Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputy Dooley for agreeing to share time on this debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to a debate on the Lisbon treaty referendum result last week. Like the majority of my Oireachtas colleagues, I am acutely disappointed by the result of the referendum last week. However, the people have spoken in a democratic fashion and, as the Taoiseach noted, one must accept and respect that decision. It is important to point out that people voted "No" for a disparate set of reasons in this referendum. The issues have been well-debated and well-rehearsed and include the issue of corporation tax, which was dealt with comprehensively by both the Taoiseach and the Referendum Commission. As for the issue of neutrality, despite Ireland's constitutional prohibition from participating in a common defence, the "No" side continued to trot out the line that in some way, we would be compelled to participate in common defence, even though the country's position in this regard has long been clear. The issue of abortion, which was drawn into the debate, was completely irrelevant. When the "No" side continued to put forward arguments that clearly were disingenuous, when they misled people on issues of fact, when they put forward notions and sowed the seeds of doubt in many people's minds on sensitive issues, they did the Irish people some disservice. This will become clear over time. They often spoke during the debate about unelected and unaccountable people, but the vast majority of the proponents on the "No" side were themselves unelected and unaccountable. It was open and free to them to put up whatever they wished on posters and polls and nobody could ever hold them accountable for what they were saying. The majority of them never campaigned or fought for Ireland in any sense of the word. The research by the European Commission following the vote highlights some of the points that I am making. Some 70% of the "No" voters thought a second treaty could be renegotiated easily. The majority of people who did not understand the treaty voted against it. There is a lesson for us to learn in any future votes that we hold in this country.

There were two subtle undercurrents in the campaign and it would be remiss of us not to mention them. The first is the issue of immigration, which was lurking in the background and which influenced voters who have a negative perspective on the impact of immigration in Ireland. We would be unwise to ignore that. It is an issue that must be addressed apart from this referendum. The second undercurrent was the emergence of voting trends along class lines, probably for the first time. We must recognise that there is a suspicion among some working class communities of Europe and the impact it is having on their lives. That is something which we must ensure is fed into our domestic policies. These two issues are intertwined.

The requirement for equal coverage in the broadcast media is a crude instrument and it contributed to widespread confusion about the treaty among many people. Many news clips featured comments from the "Yes" side or the Referendum Commission which were completely contradicted, falsely in most cases, by the "No" side. This left the electorate utterly confused, which appears to have been the legacy of that particular provision.

The way forward today is unclear, but over time a consensus will emerge. During the period of reflection, we must consider where we want to take Europe and Ireland's role within Europe. If the remaining 26 countries proceed to complete the ratification process and if they want to move ahead with the reform of the Union, Ireland will indeed be in a very difficult predicament and will face a fundamental political choice. In that scenario, it will be our right, based on the democratic vote last week, to be the sole country on the lower tier of Europe. The question facing our people at that stage may well be whether we are on board the train that is leaving the station.

See this speech in context