Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

Last Thursday the people gave their verdict on the proposal to change the Constitution so that this State could ratify the Lisbon treaty. The people have spoken and the Government accepts their verdict. It is for the Government to manage the political situation that develops as a result, both at home and internationally.

There will be no shortage of those who will rush to judgment about the reasons for such an outcome. However, beyond rejecting the proposal to change our Constitution to ratify the treaty, it is too early to understand fully the significance of last week's referendum as this will take time.

Today's debate is part of the national discussion we must now undertake. We must be honest with ourselves now that our country has taken its decision. Today is about contemplating not just the events of last week but what they might mean for our nation in the years and decades to come. It is many decades since Ireland took a decision to turn outwards to face the world in an effort to improve the welfare of her people. I have acknowledged previously the significance of that shift and the wisdom of those who had the courage to bring it about.

For some 35 years, much of our place in the international arena has been realised through our membership of the European Union. Throughout that time, the people have been largely comfortable with the overall direction of the Union, which has responded to international developments. Those developments have required responses which involve countries co-operating with each other and sharing sovereignty in a way that might not have been envisaged decades earlier. This globalised world has worked for Ireland because we have become globalised ourselves. In the past, this was in part because our people were forced to emigrate but today's globalised Ireland is by choice. I believe it is the right choice, but it is not without consequences or responsibilities.

If we want to manage international crime we must do so by working with our neighbours; if we want our voice to be heard in international trade negotiations, we must do so by identifying and co-operating with allies; if we are to conceive of an effective and humane management of international migration flows, we are powerless to do so without willing collaborators; if we want to contribute to the peace and stability of those parts of the world, or indeed Europe, still divided by hate and distrust between communities, we can do so only in conjunction with our partners; if we want to secure a sustainable future for our planet, we must act on a global scale in concert with others.

The European Union has been the most effective and advanced response to globalisation which the world has seen. For 35 years, Ireland has been comfortable with its place in this evolving Union. Last Thursday, the public rejected what the Government, the main Opposition parties and others, recommended to them as the next step in that process. As a consequence, we now face uncertainty.

It is appropriate today for me to give this House my initial reaction and my assessment of the referendum outcome which has given rise to that uncertainty. I will begin by repeating that the will of the people is sovereign in our democracy and in Europe democracy is no less sacrosanct. The principles of democracy are the threads that weave the fabric of the European Union.

The debate that has taken place in Ireland in recent months saw many disparate views, and in some cases contradictory positions, put forward by those advocating a rejection of the treaty. That makes it particularly difficult to analyse the key messages underlying the outcome of the referendum. I recognise the considerable unease expressed about an apparent diminution in Ireland's representation and influence in the institutions of the Union. I note in particular that the fact that for five out of every 15 years, there would not be an Irish Commissioner was an issue which weighed with people. This is despite the fact that under the Nice treaty, which the Irish people accepted and which Ireland ratified, a reduction in the number of Commissioners will occur next year and not in 2014 as proposed in the Lisbon treaty which was rejected and without a settled basis for the equal rotation between the member states as provided for in the Lisbon treaty.

Arguments were repeatedly advanced about a threat to our right to maintain our tax system and tax rates, even though the Lisbon treaty provided for a continuation of the legal arrangements that currently apply under existing treaties. This was in part due to continued references to the Commission bringing forward a proposal on a common consolidated corporation tax base, despite the maintenance of the unanimity requirement in the Lisbon treaty.

Many people were reportedly uneasy about a perceived risk that Europe would develop a common defence, requiring Ireland to abandon its military neutrality. This was compounded by concern that, at some hypothetical future date, this could give rise to a European army and an attempt to project European interests by military force, to which Ireland would be obliged to contribute. The balancing of possible commitments in this area with assurances about the right of Ireland and other member states to maintain their defence traditions was not perceived to offer sufficient safeguards. Moreover, commitments to improve military capability, which in Ireland's case would be necessary in the context of our continued programme of humanitarian and peacekeeping activity, were perceived as implying a further erosion of our militarily neutral stance.

