Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

We are faced with two questions, why "No" and how "Yes"? I am speaking in my capacity as a Labour Party Member and as chairperson of the Alliance for Europe, a civil society representing all "Yes" parties, business groups, trade unions, farmers' representatives and other activist groups. The alliance had the help of prominent personalities from all sides of the political divide such as Pat Cox, Garret FitzGerald, Brigid Laffan, Blair Horan and Brendan Butler. It was an active campaigning organisation and will publish a report on this shortly. For ease of reference, the alliance put up the yellow posters across the country.

There are many reasons people voted "No" in the referendum. The problem, as Deputy Brian Hayes stated, is that there is no coherent argument or reason to link them into a positive or constructive position. This is the dilemma we face. The first Nice referendum had a less than 37% turnout and there was a misconception as to what was contained in the safeguards regarding neutrality — Members will remember the "No Conscription" posters. After its rejection, we were able to deal with that because the second Nice referendum was an intelligible and comprehensive response. It allowed us to discount the perennial anti-European voters. We were able to fix the Nice treaty with the help of our European partners. A higher turnout in the second referendum also helped as complacency was manifest on the "Yes" side during the first referendum.

Last Thursday, there was no complacency, particularly with the 53% turnout. There was raw anger over many issues which I do not have the time to analyse — that is for another day. I want to concentrate on what will happen next.

The European Union has been examining its own institutional reform for the past seven years. I do not detect any appetite to stop this train to begin the process again. I agree with Deputies Collins and Brian Hayes that the remaining eight member states will proceed with ratifying the treaty. As we speak, the UK parliament is in the process of doing so.

In several months, 26 member states will have said "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty while Ireland has said "No". Where does that leave Ireland? What would Ireland do if it was part of the 26 while, say, Malta or Luxembourg had said "No" to the treaty? What would be the response from the House? Whatever politeness our European partners show us, the train of European institutional reform is far too important to be derailed by a vote that we cannot even explain.

I hope the Taoiseach will derive some comfort from the contributions on this side of the House when he meets Heads of Government tomorrow at the European Council meeting. I hope his departmental staff will equip him with the necessary array of quotes from across the spectrum of the House. I entreat the Ministers present that this request be conveyed because the Taoiseach will need all the help he can get.

There will be another time and place to examine what went wrong with the referendum and engage, if one wants, in the blame game. It would be a pointless exercise but it might massage people's consciences. Should we have a new referendum or a new relationship with the 26 member states? A new vote on the same issue, it seems more likely, would be a non-runner. The other 26 member states would not wait too long for that either.

We must live with the consequences of our negative vote. As my party's leader, Deputy Gilmore, stated, Ireland is now facing its biggest diplomatic challenge since the end of the Second World War. Both sides must recognise the extent and the scale of that challenge. We must find ways of working together. The alternative is that Ireland will become a semi-detached member of the European Union and I believe that even the most ardent "No" campaigners did not want such an outcome.

See this speech in context