Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

The language used by the institutions of the European Union is not understood by the general populace or politicians. A practical example of this would be to ask any Member what the co-decision procedure means. I am sure the majority would find it difficult to explain. If one cannot explain the co-decision procedure, how can one explain what the Lisbon treaty means for enhancing the powers of the European Parliament? How can one explain that the treaty would give more powers to the Houses of the Oireachtas? If that language deficit exists, it is difficult for the general populace to latch on to an idea of what the treaty means.

I supported the treaty because it aims to enhance the powers of the European Parliament, make the European Council more transparent in its dealings and give, by extension, more powers to the people. It would address the issues that turf cutters, fishermen, farmers and others have because the European Parliament, and by extension the people, would have extended powers. However, we voted "No" to that. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves how we should start to educate ourselves as to how the European Union works and what is the inter-relationship between the Council of Ministers, the European Commission and the European Parliament and how this inter-relationship and pooling of sovereignty affects us as citizens of the European Union.

The argument of sovereignty was used against the treaty. When we joined in 1973, we did so on the basis not that we were giving up our sovereignty but that we were pooling our sovereignty and becoming part of a decision-making process of which we were also members and stakeholders. This treaty was going to enhance that very provision but, as other speakers have said, we found ourselves on the back foot, rebutting arguments that were spurious in the main. I respect people's decision to vote "No". I have to respect that decision because if there is a fundamental lack of understanding as to how the institutions work, how can a person buy into and believe in the process? The question is how we are going to address this attitude and make people believe in the process. Will there now be a complete recasting of our relationship with the European Union? Do we now proceed backwards into a process of intergovernmentalism or do we enhance and deepen the process by means of inter-institutionalism? This is the question that needs to be asked.

I found it difficult to explain that very relationship to people on the doorsteps. We must wait for the time when the people of Ireland understand the positive aspects of that relationship and we begin to use a language that does not regard Brussels as some foreign entity but merely as a city in which decisions are taken by us as equal partners to a decision-making process that is the European Union. Until we begin to decipher the language and change the language we use and make it more amenable and understandable to people, we will continue to have this deficit.

See this speech in context