John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

The conclusions of the Brussels summit were simply a recognition of the reality that the ratification process had to be stalled in light of the French and Dutch rejections of the constitutional treaty. I welcome the thoughtful and measured contribution of Deputy Quinn. He too recognises that we cannot go on as we are. In a statement that was not picked up to any great extent by the media, the Taoiseach remarked before he went to Brussels that the French and Dutch would have to state their position in the same way as he stated his position in Gothenburg after the initial Irish rejection of the Nice treaty. It was in Gothenburg that the Taoiseach announced that Ireland would hold a second referendum on that treaty.

The question is whether we had clarity in Brussels. Did the French and Dutch tell us they would vote again? If we are to believe some of the public pronouncements, the respective leaders were emphatic that they would not do so. The Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Balkenende, said there would not be a second referendum in the Netherlands. Prior to the referendum defeat, we were told by French leaders that there would be no second vote in France. They were categorical in this contention. The ratification process, with which I did not agree, is therefore stalled and cannot continue.

On 31 March 2003, I put forward an alternative view at the Convention on the Future of Europe. This submission, which received cross-party support, was a proposal for a Europe-wide referendum. It is ironic that in the light of the French and Dutch rejections, I have heard others who originally dismissed the idea now pronouncing it a good idea that we should all vote together on the same day. It is regrettable that this idea was rejected by the presidium of the Convention because it would have solved many of the problems that have arisen.

However, it may not have facilitated the passing of the constitutional treaty. I have spoken to colleagues throughout Europe and there is significant opposition. Some German colleagues told me at the weekend that if a referendum had been held in their country, it would have been rejected. The same view seems to prevail in Italy. There may be different reasons for this opposition in different states but the opposition undoubtedly exists.

One of the reasons the Europe-wide referendum idea was rejected was that many, particularly the French themselves, believed it incomprehensible that France would reject the EU constitution. It was not meant to be like this. The idea was that the French would accept the constitutional treaty and this would facilitate a rolling "Yes" vote in those countries that held referendums. As one French man observed: "If the British say 'No' it is a problem for Britain, but if the French say 'No' it is a problem for Europe."

Part of the reason that the British are now so defensive is the way they have been treated over a period of time. There has been a certain amount of Brit-bashing in this country. Even among Green Party colleagues in other European states I have heard much talk to the effect that the Brits must make up their minds whether they are in or out. What we are seeing now is a reaction from the British. If Europe is a family, we must recognise that we are all in this together, including the British, and that we must take on board their view of Europe.

The French are slightly out of touch with how Europe has developed. The EU has expanded and the vision of the Poles, Hungarians and Czechs does not necessarily correspond to that of the German-French alliance. It is a slightly different vision in terms of economics. Many of the new member states believe themselves to be, for whatever reason, closer to Boston than Berlin, to use a common analogy. This is particularly so when it comes to militarism because they believe they owe the United States a favour.

There are a number of issues to consider but it is most important that we decide how to proceed from here. The Laeken Declaration asked us to bring Europe closer to the people. All the evidence suggests we have not succeeded in doing so and that many people are alienated from the European project. What does it mean when the Taoiseach talks about a period of reflection or engagement? Is it a question of engaging properly with citizens or is it a matter of getting the constitution through by hook or by crook?

There are many who see this debate focusing on the question of the type of Europe its citizens want. Do they want a federal Europe or a confederation? One must accept that not all those French who rejected the constitution were ignoramuses. There was, to use the Taoiseach's phrase, real engagement in France and the constitution was a best seller. I doubt many here would read it. Mr. Dehaene said that nine out of ten people would not read the treaty text but the vast majority of French citizens did so and also read books about the constitution.

We must decide what type of Europe we want. It is not desirable that we should have a Europe of the elites. I am a supporter of EU enlargement and have always said that Turkey should be part of Europe. I do not want Europe to disintegrate. I do not believe in the histrionics of Mr. Prodi, who said that Europe will disappear because France said no. Europe will not disappear. We will continue, but we must be careful that this process of disintegration, as it is now called, is halted. Some of us want such a confederation, but we want Europe to continue.

See this speech in context