Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I am glad to hear that and to hear that some traditions and conventions are respected here. On that issue, I made the comment to colleagues in answer to a question on the first day of the campaign that I had not read the treaty from cover to cover. The point I was making was that I did not need to read it from cover to cover because I had negotiated 95% of it as Minister for Foreign Affairs during our Presidency of the EU and had seen more drafts of it than, perhaps, some of the people asking about it. Of course, that was used as part of the honest campaign we had to contend with on the other side. That said, I do not regard my comment as a determining factor.

The issue of concern is the question of the position in other states. The treaty has been passed in 19 parliaments and others are proceeding with ratification. There is an issue with regard to the Czech Republic, where the matter has been referred to the constitutional court, which is not expected to hand down its decision until October. The Czech Prime Minister set out that position at the meeting and it was accommodated in the printed conclusions which the Deputy will have seen.

On the question of what happens if 26 states ratify the treaty, the concerns being raised relate to the current position under the Nice provisions, where there is a commitment to proceed with a new Commission, which would have fewer than 27 Commissioners. That commitment requires unanimity. There is also an issue with regard to the Lisbon treaty and the question of the Parliament and the numbers to be elected to it and the division of seats under the Lisbon arrangement as against the current situation under the Nice arrangement. That is a cause of concern for member states.

On the question of a Commissioner, there is no formal proposal in play. What was agreed in Nice was misrepresented by the "No" campaign. Apart from conscription and everything else, we had to contend with the idea that if people voted "No" to Lisbon they would be sure to keep their Commissioner. There was no legal basis for that. If one voted for Lisbon, the current arrangement would have stood until 2014, with the possibility of maintaining that arrangement, subject to unanimous decision, thereafter or one would apply the principle of equal rotation, which would be as good as any member state could negotiate, namely, equality with everyone else. This was portrayed in a certain way also, to suit the "No" argument. There is no formal proposal other than what we know the two positions to be.

During the course of the Lisbon negotiations, we and other member states sought to maintain the position of one Commissioner per member state implicit there, which would have retrieved the situation to a pre-Nice treaty provision. Others regard the question of the size of the Commission and its efficacy and everyone having a substantial role to play being determined by the need to reduce the number while at the same time having a compromise agreement to the principle of equal rotation thereafter so that the question of equality of treatment and respect for all states, regardless of size, is maintained in that compromise. As we know, this was also misrepresented during the course of the referendum campaign. That is the current position and there is no proposal on the table for amendment.

See this speech in context