Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I respect the decision of the Irish people as Deputies are the guardians of the Constitution and must respect the principles of democracy. Notwithstanding this, a real challenge has been posed to those who are elected to represent the Irish people. These challenges existed before this vote and the Lisbon treaty sought to resolve them. I refer to matters such as energy security, environmental considerations, the challenges posed to our economic future with particular reference to the emergence of the economies of China and India, international trade and immigration and migration. We also must deal with potential conflict zones around the world and how they may affect the safety of our future, as well as with international crime.

While it had been hoped these issues would be addressed by the passage of the treaty, that has not happened and the challenges remain. Members were elected to deal with these complex matters and, as I predicted, those who campaigned for a "No" vote have disappeared like summer swallows. They have departed to leave the rest of us deal with such issues. As an elected parliamentarian, I take on this challenge with a degree of vigour and excitement because it drives all Members on behalf of those who they represent.

This matter requires a period of reflection, analysis and dialogue with the people. Fundamental to this debate will be a discussion about the evolution of the European project. Clearly, some who campaigned for a "No" vote have a particular view on Europe. It is a view that seems to be echoed by people such as Jean-Marie Le Pen and others for whom I do not believe any Member would have a great regard. Those of us who campaigned for a "Yes" vote also have views on Europe.

However, a public debate on the EU project is needed and a question as to what is the European project is fundamental in this regard. I canvassed extensively, as I am sure did other Members, and found a great lack of knowledge, interest and care on what is the European project. Unfortunately, it has been characterised to an extent as an ATM machine. For many years, the citizens of Ireland have seen Europe as nothing more than the provision of cash to build our economy and infrastructure and to support various initiatives. This lack of knowledge certainly played a considerable part because the "Yes" side was left trying to convince people of the necessity to reform something about which many of them lacked clear knowledge in the first place.

This debate also must involve a question on Europe's direction and what are our views and expectations as a people in this regard. It will be difficult but not impossible to disentangle the views as expressed in the referendum and that is the target Members must set for themselves. The campaign was set against a backdrop of changed and straitened economic circumstances. Our economic circumstances are part of a global phenomenon that is working its way through at present. Those difficult circumstances provided fertile soil in which to sow the seeds of doubt, which the "No" campaign certainly did.

Having canvassed, I have a fair idea of the reasons people voted "No", although they came from different backgrounds and disparate groups and made the decision for many different reasons. First, the treaty sought to carry out administrative changes that did not seem to provide obvious tangible benefits as did many treaties in the past. I refer to matters such as the expansion of the free trade area, the single currency or, in respect of the Nice treaty, allowing other people to enjoy the same benefits as had previously been enjoyed by people in western Europe. All previous treaties contained a hook to encourage people to vote positively. On this occasion, people failed to discern the benefits associated with reforming something about which they lacked a clear picture in the first place.

It certainly allowed the "No" side to play on the fears of those who were going through difficulties regarding the economy and who were concerned about their mortgages, jobs and the welfare of their children. The "No" campaign was highly disingenuous. I believe they clearly told lies. I do not know whether it is appropriate to use that word in the Chamber, but I consider them to have told lies. I saw documentation and literature proposing that abortion, the death penalty, conscription, child tagging and tax matters all were issues. While they had been dealt with, unfortunately we were unable to convince the people of the lack of merit in that debate.

See this speech in context