Many groups and individuals expressed fears that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice would develop in ways which would require Ireland to accept and provide services which are repugnant on grounds of public policy. In particular, concerns were expressed regarding abortion, despite the specific assurances in terms of Ireland's legal arrangements in this regard.

Similarly, concerns arose about the possibility of a legal regime that would require the commercialisation of public services and introduce requirements to convert what have been regarded as essential public services into market opportunities.

The charter of fundamental rights featured prominently. Some regarded it as giving rise to an undesirable degree of uncertainty because of the scope for judicial interpretation in the European Court of Justice. Others felt that they did not see sufficient assurance about the application of the rights covered by the charter within domestic law and practice. More generally, this was echoed by a debate about whether, on the one hand, the Union gives rise to too much regulation and unreasonable burdens on business and, on the other hand, that it involves too little protection of the rights of workers and trade unions in the face of globalisation.

Other factors, less directly connected with the treaty itself, impacted on the campaign. These included the deep unease within the farming community regarding the current strategy being adopted in negotiations at the World Trade Organisation. Other more generalised and less specific anxieties, as in all referendum campaigns, contributed to the disposition of people as they approached the act of voting in the referendum. These doubtless include also the current tightening of economic conditions internationally and the associated rising unemployment and inflation figures.

For those of us who supported the referendum, the core message of the need for the European Union to function more efficiently, democratically and effectively in the international arena did not register sufficiently with the public. In contrast, many were more comfortable citing examples where they felt the EU was not sufficiently in touch with the concerns and needs of people at local level.

The format of the treaty, too, became a frustration with the electorate. Despite the fact that an extensive range of explanatory material was made widely available, much was made of the apparent complexity of the treaty and the fact that, unlike the 2004 constitution text, it was a series of detailed amendments to existing treaties.

It is worth pointing out, as others have done, that any perusal of the range of claims being made by opponents of the Lisbon treaty highlights that some of them are contradictory. To take just one example, it has been suggested by some who argued forcefully against a centralised super state, that the lack of accountability perceived to apply in the European institutions should be remedied by providing for a directly elected president of the European Council. This is the ultimate federalist project and one which would not serve our national interest.

While I respect the outcome of the referendum — we are now dealing with its consequences — I do not share some of the wilder interpretations that have been aired in recent days. Nor do I accept that there is any clear or obvious set of conclusions that can immediately be drawn.

Tomorrow, I will travel to Brussels for a number of bilateral meetings. I will attend the European Council tomorrow and on Friday, accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche. It will be an honour for me to represent my country at the European Council for the first time as Taoiseach. That honour is in no way affected by last week's outcome. My European colleagues will, naturally, wish to hear my assessment of the referendum and its implications and much of what I will have to say to them will mirror what I have just said to the House.

I should acknowledge though, openly and honestly, that my assessment of the rejection of the treaty in Ireland will have to be viewed alongside its approval in the majority of member states. This is the difficulty which faces Ireland and the Union. There is no doubt in my mind that our partners tomorrow will express their strong preference to find a shared solution, something very much in the tradition of the European Union. I believe, too, that they will accord us the time we need to play our part in understanding last week's vote. For my part, I will impress upon them the need to avoid prejudicing the process which we must now undertake in Ireland.

I will underline that we will also continue to engage very closely with them. I want to emphasise the need for the domestic and European Union processes to proceed in tandem; for any outcome to be viable, it would not only have to be agreeable to our people, but also to all member states.

Many of our partners have already expressed their disappointment at the outcome of our referendum and their difficulty in interpreting the signals that it may send. However, their disappointment is not entirely universal. On the contrary, there are some individuals and groups across Europe who now wish to claim the Irish people as their new friends. They are headed by the likes of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Nigel Farage. No proud Irish man or woman could but be uneasy that they rejoice in our decision.

See this speech in context