Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

I broadly agree with the Deputy. He is right that Ireland's engagement with, and performance in, the European Union has been based on brain power. I do not mean to sound arrogant when I say that. We have built alliances with key countries on specific issues. We have been involved in all issues and taken a genuine interest in them. We have shared the concerns of other member states when they may not have been our concerns. Dr. Garret FitzGerald put it well in an article about the definition of goodwill in The Irish Times over a fortnight ago. He said that a "No" vote would put at risk 35 years of accumulated goodwill. Ultimately, that accumulation of goodwill and mutual respect should strengthen Ireland's ability to negotiate well and effectively. Ireland has had a strong alliance with France in the area of agriculture for quite a long time. We have had good relationships with various Commissioners, including Commissioners from Germany. Personal friendships and relationships of some quality have been developed over the years between Irish Ministers and Commissioners from other countries in various areas, particularly agriculture.

We had a similar argument about qualified majority voting. It was suggested that the new modality under the Lisbon treaty would be less advantageous to Ireland. That ignored the fact that, under the proposed new system, it would take 55% of member states to approve a proposal. Under the old regime, we constituted 2% of the Union. We were not depending on our size to be of influence when proposals were being considered and changed. We were getting in much earlier to make our views known. Deputy O'Keeffe is right in this respect. While I agree with him that clarification was required, I remind him that clarification was provided by the European Commission and the independent Referendum Commission. We thought we had clarified these matters. As I said in response to questions asked by Deputy Timmins about the referendum, the nature of referendum debates is that a person on one side of the argument speaks for five minutes, saying that something is black, before a person on the other side of the argument speaks for five minutes, saying that the same thing is white. It is difficult for punters — voters — to arbitrate between the two points of view.

See this speech in context