Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

With regard to the question about the non-ratification of the treaty, the European treaties will be then based on the Treaty of Nice and previous treaties. It is an important issue for the Union because the Commission must be appointed. The tenure of the Commission expires in November and the basis on which it is to be appointed is a fundamental issue. Is it to be appointed under the Treaty of Nice provisions or under the Treaty of Lisbon provisions? That certainty must be brought to bear and, for that reason, Ireland intends holding a second referendum to facilitate how that is to proceed.

The next question raised by the Deputy relates to a "No" vote to the treaty having no effect. It has no effect on our continuing membership of the Union, as things stand, but to suggest there would be no practical political effects flies in the face not only of what one can reasonably contemplate or foresee in the future, but of what has been the experience in recent times. If Ireland wants to convey the point, as it can and should do, that it wants to be at the heart of the Union and to shape the events that will shape us, that we will work with others on how climate change and energy security are to be handled and how we will ensure that we are at the end of a pipeline and have energy security, that we will have common policies on agriculture, that we will have access to the Single Market and that we will be seen to be fully committed, energetic and enthusiastic participants in a Union that has brought undoubted benefits to this country, please be assured that the best way in which we can convince our partners that is the case is by voting "Yes" to the treaty to which we have all signed up.

If it is being suggested that one should vote "No" to remain at the heart of the Union and that by voting "No" we will maintain a position, goodwill will flow to Ireland and, in some way, Ireland will have been very helpful, despite the fact that our interests, objectively and empirically, favour continuing with the project on the basis of a consensus that has been achieved over many years of negotiation in which Ireland has been centrally involved and 90% of the treaty's provisions are based on a draft constitutional treaty that was negotiated during our Presidency in which all of our issues were protected, I am afraid that flies in the face of political logic.

The idea is suggested that after years of negotiation, Ireland is in the very same position while the will of the governments of the other 26 member states is expressed in the context of proceeding with a Union that reforms itself for the purpose of more effective decision making, of better Single Market provision and of protecting the rules that enable small states to compete on the same basis as large states in what is one of the most lucrative and important export markets in the world while we depend for our livelihoods on exporting 95% of what we create and produce and getting a price for it, thereby earning wages and creating jobs and investment as a result. Is it being seriously suggested that we can have all the benefits of membership while flying in the face of a consensus that has been painstakingly built up and constructed over many years? I do not believe that unless one is subject to a serious degree of political naivety, one can hold a position that suggests that our position is unchanged.

I agree that in legal terms the Treaty of Nice continues to ensure there is a European construct that will continue. However, the idea that Ireland is in the same position politically as a result of concerns which were expressed being taken on board by our colleagues in an effort to ensure the people's choice is respected is wrong. If the people vote "No" a second time to the Lisbon treaty, there will not be a treaty of Lisbon, with all the political consequences, whatever they are, that flow from that. None of those consequences would be positive for this country. How could they be positive for us? I do not believe they could or that a sound argument could be made in that respect.

However, it is not on that basis that those of us who support the European Union propose the people vote "Yes". It is because we believe it is intrinsically in our national interest so to do. All of the empirical evidence - economic, social, material etc. - of what has brought progress to this country has fundamentally been about the integration of the Irish economy into the European and wider global economy. That is the means by which Ireland has produced what it has produced in recent times.

Of course, there are aspects of the Union that are problematic and of course there are issues. No one could suggest that every aspect of its operation suits everybody. That is what compromise is about. On the national question, Deputy Ó Caoláin's own party has brought that insight to bear. Compromise is necessary for progress. Not all of one's objectives can be achieved, but the means by which they can be achieved can be retained in the context of building a consensus. The dynamic within the European Union is such that the objectives we seek from membership are not only possible, but in many respects are already available to us.

This country has benefited from experiencing the availability of the realisation of those objectives, not least the fact that we have moved away from an utter dependence on our nearest neighbour in economic and political terms to a wider vista of opportunity that has brought jobs and dealt with the historic problem of underemployment and under-investment in our country. Now, in the face of the major, unprecedented, economic and fiscal crisis that faces the world, Ireland, by being a member of a common currency, has available to it a zone of stability - a means by which we can survive this crisis and come out the far side with not only our freedom intact, but with the ability to manage our own affairs intact because we are part of this wider construct. Those are the realities of 21st century Ireland. Those are the realities we must contend and live with and through which we must survive.

It is time we had a debate about the sort of Ireland we want in Europe, not the sort of Europe we feel best suits Ireland. It is being part of a larger entity that gives us the prospects of success, not standing alone on the outside, half in and half out, wondering on the top of a legal pin whether it is this way or that way. The great benefit of what was achieved last week is that it puts to bed, for any reasonable or rational discussion, the non-arguments that have dominated the European debate in this country, for example the idea there would be conscription. I hear the Deputy say these are arguments with which he was never associated. That may be true for him. I do not doubt it if that is what he says. However, the "No" campaign in its various manifestations did not dissociate itself from those arguments. Its tactic was to pick and choose a bit here, a bit there and a bit everywhere else.

That is the truth and that is how the coalition of "No" was assembled, not on the basis of any internal coherence to respective positions. Some claimed Europe was not integrated enough, others claimed it was not sufficiently non-federalist, others suggested it undermined our basic rights, freedoms and constitutional protections and others said it imposed military conscription on our people. I know of canvassers from the Deputy's party who said that at doors in my constituency. I know them and know it was said. This did not come off the top of their heads. People work to direction. I know that happened because I spoke to the constituents who told me it happened, who had no reason to tell me otherwise.

I will not decide that is the litmus test of the debate, but it happened. While the Deputy quite rightly dissociated himself from that, because it had no basis in fact, there were others who did not and who used it, and suggested we might be part of a European army. That came from those who claimed to be part of a different army some other time. Let us get real here. What we want to be real about is that these protections provide us with the means to get on with the argument about which Lemass, Cosgrave and Corish spoke. Even at a time when they had differences, they spoke about the issues. They spoke about their ideology and what they thought was in the best interest of the people on the basis of agreeing, at least, what was in front of them. They did not engage themselves in the politics of confusion and obfuscation or in the politics of fear. That democratic debate was a healthy debate.

See this speech in context