Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

One of the reasons I secured a protocol was to make sure we would not be having an argument about all this.

The point I am making to the Deputy is an important one. Our colleagues in the European Union want Ireland as part of the Union - they want us in and they want us to be part of a consensus. We helped to build the consensus. The Irish people rejected the Lisbon treaty and it is respected - the treaty cannot come into force unless the Irish people vote "Yes". The treaty is not in force today given the stated intention of the Irish people thus far and it will not come into force unless the Irish people vote "Yes". Therefore, the Irish people's view is respected.

The issue for the European Union is that this consensus position has been built up over many years. It is about making the Union more effective and ensuring that the Single Market is more effective, which helps us. We are all entitled, as democrats, to go back to the people on any issue. This is being done on the basis of providing the clarifications and confirmations that they required in respect of the concerns they expressed, as best as could be gauged from a very detailed analysis that was undertaken, and to which all parties here contributed, in an effort to synthesise, crystallise and bring forward a rationale and a comprehensive response in respect of issues about which clarifications were needed. There were certain views and people voted in certain ways because of what they believed. They were informed by people who campaigned and who, in their enthusiasm to have it defeated, over-egged the omelette. If there are people on the "Yes" side who do the same, they do not do a service to the people either.

I am being very clear and fair about it. I am saying that on the balance of convenience, on the balance of advantage and on the intrinsic and objective evidence that is before us, and also given the consensus it represents in Europe, the political significance that has been attached to it and the institutional reforms it will bring, which will bring more speedy decision-making that will be to our benefit in the long term, as has been our experience for the past 35 years, I do not believe a cogent argument can be articulated or presented that suggests it is in our interests as a people - not on the basis of other people's views but in our interests as a people - to vote down this treaty a second time. I honestly do not believe that to be the case. I am convinced of it.

For those who voted "No" in respect of those issues upon which clarification has now been provided - with a legal, full treaty status as is ascribed to other provisions - I hope it will be helpful to them to at least recognise that in coming to this issue again, it will be open for them to change their view, without being dismissive of the view they held before but out of respect for that view. It is out of respect for it that we went to the European Council, with the help of everybody in this House, so we could ensure the people were not under a misapprehension and there was not a misrepresentation of our position at the European Council in respect of those issues.

Those issues include neutrality, to respond to Deputy Finian McGrath, on which the proper legal interpretation of the treaty is outlined quite clearly for us. That position, let it be said, has been consistently respected by successive treaties of the Union, which refer to the specific character of military neutrality of member states. Some member states which in the past were part of that grouping are moving; for example, Finland is evolving its position in this respect, and this is also respected.

It is a question of diversity in Europe being respected. It is a question of where our economic and political interests lie, and where we can best guarantee and secure the future of our children, which is already under severe pressure with the problems we are facing. Do we really want to compound them further? Do we really want to send that message to the investment community across the world which has come here and created jobs, wealth and opportunities and say, "No, we have some reservations about this project and it is something to which we cannot enthusiastically subscribe"? That is the message sent by a "No" vote. It is not a cost free vote or a question of voting "No" and returning to discuss it another time.

These are major politically significant events. Bringing a treaty a second time is out of respect for the decision made before but it is also out of respect for the interests of the country that we put it to the democratic test again. Of course the people are sovereign and they will be sovereign on this issue too. However, we have an obligation to put the treaty again out of respect for our people and the interests we believe are involved.

See this speech in context