Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

No one in this House would envy the position the Taoiseach found himself in last week at his first European Council meeting in Brussels. The result of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty presents enormous difficulties for the Government and for the country.

As I have said consistently since the first results of the referendum became known, the people have spoken, and the result of the referendum must be fully respected. At the same time, as a result of that vote Ireland is confronted by our greatest diplomatic challenge since the Second World War. Since that time, Ireland has faced challenges on the international stage but none which had the potential to so profoundly affect our vital national interests. The gains of 50 years of patient diplomacy, which has sought to put Ireland at the heart of the European project, are now at stake.

It was as far back as 1958 that Ireland began to base its economic policy on free trade with our European partners and it was in 1961 that our first application for membership of the European Community was made. That policy is now in question. How we now resolve the problems thrown up by the result of the referendum will determine what it means to be Irish in Europe, perhaps for a generation.

Let us be clear, however, about one thing. This is not just an Irish problem. It is also a European problem. Ireland is the only country to hold a popular vote on the Lisbon treaty. The people have spoken and their voice must be respected. It would be entirely wrong, inappropriate and counterproductive for the European Union to proceed on the basis of any settlement that does not fully respect the voice of the Irish people.

The European Union is, after all, a community of member states founded on the principles of democracy, and it would cause itself untold damage if it were to attempt in some way to sidestep the verdict of the Irish people. That is particularly true since Ireland is one of the smaller member states of the Union. Again, the institutional settlement reached in Lisbon would be deeply undermined if the wishes of a small member state were not to be treated in the same way as those of a large member state.

Solidarity is, of course, a two-way street. There is also an onus on us to find a way forward. The European Union has important work to do. The issues addressed in the Lisbon treaty, such as dealing with climate change, are pressing. There is an urgent need for the Union to end years of institutional navel-gazing and get on with delivery.

I believe the heads of State understand that this is not just an Irish problem. At our meeting in advance of the summit I pointed out to my colleagues in the party of European Socialists that while Ireland is the only country to have a vote on Lisbon, there are many other member states where the majority in parliament for ratification would not be reflected in a popular vote. The irony is that the Lisbon treaty contains significant steps forward in addressing this democratic deficit.

In this context, the Taoiseach was correct in his statement to the Council meeting last week to emphasise the importance of respecting the outcome of the referendum and to look for time to assess the result and its implications. This matter will not be resolved by any rush to judgment and the imposition of arbitrary deadlines is certainly not helpful at this stage. We need to establish a process whereby we can begin to find a way forward, both to strengthen our negotiating position and to limit the damage to Irish diplomacy in other areas. For as long as we are saying to our colleagues in Europe that we do not know and we do not know when we will know, we are not strengthening our position. It is time to shake off the shellshock and get back into the game. We do not need all the answers now, but we need an open and transparent process for finding them.

I emphasise again that this is not just an Irish problem. The work must progress at home and abroad. We must seek to ascertain fully why it was that the Irish people rejected the treaty and we must also engage with our European partners on what options are available. There seems to be an assumption that has grown that Ireland will automatically move to a second referendum. I have made no such assumption. The people have spoken and there can be no question of putting the same package in front of them as before, with a request that they might think better of it a second time. That simply will not fly, nor should it.

We must assess where we are at. As the Taoiseach said earlier, the Lisbon treaty cannot now be ratified. Its ratification cannot be completed and it cannot come into effect as a result of the decision in the Irish referendum. That is a fact. We clearly do not want a situation where a two-speed Europe develops. That is clearly not in our national interest. At the same time, it is pretty clear from the summit meeting which the Taoiseach attended — this view was reflected in the meeting I attended — that there is no mood for a renegotiation of the Lisbon treaty. Indeed, even if there were to be a renegotiation, what would be renegotiated?

I listened to Deputy Creighton and the point she made about, for example, concerns regarding the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I heard such concerns being reflected in some of the commentary made after the Lisbon agreement. I assure the House that if there were to be a renegotiation of the treaty and a watering down of the charter, there would be a problem with us. We believe in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and also believe it is an enormous loss to people in this country that the charter will not now be enshrined in the European treaties and given protection in European law. If people have it in their minds that there will be a renegotiation or a request for opt outs, I assure them that if anybody tries to opt out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, they will be dealing with us. There were provisions in the charter which were good for workers and citizens that will not now be enshrined in the European treaties. If anybody tries to wriggle away from them, as a convenient means of arriving at a second referendum, my party will resist that tooth and nail.

