Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

He is not, although the Deputy may like to think he is. Members of the groups I mentioned are opposed to the Lisbon treaty.

In 2001 and 2002 more than 500,000 people voted against the Nice treaty. The combined vote of the anti-Nice treaty parties, including Sinn Féin, the Green Party before its conversion, the Socialist Party and some smaller parties and independents, was over 200,000 in the 2002 general election. The fact that 500,000 people voted against the Nice treaty leads one to accurately assume that many supporters of other political parties voted "no"; in other words, members of the Minister of State's party and other parties in the House which advocated a "yes" vote were not railroaded into accepting a treaty that they believed was not in the best interests of the people.

People from all political viewpoints, all parts of the country and all backgrounds realise the implications the Lisbon treaty will have and will make their voices heard. I hope this will be sufficient to defeat the proposal and, if that is the case, the Government will actually pay heed, unlike last time when the Nice treaty was first rejected and then put to the people again.

Deputy Connaughton referred to how difficult the contents of the treaty were to read and Deputy Brady, who was in the Chair, agreed. He mentioned an ESB bill, suggesting we tended not to read the conditions on the back. That is probably the case for most people but most cannot understand the text of the Lisbon treaty, even Pat Kenny admitted as much on the radio and said it would be almost impossible for ordinary people to understand it. Deputy Connaughton says we do not read the conditions on the back of an ESB bill but many in Ireland who do not read or understand small print find themselves at a significant loss in insurance cases. The contents of the Lisbon treaty should be debated. They should also be readable and comprehensible.

I have some quotations that have enlightened those at meetings I have attended. In 2005 the Netherlands and France rejected the EU constitution, a forerunner of the Lisbon treaty. In 2007 the German Chancellor, Ms Angela Merkel, said "within the Lisbon treaty the substance of the constitution is preserved," and that is a fact. In 2007 the Taoiseach said "90% of the constitution is still there. These changes have not made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed in 2004." Ms Astrid Thors, the Finnish foreign Minister, said: "nothing from the original institutional package has been changed." In 2007 Giscard d'Estaing said "public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly. All earlier proposals will be in the next texts but will be hidden and disguised in some way." The Belgian foreign Minister, Mr. Karl de Gucht, said the aim of the constitutional treaty was to make it more readable, while the aim of the Lisbon treaty is to be unreadable. The constitution aimed to be clear but the treaty had to be unclear and, in that respect, it is a success. Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxemburg said: "Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty, but would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to that fact?" This is what European leaders have said about the treaty but I have heard supporters of it from both sides of the House make very different arguments.

We are very fortunate to have the opportunity to hold a referendum. Were it not for Mr. Raymond Crotty, a very brave man, this would not be the case.

See this speech in context