Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

I, too, am disappointed by the result of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Fine Gael strongly supported a "Yes" vote because it believed it was in the interest of Ireland's citizens and those of the Union. However, 800,000 voted against the treaty and it is important we recognise, by word and deed, that it was defeated. The people voted "No" and their decision must be respected.

I cannot recall the date of the announcement of the referendum. This may seem like a small issue but it is not. I remember the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, going to the Phoenix Park prior to the last general election and I remember his resignation speech. Can anyone tell me when the referendum date was announced officially? That I cannot remember speaks volumes about the campaign. I am not into the blame game but believe there was complacency on the "Yes" side.

I remember Deputy Kenny asking the former Taoiseach in the House to confirm whether 12 June 2008 was to be the date of the referendum. As the former Taoiseach sat down into his seat, he confirmed it. Will the Government state when the official announcement was made to this effect?

George Bernard Shaw once observed that the problem with communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished. That was certainly a problem for the "Yes" side. The National Forum on Europe does a worthwhile job in many respects but, whether it is due to a lack of interest or its actual format, it does not really get its message out to the public. I am a member of the forum. The Referendum Commission came under the spotlight for the first time due to errors in its information. I do not state this with a view to criticising those involved but we must consider such organisations' contributions to informing the public on what Europe is about. There is very little knowledge in circulation.

We should never allow a treaty so linguistically complex to be put to the people again. If any political party produced a general election manifesto similar to the referendum wording, it would be laughed out of existence. Let me quote the part of the referendum text put to the people:

It is proposed to delete the current subsections 9° and 11° (in italics above)

Subsection 9° is re-cast as subsection 15° with the additional reference to the Treaty of Lisbon; Subsection 11° is effectively redundant as the Luxembourg Patents Convention never came into force

I read the treaty but found many parts of it very difficult to digest. This extract is an example.

In recent days Mr. Ulick McAvaddy asked why people would vote for something they did not understand. He implied that someone would not sign a contract for a house unless they understood it. I fundamentally disagree because my experience suggests that over 95% of people do not understand what is in the contract they sign for a house or insurance policy. They rely on expert advice, which they take from their solicitor or legal adviser. I have no doubt the public was as unfamiliar with the detail of previous treaties, including the Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam treaties, as it was with that of the Lisbon treaty, but when it was voting on them they trusted their politicians. At present, they do not. This is certainly food for thought.

I reiterate that I am not into the blame game because what has occurred is a plague on all our houses. A news headline during the referendum campaign stated, "The Taoiseach calls for a Yes Vote". The next headline claimed the former Taoiseach said he won money betting on horses. The current Taoiseach received much publicity after saying to Deputy Kenny during Leaders' Questions that he was neither qualified nor able to deal with the issue. He made a more telling comment thereafter to the effect that he believed the former Taoiseach was giving his evidence at the tribunal in a truthful manner. The Taoiseach talks about loyalty but one must be loyal to the truth. I believe the Taoiseach to be an honourable man and ask him to move away from his denial of the facts.

How can the public act on trust or on the advice of a Government if that Government does not acknowledge that it has stood over lies and misinformation over the past year? Its having done so was a contributory factor, albeit not the main factor, to the public's failure to understand the complexity of the treaty. It simply did not believe what it was being told. In a nutshell, those who sign contracts for houses do not know the content of the contract but rely on expert legal advice. However, in the case of the referendum, the public did not believe the advice of the political establishment. We must address this.

Most of the "No" campaigners are not pro-Europe while many of the "No" voters are. I therefore distinguish between campaigners on the "No" side and those who voted "No". It gives me some consolation when I hear Sinn Féin because, strangely enough, I believe it contributed to the "Yes" vote. This is because many people did not believe it. If everyone had voted "No" who told me he or she was going to do so, the result would have been 20% in favour and 80% against. Many voters changed their minds in the last week. Some of the programmes run by the national broadcaster were very helpful and people gleaned a lot of information from them. When they were told the truth about the content of the treaty, it assisted people in making up their minds.

One constant mantra of Sinn Féin during the referendum campaign was, "Ireland can do better. Let us renegotiate." I do not know if Ireland can do better. The mantra came from a decade of saying "No" in Northern Ireland, during which the Government facilitated it at every hand's turn to the detriment of the SDLP. Saying "No" worked in the past for Sinn Féin but it is very difficult to envisage how doing so will work in the future.

I do not wish to re-run the campaign but have a few points to make, the first of which concerns the constant claim that the voting strength at the Council would be halved if the treaty were accepted. This is not true. I am surprised so many people on the "Yes" side and so many independent commentators let this belief go unchallenged. Many media commentators advocated it as a reason to vote "No". If anyone has the time and wherewithal to go to the press ombudsman on these issues, he or she will certainly have a field-day. In real terms, it can be argued quite legitimately that our voting strength at the Council would double. There are two legs — the population leg, on which the "No" side concentrated, and the member state leg. The latter leg would have resulted in an approximate doubling of our voting strength at the Council. Our voice would therefore have been strengthened at the Council but, regrettably, this message was not circulated due to a lack of knowledge on the part of some "Yes" campaigners and some commentators and also due to some commentators being disingenuous.

Let me hone in on the solidarity clause. Many constituents asked me what obligation there would be on Ireland to assist another member state subjected to a terrorist attack. On this point, most commentators responded that the exact form of the response was not decided but that it would be subject to our own special constitutional arrangements. If we had the equivalent of the former Twin Towers and an aircraft were flying towards them, we could do nothing about it.

We should not have been overly worried about how we were going to assist other countries as we are unable to assist ourselves. Had the Lisbon treaty been ratified and had Ireland signed up to it, we would have been able to call on our neighbours, be it France, Britain, Germany or whoever, to assist us. At present, we are unable to call on anyone. I considered the solidarity clause to be a positive development for Ireland that was depicted in a negative light.

As for some of the other issues, I refer to the constant references to unelected bureaucrats. How can one reconcile the claim about unelected bureaucrats with seeking to have a permanent Commissioner? What is a Commissioner other than an unelected bureaucrat? As for all the claims the "No" camp made about more democracy and the difficulties that Europe was causing, this treaty was going to reconcile and solve many of them. It would have dealt with issues such as the lack of democracy or accountability. As for the loss of the veto in 40, 50, 60 or whatever number of areas, it is important to retain a veto in respect of vital national interests, such as the Common Foreign and Security Policy or taxation. However, how does one reconcile a veto with democracy? It is its antithesis. Ireland must deal with such issues.

I do not believe that 27 countries conspired to bring upon their citizens something that would not assist them. A few other issues were highly important. Issues such as creeping bureaucracy regarding — to frame it in plain terms — the size of tomatoes, the killing of meat or the selling of eggs and of brown bread resonated. While such issues were not articulated by the "No" side, they had an impact on "No" voters. Europe's creeping bureaucracy is a matter that must be addressed and is a reality about which something can be done. People believe their voices are not being heard and this is partly due to the Irish Government. An incident has arisen in County Wicklow regarding the proposed disposal of substances at Kilbride ranges. Politicians have no power because they voted it away from themselves, which is their own problem. Members must ascertain how to make people accountable and give power back to politicians. Deputy Burton mentioned foreign workers.

See this speech in context