The reality which we must face up to is that the governance of the European Union for the foreseeable future will not be based on the Lisbon treaty but on the Nice treaty. We must address the issue of how that will be squared with the immediate requirements that are coming down the track. Some of the more immediate issues are, for example, the European Parliament elections next year and how they will be conducted and the composition of the European Commission. The Lisbon treaty would have deferred a decision on the latter until 2014 but ironically, the retention of the Nice treaty brings that date forward to 2009. There is a requirement under the Nice treaty that the Commission be reduced and we must determine how that is to be squared. No matter which way one looks at this — even those who are hoping for a renegotiation must admit — continuing on the basis of Nice is inevitable. We are talking about renegotiating not with one entity but with 26 other member states, which will take time, even if it were to happen. Therefore, in the short term, we must constructively address the issue of how the European Union continues on the basis of the Nice arrangements. Otherwise, we are de facto accepting either that there will be a two-speed Europe or another referendum and frankly, if we did have a second referendum, I do not believe the outcome would be any different. In that context, I share Deputy Creighton's view as to where we might end up in terms of overall vote.

I understand the Taoiseach intends to report back to the summit in October. I hope that in the meantime Irish diplomacy will be reaching out on a bilateral basis to our partners across the community to explore options and look for possible solutions. Apart from anything else, the prospect of non-ratification by one or two other countries has to be factored in. I do not say that in the hope that with a single bound, Ireland might be free. The underlying requirements that gave rise to the treaty would not disappear but the political and diplomatic scenario would certainly change.

As well as engaging with our partners, there must be an engagement with the Irish people. In his speech to the Council, the Taoiseach outlined a number of issues that arose during the campaign and which may have influenced people to vote "No". As he pointed out, some of these were contradictory and many were not borne out by the content of the treaty. However, it is a mistake to equate what may or may not have been in the minds of voters with the arguments that were advanced by the "No" campaign. I do not accept the "No" vote was simply a reflection back of the arguments advanced by the "No" campaign.

A number of opinion polls have been taken which will merit careful scrutiny over the coming weeks and there is a requirement for further analysis of public attitudes. There are a number of points that can be made now. The treaty itself was not easy to communicate. It was not based on a single big idea but on a series of reforms. In that context, it certainly was not helpful that senior politicians claimed not to have read the treaty and that some were dismissive of the notion that they might do so.

One of the reasons being advanced for the "No" vote was that many people did not understand the treaty. That was not the biggest problem. The biggest problem was that many of those arguing for a "Yes" vote did not understand the treaty and it showed. This was further confirmed by those who said they had not read it.

The polls point out that the vast majority of Irish people, whether they voted "Yes" or "No", are supportive of the European Union and Ireland's ongoing membership of it. That is heartening and reflective of a deep-rooted sentiment among the Irish people. Respecting the outcome of the referendum means we in this House must listen to the people but we must also offer leadership. We cannot afford to — and must not — accept the facile interpretation offered by some, including some in the international media, that the Irish are the spoiled children of Europe; that having gained so much from EU membership, we took fright and ran when the European gravy train ran dry. I do not accept that interpretation. I firmly believe the Irish people see themselves as pro-European and that they want Ireland to be at the centre of the European project, shaping Europe's future. Irish people are willing participants in a European Union that is founded on democracy, equality and solidarity among nations and that has a strong social and environmental, as well as economic dimension.

The challenge for us as political leaders is to give a voice to that ambition at home and abroad. It is to articulate for our European partners that there are genuinely-held concerns about some aspects of the European project and that those concerns are not the exclusive preserve of the Irish but are widely shared in other member states. The EU needs to address those concerns, not just to solve the immediate crisis, but in the longer-terms interests of its legitimacy among the peoples of Europe

This problem goes well beyond what one or other campaigner has said about the treaty. This problem arises because a proud and confident people, who are committed to being full participants in the European Union, judged it right to reject the Treaty of Lisbon. That is not an Irish problem, it is a European problem, but it falls to the Irish to lead the way in resolving it.

The referendum was two weeks ago. It is over and we have a decision. It is time to stop re-running the argument. Let us stop talking about the "Yes" side and the "No" side. There can now be only one side and that is Ireland's side. In that context, it is not sufficient for anybody to simply say this is a problem for the Government. Everybody, especially those who argued for the "No" vote, has a responsibility to find a solution, not just in terms of setting down demands but also of delivering support for whatever the perceived solution is and support for that which is beyond these shores. All of us through our respective linkages with other parties and our political groupings in Europe have a responsibility to help resolve this difficulty. Certainly, the Labour Party will play its part in doing that.

I listened to what the Taoiseach had to say during Question Time about the disconnect between the European institutions and the people. This is the chickens coming home to roost because if one looks back over the period of time during which we have been a member of the EU, one can see that the way in which Government has engaged with the EU and has then communicated the result of that engagement to the public has been very possessory. There has not been a great deal of access for the wider public or body politic to Europe. It has always been mediated. The Government negotiates with Europe, delivers a deal and then claims the credit for it. One sees this in all the key negotiations — agriculture, fisheries and trade. We negotiate with Europe and the Government delivers the bacon.

I recall that the systems that were put in place here for the monitoring and management of the delivery of Structural Funds were all centred around central Government and were all based on the premise that the announcements would be made by Ministers and that it would be centralised. There was no sense out there that this was assistance coming from the EU. It was always presented as a great achievement by the Government and Ministers.

See this speech in context