Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

Obviously, I do not agree with the analysis of the Deputy in many respects, regardless of the specific report which I have not seen and on which I cannot comment. A more benign interpretation of the situation might be to say that unless we have a socially inclusive Europe, the relevance of Europe to ordinary citizens is not as obvious as it is to those who see the benefits of the economic and social construct of the European Union at present. I would be very surprised if the report were to be, given the Deputy's interpretation, but I have not seen it and am not in a position to comment on it with any degree of accuracy.

However, that would be my understanding of the point that people are trying to make. Europe must be meaningful for everybody and this must be on the basis of the social market economy which we are trying to develop. The integration of the European Union and its economy has brought us very many benefits. It has enabled us to earn a standard of living for our people far in excess of anything we might have hoped for if we had been dealing simply with a free trade area or an area that did not have common rules or was not so protective of the integrity of the Single Market that enables smaller countries, or smaller economic actors, among the big developed economies. We have been able to compete on the basis of a rules-based system that is at the centre of what the European Union has been about, namely, consolidarity and developing the Union and the nation states within it to the greatest extent possible on the basis of common policies. That would be my analysis of the situation, rather than the Deputy's. We must agree to disagree on that.

The other 26 member states asked us to deal with the concerns we have identified in respect of our rejection of the Lisbon treaty. An all-party sub-committee met and was very ably chaired and attended by Members of the House. The House did itself a great favour with the quality of the work that was done and the report that emerged. I commend everybody who was part of that process which enhanced the parliamentary process in Ireland. The majority of that committee came to the analysis, backed by empirical survey evidence, that the Irish remain very pro-European in sentiment and are supportive of the Union but obviously have concerns they want addressed. On the basis of very broad consultative process, listening to the varying views of people and various sides of the argument, the all-party sub-committee helpfully came forward with a very coherent analysis of the areas we must address to try to assuage people's concerns.

At the Council meeting in December we saw a lot of goodwill and solidarity towards Ireland and acceptance and respect for the fact that we have had these concerns. Our partners wish to help us address them adequately so that our people can look to this issue again. The contention that the rejection of the treaty means that the people are opposed to the European Union or opposed in principle to the integration of the European economy does not hold water when one analyses the sentiments people expressed. We must address certain questions and reassure people on certain issues. One of the great problems is that exaggerated arguments are made to the contrary in respect of issues that are not in the treaty at all. That does not contribute to an informed democratic debate. There have been many instances of this.

A far more moderate and accurate assessment of the situation is that, out of respect for the vote of the people, we seek to address the issues identified as those which have caused most concern and on which people need reassurance. In respect of the guarantees we received, it has been made clear by our colleagues that they do not wish to reopen the re-ratification of the treaty in their own national parliaments or in their own countries. However, they are prepared to give legal effect to those issues for which we sought legal guarantees in respect of subsequent accession treaties that would be ratified, and to incorporate them in that way. That is a mutually satisfactory conclusion at which to arrive given the necessity for us to try to address the issues involved and at the same time to respect the decision of others to ratify the treaty under their own constitutional arrangements.

See this speech in context