John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

The beauty of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is that it can be read as a stand alone document. There has been criticism, perhaps valid, that much of the Lisbon treaty could not be read as a stand alone document. The reason for this is the proposed constitution, much of which could be read as a stand alone document, was thrown out. The Lisbon treaty harked back to previous treaties, which was a difficulty exploited by the opponents of the treaty.

The second reason I put forward in support of this treaty was the democratisation of the European Union. One lesson we could learn is to recognise the need to distil the treaty into several facets and point out that there are three fundamental reasons for supporting this treaty. It proposed giving more rights to national parliaments and the European Parliament, as well as enhancing the rights of European citizens through the citizens' initiative. This was an area in which I worked when I was a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe. I drew up the first draft of the convention and I was delighted to see it as part of the treaty. I also proposed the need for a Europe-wide referendum which was, unfortunately, rejected because many member states wished to decide in their own way. We have a sovereign right to decide on the treaty in our way. Countries such as Germany do not recognise referendums. However, I believe such a proposal could have been negotiated and we could have had a plebiscite, but that is all said in hindsight. Perhaps the option can be revisited because we need to examine ways of engaging with the citizen in future.

The other two reasons I put forward in support of the Lisbon treaty and which my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and I have spoken about at length are the provisions regarding energy security and climate change. It should have been emphasised more that it was this Government which inserted those provisions in the treaty. I am very proud to be part of a Government that recognises the importance of tackling climate change. It was argued by the "No" side that this does not amount to a hill of beans, but it was wrong. I have no doubt that this aim, as put forward in the treaty, would have been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights and that the court would have adopted a maximalist approach in this regard which would have made a fundamental difference. We have lead the way in the European Union in tackling climate change and we are now facing a situation where the provisions will not be realised, which is regrettable.

Energy security and climate change are two issues facing all countries and it is not possible to tackle them in an isolated way. We are on the periphery of Europe and if we think we can go it alone on these issues, then we are sadly mistaken. We need only look at the price of oil at $135 per barrel and at people feeling the effects of this to know it is a major issue. Ironically, it is perhaps the case that this fed into a feeling of dissatisfaction among voters. Perhaps some voters decided in a fit of pique that, given increases in food prices and energy, they would vote "No". This is regrettable because this treaty addressed those issues.

We have rejected the treaty. During the campaign I said — it was not scare-mongering — that there would be extreme difficulties if we voted "No"; as it turns out, that is the case. It was described by the leader of the Labour Party as the biggest crisis that we have faced in half a century, which is saying a good deal. It is a crisis and there is no doubt about it. At the weekend I was in Austria and Germany and the headlines on every newspaper there stated that Ireland had plunged Europe into a crisis. There are people on the "No" side who may not want to know about this but it is the reality with which the Government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach must deal. I have no doubt they will bring all their diplomatic skills to bear on this matter.

We also said in the course of the campaign that if there was a "No" vote, this treaty would be very difficult to renegotiate. It is clear we have been proven correct. The reason I said that was because I was a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe. We came up with the constitution which was rejected by the French and the Dutch. The Lisbon treaty was, in effect, plan B. We said there was no plan B for this treaty over and over again. We need only listen to what the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other party leaders have said in recent days to know that we spoke the plain truth on this matter. How can we renegotiate this treaty? I have heard those on the "No" side suggest the need to do this, that and the other. Do such people think our representatives, who are very skilled negotiators, did not think of these things at the time? Of course they did and they wanted to negotiate to get the best possible deal. The real difficulty is to know how we now go beyond that.

We have heard issues raised about the position of the Commissioner. I vividly recall at the National Forum on Europe the former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, saying that the provisions of the Nice treaty dealing with the position of Commissioners were not good and I agree with him. However, we are now faced with the Nice treaty as the Lisbon treaty is gone. The Nice treaty states that once we reach a total of 27 Commissioners there must be a reduction in the number and I ask people to reflect on this point. The part of the treaty dealing with the arrangements for Commissioners which we negotiated as part of the Lisbon treaty was a vast improvement on the Nice treaty. Unfortunately, that was a message we could not convey. When one goes around the country, as I and others have done, one sees effective posters, the contents of which got into people's heads. Those who were informed that Ireland would lose a Commissioner did not appreciate that we will lose a Commissioner in any case under the Nice treaty.

I have always said, even when I was on the Opposition benches, that one cannot speak of Ireland as being neutral in the traditional sense. When we speak of military neutrality, we should more accurately speak of Ireland as being non-aligned. Ireland is in the same position as those Scandinavian countries which are known as former neutrals. There was never a question of the Lisbon treaty affecting Ireland's non-aligned status in any way. Unanimity is required if that is to change. I suppose there was a failure to communicate those facts. As I went from door to door — I said this to reporters at the time — I was convinced that the people of my constituency would vote in favour of the treaty and that turned out to be the case, but I was not sure about other parts of the country.

I share the concerns of other Deputies about the level of misinformation that was evident throughout the referendum campaign. I do not accuse everyone associated with the "No" campaign of using such tactics. A great degree of misinformation was certainly out there. I received telephone calls and text messages two days before polling to inform me that people were starting to believe a strong rumour that a "Yes" vote would lead to the introduction of water charges and the installation of water meters. Issues like conscription and abortion were also raised.

It has to be recognised that the elephant in the room throughout the referendum campaign was the underlying suggestion that there are too many immigrants in this country, which is something we do not like to talk about in this Chamber. I do not doubt that many people have concerns of that nature. We have to look at that issue, with all other possible reasons people decided to vote "No". I respect those who voted "No" for reasons which were absolutely valid and have to be respected, but I cannot deny that the campaign was marked by a level of misinformation that I have not experienced in the past.

As Deputy Gilmore said, those who campaigned for a "No" vote have to consider how those on the extreme right can be on the same side as those on the extreme left. Mr. Ganley and others have a right wing agenda we do not yet fully understand. I am sure we will get to the bottom of it. People need to examine the objectives of Mr. Ganley, who claims that he is pro-European, which is something about which I have doubts.

There is a need for a period of reflection. We need to analyse what the "No" vote tells us. If there were referendums in other countries, I do not doubt that there would have been some other "No" votes. The people of Europe are telling us they do not trust the direction in which we are heading. The Irish Government and its counterparts in all other member states need to study such matters. The Laeken declaration made it clear that we have to bring Europe closer to the people and the Lisbon treaty would go part of the way towards doing that. We need to determine how we can do better, and if we can do better, it will be in the interests of the people of Ireland and the rest of Europe.

See this speech in context