Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

Regarding the questions raised, this is an exercise in democracy. Concerns were raised by our people about the Lisbon treaty, which meant the treaty was rejected last May in a referendum. The Government undertook a process, as did the Oireachtas, to see in what way we could first of all identify the main concerns. As the Deputy knows, different points of view were expressed on different issues by people who voted on any particular side, not all of them mutually supportive or mutually coherent.

We sought to identify those issues and a very structured process was undertaken, both in terms of a modern means of assessing public opinion and also, of course, ensuring the Oireachtas was fully involved in bringing forward a number of groups and discussing the matter publicly in our committee system in a transparent and open manner. Having done that, the Oireachtas sub-committee came forward with, while not a unanimous report, what was very much the view of the vast majority of those who sat on the committee, namely, that the concerns that influenced people to vote in any particular way could be identified. Those are reflected in the main in the conclusions suggested.

The Oireachtas sub-committee has other recommendations in respect of national procedures and national issues that could be dealt with at country level and that do not require the agreement or consent of our member state colleagues. These relate to how we deal with European legislation, scrutinise it and provide a further reassurance to people that, not only has the appraisal undertaken been rigorous on the part of governments or the Commission in terms of initiating legislation and the subsequent work at Council of Ministers level, but that the issue of subsidiarity should be given expression in this House to a greater degree than has been the case before. This point is well taken.

I have always believed that, as a proponent of European issues, we should contextualise many of the issues that we discuss here to a far greater extent, whether they are economic, social or cultural, in the context of the European Union itself. There is an interdependence and interlinking, not just in terms of financial resources in many respects, because we are moving on from that phase of membership, but also in terms of policy formulation and where competence lies in these areas, where there is a very strong European influence.

We need to articulate that to a far greater extent in our national debate on a whole range of questions in order for people to see the relevance and importance of European Union affairs in the daily lives of our own people. It is not simply a constitutional matter. While European issues have been dominated by an effort to accommodate enlargement and to define structures and systems within the European Union and its institutions to make it responsive to the wider needs of the new united Europe in the post-communist era in which we live, the constitutionalisation questions have, perhaps, dominated to an extent that has bemused many. We wish to move on from that.

The Lisbon treaty, perhaps, provides us with the best way of doing it. It represents the seven-eight year compromise that was reached after much deliberation. It is specific in terms of protecting member states' interests and accommodating their concerns, perhaps by its complexity of structure, but this is an inevitable outcome of the accommodating and inclusive nature of the Union itself in reaching agreement on matters of importance to member states in a coherent fashion.

For that reason, it is important that we seek to address the concerns of the Irish people. It is totally open to them to come back to any issue at any time where our national interests are at stake. I strongly believe that our national interests are at stake. Deputy Ó Caoláin may disagree, which is his entitlement, but I strongly believe it. From the position I hold, I am all the more convinced of it as every week and month passes.

Be that as it may and to answer the specific questions raised, I am glad to note from Deputy Ó Caoláin's remarks that, if it were to occur that we would be able to obtain legal guarantees of protocol status, it would give him the reassurance that he requires in these matters, since he seems to be emphasising the importance of legal effect of the concerns raised being provided. I do not wish to move beyond the conclusions as they are currently stated at the December Council meeting or to anticipate the outcome of further discussions that must take place, but I have a clear political understanding that the legal effect that we will require can and will be forthcoming subject to a satisfactory conclusion of the work that is yet to be done.

This is an indication of the willingness of colleague member states to seek to accommodate the concerns that we have democratically assessed in this Parliament and that we are now communicating to colleagues in the European Union. If it is the case that this is ultimately what is to emerge, I would be delighted if it were an influential part of Deputy Ó Caoláin's thinking on this issue for the future. I would welcome that.

The Deputy asked a question about ratification of the treaty. We are involved in a discussion with 26 member states. It has been portrayed by some who oppose the treaty that our work on this matter began two or three weeks ago. One would be quite naive to suggest that the objective results achieved at the Council meeting last week could have been achieved on the basis of two or three weeks work. In the aftermath of the rejection of the Lisbon treaty, I went to a European Council meeting where I informed the Council of the rejection of the treaty and the need for that rejection to be respected. In other words, if they were ever to return to this matter, they would need to try to address the concerns which caused the people to reject the treaty. It was made clear to me that a re-ratification of the treaty was not an option the other 26 member states wished to consider. We can take one of two approaches from that. We could decide there is no more we can do or we can decide to work in solidarity with those member states to try to resolve the problems that were specific to Ireland's rejection of the treaty. I took the second approach because that is in the interests of the country and that we have an obligation to do that.

The response that is emerging from member states indicates a respect for the concerns to which I refer and a preparedness to give legal effect in the future for those concerns and to deal with the fundamental question relating to the representativeness of the Commission — that is, one Commissioner per member state — at all times. That is an advance on both the Lisbon and Nice treaties. Had I done nothing, we would have lost our Commissioner on the basis of the Nice arrangements. By engaging and negotiating with member states and asking them to respect the issues raised by the Irish people, we have come with a conclusion that is specific in respect of the institutions. This has not happened previously in respect of other countries that found themselves in a position similar to that of Ireland. Other member states are prepared to make this institutional change and to commit to it now in an effort to convey to the Irish people their willingness to address that important matter so people can reconsider the treaty. Had I taken the approach suggested by some, what we have achieved might not have been possible.

I understand the Deputy's party, in the context of the criticism it has offered, has set down a range of issues in respect of which changes should be made. The problem is that the other 26 member states are not minded to do so. We must, therefore, make a decision: should we address and try to deal adequately with the main concerns identified Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union or should we continue to set the bar so high, as the Deputy's party has done, to ensure that matters will never be renegotiated?

See this speech in context