Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

I assume we will have to have a referendum, but I will check with our legal advisers. The IGC should be finished by Christmas, although the Portuguese Presidency has said it will be finished by the end of October. I wish the Portuguese well on that, but they will start it in the second half of July, so maybe it will be achieved. It seems unduly optimistic. The idea is that this will take effect for the European elections in 2009, so we will need a referendum in 2008. I will consult with the political parties because we need everybody's support to get the reformed treaty passed before May 2009. The ratification period for the European Parliament will end some months before that, possibly in late 2008 or March 2009, so we must have the referendum before that.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was not meant to be in the treaty at the original IGC. I do not think it was omitted for any other reason than it would make the document more complex than it needed to be. The key point was that if the charter was not in the treaty, it would still have the same legal effect as the treaties, even though it was not in the document. It would still embrace all areas of European law where member states apply such law. That was the crucial legal line for ETUC and others who have taken a great interest in this for the last seven or eight years. I have always supported that and whether it is in the treaty makes no difference once that line applies.

The negotiations surrounding the Polish position were not a model for good negotiations. As the night drifted on, different colleagues were talking to the Polish President, who spoke with the Polish Government in Warsaw which was in session. It was a good way how not to do things. In the Nice treaty, Poland was very close to Germany in votes. After the Nice treaty, Germany had a far higher number of votes. Spain accepted that position three years ago and did not go back to it. The Poles went back to their old position. It is rare to see a vote in the European Councils on such issues. Therefore, it was not about votes but about history. It was about their relationship with others. It was about the fact that they thought they would be walked on, that their point of view was not taken into account. It was about all of those issues rather than procedural issues.

It was Jean-Claude Juncker who came up with what effectively is an arrangement which means that Nice for the Poles is extended, if they wish it to be so, and that they can go back to this square root position if they so wish. Personally, I think it is daft. If it helps good solutions on the night — I think it is a complex position — it has no great effect other than extending their right to hold on until the spring meeting of 2017 to a position, which otherwise would have been gone in 2010. I doubt they will want to use it between now and 2027.

See this speech in context