Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

I have already publicly expressed my disappointment at the result of the vote of the Irish people on the Lisbon treaty. I make no apology for having stood by our country in supporting the treaty; this is because of its importance in terms of our connection with the European Union and as part of the EU in facing the challenges we all face globally from China, India, South Africa and elsewhere. Having expressed that disappointment, the will of the people is absolutely sovereign. The votes were cast and counted, the decision was made and the Irish people have spoken.

I want to put on the record my thanks to the director of my party's campaign, Gay Mitchell MEP, as well as all those from parties supporting the "Yes" campaign. There are serious lessons to be learned from the result of the Lisbon treaty vote. One must consider that, with the exception of one party and a number of Independents, all parties in this House supported the treaty. In addition, the treaty was supported by various economic organisations, job-creating agencies, the farming community and business organisations. They all called for a "Yes" vote, but the people decided to do something entirely different.

Looking at Ireland's place in Europe, it is fair to say that we never had the shared history of our European colleagues, encompassing elements such as the Napoleonic era, two world wars and fascist movements, including Nazism. This time we were left in the position of being the only country to vote by referendum on the treaty and therefore decide the future outcome for, or change to, the European institutions. In essence, the poll showed that Ireland is not just divided on the question of Europe, but that the country itself is divided. The large "No" vote in what have been called poorer areas shows disaffection and a disconnection between citizens and the Government. This was exemplified in myriad views about the way in which European directives have been and are being interpreted. The only interpretation one can take from the result is one of which we are all aware, namely, that those who took the opportunity and time to vote demonstrated that the most important public office is that of the private individual and citizen and the right to cast one's ballot in secrecy through the ballot box.

I make no apology for having strongly supported the "Yes" position on the Lisbon treaty because of the link my party has had with Europe since the early 1970s and through it being an integral part of the European People's Party, the largest voting bloc in the European Parliament. The Fine Gael Party has been central to the EPP and is pleased to continue to contribute to it.

I propose to make a number of points about the referendum campaign. As I pointed out publicly on a number of occasions, complacency and confusion are always the enemy of a referendum. It is difficult for a Government in Ireland or any other country to sell an international treaty by way of referendum. The Prime Minster of the Netherlands pointed out to me that despite all the parties in the Dutch Parliament supporting the original constitutional document, it was voted down for a variety of national reasons. This also occurred in France for a range of similar reasons.

Bunreacht na hÉireann is normally amended on the basis of one or two amendments at a time and there is always a lead-in period to facilitate explanation and understanding of what is involved in the Oireachtas putting forward a Bill to ask the people for permission to change the Constitution. In the case of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty, for which a popular constitutional endorsement was required for the transfer of competency in certain areas, it became too much for some people and this resulted in great confusion. That confusion was increased by the fact that when I asked the Taoiseach's predecessor on numerous occasions to name the date for the referendum in order that we could get on with it, he chose, for his own reasons, not to do so. As a result, we were left with a vacuum in which misinformation began to seep into people's minds and negative attitudes about a range of issues emerged during the course of the campaign. Confusion about the treaty was a contributory factor.

Complacency is always the other enemy in that if people see all the political parties lined up in favour of a positive answer to a referendum question, some of them will inevitably conclude the referendum will pass while forgetting that it cannot pass unless people vote for it. Around the country, people told me that with Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Green Party and what is left of the Progressive Democrats Party supporting the Lisbon treaty, the referendum would fly through, but they did not follow through on this thought process and conclude that the referendum could not pass unless people voted in favour of the treaty.

It is very easy during the course of a referendum campaign to make negative arguments, for example, the treaty will cost us because we will lose a Commissioner, tax will be harmonised and so forth. It is difficult if one has to spend most of one's time trying to respond to these arguments before one can speak of the positive aspects of the treaty. For example, the brilliant measure to have the Council of Ministers meet in public would allow citizens to hear what Ministers say at Council meetings and know how, if the Council chooses to vote, Ministers vote on particular issues. Increased responsibility for Members of the European Parliament elected directly by citizens is also a positive feature of the treaty. These two issues constituted real progress in making Europe more connected with its citizens, an area in which there is undoubtedly a drift.

After 51 years, one and a half generations of Europeans may not appreciate the reasons for the establishment of the European Economic Community and its successor, the European Union. We need to reaffirm what the European project is and where the European process is headed, and deal with the legitimate concerns and fears some people have about super states, federal entities, European armies and so forth. A conclusion will not be reached until Irish interests have been recognised and respected and seen to have been addressed, and we, as a sovereign nation, can contribute to the betterment and progress of the European Union. That is the complex problem faced by the Taoiseach and the Government.

It is not for me to enter into a blame game about the reason the referendum was not passed. One cannot argue with the voice and decision of the people. One can perhaps argue about better co-ordination or a better emphasis in terms of the manner in which the "Yes" campaign made its case and so forth.

I spent two and a half months as party leader travelling around the country. Some of the material I received in the post was appalling — I have never seen the like of some of the documentation and correspondence I received. There are clearly people whose view of life is very different from mine and that of my party and of most people. It is sad that the negative campaigning in the course of the referendum campaign did nothing to help the cause of Ireland or Europe. I suppose one could argue that that is politics and the people have made their decision. While I respect the decision, claims being bandied about on doorsteps on issues such as tax harmonisation, European super armies, conscription, abortion, euthanasia and prostitution had nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty but stayed in people's minds and were expressed as a fear and anxiety when they went to vote.

People understand the issue of the Commissioner because one either has a Commissioner or one does not have one, even if only for a specific period. The absolute equality which applies in this regard, whether a member state has a population of more than 80 million or fewer than 400,000, did not seem to register with the voter. This issue must be addressed before the end of the year in so far as the Nice treaty requires that the number of Commissioners be reduced below the number of countries unless the Heads of Government unanimously agree to do something else. This will become an issue at some point towards the end of the year. The Taoiseach and the Government will have to reflect on this issue.

It is necessary, in not reflecting on what was wrong in the campaign, to examine the possibility of having a stronger source of independent assessment of the facts. I refer not only to the Lisbon treaty but to all future referendums, whether on children's rights, European treaties or any other matters. A stronger independent assessment is clearly needed. The purpose of the National Forum on Europe, which has been operating for a number of years, is to provide information on pros and cons to the ordinary citizens. While the forum drew in the different pillars and strands to make their case, it does not have the same relationships as political parties. I am not sure what assessment the Government has carried out on the forum or in respect of the Referendum Commission to which eminent legal people and personalities were appointed. The document the commission sent out was readable but some confusion arose about answering questions on a number of occasions.

While all Members of the House are elected under the same conditions — by virtue of votes at the ballot box — there were 160 Deputies on one side of the argument and six on the other. Due to the interpretation of the Supreme Court decision, the national broadcaster felt required to give equal coverage to both sides which meant that if one had a string of Ministers making a case for some element of the "Yes" campaign, coverage was given in equal measure to the other side. That is a factor obviously arising from that Supreme Court decision.

We must move on to what the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs face in the future here. The fact is that this country has rejected the Lisbon treaty and it cannot come into effect on 1 January 2009 being ratified by the 27 countries.

I respect also the right of other countries to do their business in their way the same as they respect ours. One can argue the point that governments elected directly by the people represent the people and that if, from their point of view, in their country they say they will do this by majority vote in the parliament, that is political democracy as well.

See this speech in context