Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

I thank all Members who contributed to this debate. I will emphasise one reality immediately. The outcome of the referendum was clear and must be respected. Clearly, the people were not persuaded of the necessity of the treaty or of the benefits to Ireland and Europe which it contained. A limited few at home and abroad have suggested the vote represents a questioning of our relationship with the European Union. This is not my view. I am absolutely convinced the people remain strong supporters of Europe and the European Union and of our place at the heart of it. It was a notable feature of the campaign that in the main even those opposed to the treaty professed their commitment to the European Union.

In their reaction to the referendum result, our European partners have once again demonstrated the solidarity and understanding which have been the watchwords of the development of the Union. At the same time, our European Union partners have made it clear they do not want to halt their own processes. They wish to continue to ratify in line with the undertakings they have previously given. On that matter, we exercised our sovereign decision as a country and we cannot deny others the right to do the same in accordance with their constitutional provisions and procedures. That is fundamental and we must respect it.

The key elements in our national reflection on the outcome of the referendum must be not just to find out what were the reasons for the "No" vote but also to examine underlying attitudes to the European Union, to Ireland's role in the future of the Union and how we see that in years to come. We must use that survey, research and analysis as a platform to inform the future and to map out how we intend to take this issue forward. How can we insure that Ireland's essential interests are protected in the coming period? These questions will occupy the Government in the months ahead as we seek to chart the best way forward.

Our people are instinctively European in outlook. Our history inclines us to see the rest of Europe in a supportive light. We travel regularly to other European countries and build a rich vein of personal and professional ties there. Our young people study in each other's universities under the excellent ERASMUS programme and in the many research options of the Marie Curie programme. We have many links in different codes of sport. In trade we export over 60% of goods and services made by Irish-owned companies to European markets.

The Union has shown solidarity with Ireland and continues to do so. To give one example only, France has been Ireland's strongest supporter in terms of the Common Agricultural Policy. Such alliances are repeated across all policy areas. It is important also to point out that the European Commission, in which so many Irish people serve with distinction, has always been a friend of Ireland and the other smaller member states.

A frustrating element of the debate was the sense that Ireland would have to rely on vetoes or qualified majority voting modalities to survive in Europe or to gain recognition in terms of negotiations and so on. The reality has been the opposite. On the issue of qualified majority voting, QMV, for instance, the "No" side argued the new system weakened our position whereas it actually strengthened it. They concentrated on the 65% of population factor in QMV, ignoring the 55% of member states element whereby 15 member states would be required for a proposal to be passed.

In any event, in the old regime we had about 2% of the votes. Did they honestly think we depended on those votes to gain progress in negotiations? We did not. Brain power, the capacity to generate alliances, the 35 years of accumulated goodwill that Dr. Garret FitzGerald wrote about recently — it is all of that which enables Ireland to prosper and progress, to get its voice heard and to shape and influence policy. We have rarely attempted, indeed did so only once, to shape policy on the utilisation of a veto. We have always welcomed the utilisation of qualified majority voting because it meant things could happen in Europe. The single internal market which has been such a catalyst for Irish economic development happened because of the QVM system. If it had not been in place this development would not have happened. In many ways, therefore, the debate became too negatively and narrowly focused and did not really reflect the reality of the daily dynamic that is the European Union with regard to policy development and formulation.

Equally, I regretted somewhat the character of the debate on security, militarisation and so forth. Some of the "No" side were misleading to some degree about the Union's activities in security and defence. The word "militarisation" was bandied about and suggestions were made that conscription would result from a "Yes" vote. Again, that allegation was without foundation but it gained a certain currency. What I really regret in that respect is that the other dimension of the international and external role of the European Union was hardly profiled or acknowledged. Europe is the single largest donor in the world to development aid, something we in Ireland hold very dear in our foreign policy and in our international role. Europe and member states allocate up to €50 billion to 150 of the poorest countries. The humanitarian interventions that the Union has sponsored, all of which were mandated by the United Nations, including the rule of law missions in areas of conflict and the EUFOR mission in Chad, are all illustrative of a Union that, far from wanting to declare war or be confrontational, wants to be a force for peace, good, reconciliation and the eradication of poverty. This was rarely acknowledged on the "No" side. One heard that the Union was just a military project or conspiracy. This was wrong, disingenuous and not balanced in terms of the overall debate.

Many have argued that our involvement in the European Union represents a loss of national sovereignty. I take a different view and believe that, by joining with others, we share our values and actually strengthen our hand and promote our interests. In practical terms, our profile, voice and sovereignty have been strengthened dramatically since 1973. I would not be naïve enough to suggest every aspect of the Union is perfect, nor would I argue that membership has always been plain sailing, but I contend that the overall Irish experience has been very positive.

I strongly endorse the Taoiseach's comments that this debate should be part of the national discussion we must now undertake. This debate is also about being honest with ourselves in the light of the decision we have taken. It is about reflecting not only on the events of last week but also on what they might mean for the nation in the years and decades to come.

We can certainly learn lessons from the debate that took place. There is clearly a need for the European Union to reconnect with its citizens. This came across in the General Affairs Council debate on Monday. Many Ministers referred to the need for the Union to concentrate on policy and substance as opposed to institutions and structures all the time. There is a need to better focus the message on the laws and treaties of the Union and concentrate on the facts and reality.

Above all, there is a need to generate renewed excitement and enthusiasm for the European Union project. Some of results of the Eurobarometer survey of young people's attitudes to the Union raise issues of concern. Have younger generations become altogether distant from the Union? The generation which joined in 1973 and, to a certain extent, subsequent generations regard membership of the Union as a given and a no-brainer. Clearly, the youngest generation does not share this attitude. There is a need to re-engage with people on what the Union is about and how powerful a force it can be for good.

Last Thursday's vote was not a rejection of the European Union. My view remains that Ireland's future is bound inextricably with that of the Union. We face uncertainty and a great challenge and it is incumbent on us to respond carefully and with the interests of Ireland at heart. We will be able to rely on the support and goodwill of our EU partners, as was clear at the meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs in Luxembourg. There was a strong sense that we must work together to find a way forward. There was certainly anxiety and concern but no impatience. There was a willingness to afford the Irish the time and space needed to reflect on what had happened. There was awareness that the problem created by the referendum was a European one, not just an Irish one. There was an acceptance that the issues underlying the vote of the people arose throughout the Union and that our concerns and preoccupations were shared widely.

Several of my colleagues noted the troubling failure of the European Union to sustain, at times, the trust and affection of all its people, which its achievements and founding principles have developed. The Union faced many challenges in the past and managed to overcome all of them by adhering to its core values of solidarity and consensus. Regardless of the precise details of the treaties, it is this European spirit that has sustained and developed the Union. Ireland, as with every other member state, has benefited from the Union and I know we can rely on it in the future.

I implore interested parties to consider the options calmly. We have discussed them frankly and openly as two partners should and will seek collectively to agree a solution to the current problem. This will not be easy or straightforward. As the Taoiseach stated, we are in uncharted waters, but even if those waters are choppy, we will be able to steer eventually to a safe harbour. This will be in the interest of the people of the European Union, including the Irish.

See this speech in context