Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

I strongly supported the treaty and with my colleagues in the Labour Party, I stand over every statement we made about it. I believed there were substantial benefits for Ireland, and for Labour's vision of a social Europe, to be had from a "Yes" vote. We placed particular emphasis on the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European treaties and if I might make one comment about the conduct of the campaign, it is a regret that perhaps similar emphasis was not placed on the Charter of Fundamental Rights by others who were campaigning on the "Yes" side. I was concerned too that a "No" vote would send our country into a period of added uncertainty at a time when, economically, we have enough uncertainty to contend with.

It must be said, however, that it was not an easy treaty to communicate. It was not based on one particular big idea, but rather contained a series of reforms intended to make the European Union more effective and democratic. The absence of a unified theme that could be related to the everyday lives of our people meant that from day one we were explaining, and in politics when one is explaining one is losing.

It must be admitted that the result last week also reflects an erosion of confidence in politics. The people did not accept the advice of the main political parties. That erosion of confidence which is not unrelated to a decade of revelations at tribunals, must be of real concern. As political leaders, we must acknowledge that and seek a way forward. We must also learn the lessons from the campaign and the manner in which it was conducted, and the Labour Party will accept its share of responsibility in that regard.

As a result of the vote last week, Ireland is facing its biggest diplomatic challenge since the Second World War. Fifty years of foreign policy centred on the objective of putting Ireland at the heart of Europe, and the many patent accomplishments won on the back of that policy, are now at stake. How we respond and the leadership we offer will determine, perhaps for a generation, what it means to be Irish in Europe, and how the Union deals with the democratic verdict of the Irish people will speak volumes about the value placed on democracy and the status of smaller member states in a community of nations dedicated to peace and democracy.

The process of closer co-operation on vital global issues, which Lisbon was intended to advance, will not succeed unless the Irish vote is fully respected. Nor can Europe prosper unless it is fully committed to the principle of equality among member states. That is why there can be no question of going back to the people for a simple re-run of the Lisbon treaty. We must, instead, listen to the concerns of the Irish people and understand them.

While there were many domestic factors that became significant in the campaign, it must also be accepted that there are other member states which would have difficulty in securing endorsement for the Lisbon treaty at a referendum. The Irish vote, therefore, must be seen as reflective, not just of an Irish problem but of a broader failure of the European Union to win the hearts, as well as the minds, of the people of Europe. The irony of course is that the Lisbon treaty was intended to address that same democratic deficit, but it must be treated with the utmost seriousness now.

For that reason, Ireland must be given an opportunity to reflect on the outcome of the referendum. We in Ireland must ultimately drive forward the process of finding a solution, but this is not just an Irish problem. It is a European problem, and will require a European solution.

At home, it is the task of political leaders to listen to the Irish people, and also to lead. I do not believe the Irish are the ungrateful children of the European project. We are an outward-looking progressive people who want to be at the heart of the European Union. Neither do I believe our relationship with Europe was based solely on the continuation of a flow of European funds into Ireland. That is not who we are and it is not what we aspire to be.

Much that we have achieved economically and socially over the past 35 years has been predicated on the underlying assumption that we seek to be full members and full participants in the European project dedicated to peace and prosperity in Europe. Membership of the European Union was fundamental to the economic renaissance of Ireland in the past two decades. Membership of the Union was also central to the important advances in social legislation and we must not lose sight of those advances.

Indeed, I say this to those on the left in Ireland, and to those who say they are on the left and who ask why the Labour Party is so firm in its support for Europe. Where did Irish women get the right to equal pay for equal work, from where did most of our recent employment legislation come and from where did we get most of our environmental protection legislation? Those measures came through the European process, largely because of gains made by the left, by the social democratic movement in Europe, from which we ultimately benefited. Europe enabled post-colonial Ireland to come out from under the shadow of Britain and to assert its independence as an equal and respected state in Europe.

Look, too, at who cheered most loudly last Friday. Across Europe, the people who rejoiced at the Irish result were the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party, the UK Independence Party, the right-wing Freedom Party in Austria, the National Front in France, and the Civic Democratic Party in the Czech Republic — a party so Thatcherite that they regard Margaret Thatcher herself as doctrinally unsound. If the extreme right in Europe is cheering so loudly, one must ask was urging people to vote "No" really such a left-wing stance. We all have concerns about the direction the European project might take but that is precisely why we supported its democratisation and the insertion of vital social clauses, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in the Lisbon treaty.

The Labour Party is disappointed with last Thursday's result but we can look anybody in the eye today and tell them that we told them the truth about the Lisbon treaty, that we gave our honest opinion on its merits and that we did so in the best interests of Ireland and of the Irish people who we represent. We fully respect the right of citizens to make up their own minds and to decide on the treaty. That, after all, is what a referendum is about. That is why we have referenda, namely, so that citizens can exercise their sovereignty.

We are now in uncertain times and it is difficult to draw an accurate road map at this stage. There are, however, a number of essentials which need to be settled. First, that the Irish decision stands and must be respected. Second, that we must avoid a two-speed Europe where we are left behind.

The extent to which that will be a problem will depend on how many other states ratify the treaty. They are entitled to decide for themselves on the basis of their own democratic procedures just as we were entitled to decide in our own manner. Considerable work will be needed at political and diplomatic level to ensure that the Irish decision is understood and respected and that Ireland remains engaged in Europe. This will require enormous political and diplomatic skill.

We also need a process by which the decision last Thursday and the reasons behind it can be fully analysed and understood. This goes beyond the arguments advanced by the "No" side. I do not believe the result last Thursday was simply a reflection back to us of the arguments advanced by the "No" side, particularly since some of those were directly contradictory. There were other concerns, some of them domestic, which influenced the way people voted and there were uncertainties and concerns about the future which I believe underlay the decision made last Thursday.

There are three issues in particular at which we can begin to look. The first of these is neutrality where, despite the arguments advanced about what is actually in the Lisbon treaty, some lingering doubts remained about what might happen at some stage in the future. We need to address these concerns, including by emphasising that the whole motivation behind the establishment of the European Union was to maintain peace in Europe by deepening the commonalities of interest among the people's of Europe. Second, the issue of the loss of a Commissioner seemed to evoke a strong feeling that we risked weakening our hand. Again, I know all the arguments about why that is not so, particularly given that the future size of the Commission was agreed in the Nice treaty, but it still an issue that may have to be revisited.

Third, there is the issue of taxation. In the current economic climate, with deep unease about the future, this was a serious point of concern. Again, there was nothing in the treaty that affected our right to set our own tax rates. However, noises coming from some countries about the combined common corporate tax base were distinctly unhelpful.

It will take time to understand what the real concerns were and how they can be addressed. I do not pretend we have all the answers today. We need a period of reflection on the outcome. I welcome the support offered to Ireland at the meeting of Foreign Ministers on Monday and, in particular, the comments made by the British Foreign Secretary over the weekend. I look forward to the Taoiseach's report to the Dáil on his return from Brussels after which we can continue the work of finding a way forward.

See this speech in context