can prove its critics wrong. It should live up to its duty, its people should be responsible Europeans and the country should build bridges with those member states with whom it has been in dispute.

In terms of ratification, I am pleased the Heads of Government decided to extend the ratification period. Before the European Council meeting, I joined the summit meeting of the government and opposition leaders of the EPP, which included the Council's current President in office, Jean Claude Juncker, and the Commission President, José Manuel Barroso. There were varying views as to the best way forward. I proposed, as I had previously, that instead of suspending or abandoning ratification, as suggested by the UK, it would be better to keep the process alive and extend the deadline by two years. This would allow for a more comprehensive public debate on the merits of the constitution and a deeper analysis of its rejection in France and the Netherlands.

I note our Government's decision to delay the ratification period. The decision is welcome. I have consistently held the view that proceeding with an early referendum would have been counterproductive, given the practical considerations following the French referendum. It would have been extraordinarily difficult to motivate people disposed to voting "Yes", given they would be voting on a treaty which, as things stand, cannot be ratified by all 25 member states. Last year, I proposed that all countries holding referendums on the constitution should do so on the same day to avoid unnecessary prejudice and allow countries to focus on our shared common good.

Certainly Europe has seen better times. I am confident that it will do so again. In fact, the events of last week illustrate Jean Monnet's belief that "Europe is a process, not a product". Politically, co-operation may be at a low ebb. In addition, our people are expressing uncertainty about how exactly they want Europe to proceed. However, I believe this to be part of Monnet's process. It is where politicians get another chance to explain to people the "why" of Europe, where we can lead a public debate on what it is to be European and, above all, where we can actively listen to our people and their confusion about, or their complete indifference to, Europe and its future.

Seven out of ten people in the EU say they know little about our Union. Less than half the electorate voted in the European Parliament elections last year. Just after those elections, Romano Prodi warned that we "needed to respond to the disenchantment of our citizens". We must do that here and now if Ireland is to show good example in the next part of Monnet's process. The disconnection between the political process and the reality of people's lives is enormous. I believe Ireland can show a good example. It is nothing new. Culturally, in the Dark Ages we colonised the minds of Europe. Centuries later, we used a sliver of silicon to transform ourselves economically from the poor relations into the second richest country in the Union. In doing that we held out hope to others watching, waiting and thinking that if Ireland can do it, so can they. There is no reason we cannot do it again, although this time politically.

The Irish people are highly sophisticated, educated and intelligent. They have a finely honed sense of doing right by people, standing up for people and of looking out for their fellow human beings. It is that innate sense of responsibility and intrinsic goodness which should form the basis of our debate and allow Ireland to lead the way into the next part of the process in the next two years. This will, perhaps, show that unlike our near neighbours, we are more than a nation of shopkeepers.

I was struck by a question asked by Edmund Stoiber, who was standing in for Angela Merkel at the meeting I mentioned. It suggested that people do not believe in Europe any more and that there is a necessity to explain to people what Europe is about and why it was formed. He was sitting beside Michael Howard, an Englishman. England and Germany are two of the reasons that the European Union was formed in the first place. These two worthy representatives of their countries made that starkly evident at the meeting.

It will require new thinking and a new proposition. It must be something beyond the traditionally successful sell of the one-way benefit, the prospect of what is in it for us. Certainly, there is a consumer element to the European ideal. Every time one fills one's car with unleaded petrol, one can thank Europe and its health and environmental regulations. Every time a student goes on a SOCRATES programme to broaden his or her mind and horizons, he or she has Europe to thank. If one has taken parental leave after the birth of a child, one can thank Europe's social chapter. If one is in the 1% of the population with a life-threatening food allergy, packaged food is less of a minefield since Brussels demanded definitive ingredient labelling.

However, the next stage is about more than that. It is about what we can give as much as about what we can get. With the constitutional treaty, the EU ceases to be an innocuous economic club owned, so to speak, by the governments of the various member states. Instead, the treaty signifies the EU as a political and legal entity, with all the seriousness which that implies. The political dimension of the EU has become increasingly evident in recent years. However, governments, including the Irish Government, have not just failed to address that political dimension, they have positively ignored and avoided it. That is weak leadership and now Europe, and all of us, are paying the price.

If we are serious about Europe, it is time to be serious and honest with our people. We need to give them debate and discussion on the substance of the new Europe, what it is to be European and on the type of Europe we want, and through that the type of world we want.

Furthermore, there have been mistakes in how projects have been managed. Take the example of the Schengen agreement. Citizens benefit in a tangible way from that ambitious project yet its potential remains unfulfilled. Instead of freeing people, the dismantling of borders causes them to worry about illegal immigration, increased criminality and general insecurity. This is because when they decided to dismantle the borders the EU leaders lacked the political will to step up co-operation between their police forces and judicial authorities. People see the potential but through lack of courage and half-way measures weak leadership results in failure.

Future analyses should be frank and open. For example, we must examine the role of Europe in a globalised world. Is it to spread stability beyond our borders or to provide safety and cohesion inside? How do we ring-fence the rights and demands of the individual states without thinking how they connect with the needs and the good of the whole?

It is time to communicate what it means to be European in a way that involves responsibilities as well as rights and relates to the good of the individual state and the greater good of the group. This time last year after the text of the EU constitution was agreed I said the EU was facing its moment of truth, that agreeing the constitution was one matter but adopting it another. That is the case, especially since its defeat in France and the Netherlands.

The next time we vote on an EU issue the question will be whether we are for or against the EU. The response will depend on how politicians here and outside the House engage with, respect, inform and persuade the people in the meantime. This is a golden opportunity to stop selling the EU to the people and explain it instead. We can demystify and humanise the EU and explain its absolute necessity for the 455 million citizens who, thanks to the EU, are neither allies nor enemies but members of the one European family, a remarkable achievement within 60 years.

Mr. Barroso put it well when he said there was no plan B, but there should be plan D for democracy and dialogue. We have two years within which to explain the reason for existence of the EU and to make people see that its values are theirs, that it comprises people not institutions and that they will build the Union at their pace and their rhythm. This is the only way to make people feel that the EU belongs to them, that it is a place where they have their say, are listened to and is truly their home.

See this speech in context