Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I am very pleased by the tone taken by Deputies Billy Timmins and Joe Costello. It is of critical importance to the nation that we operate as a united force on this. There is no doubt that this is an issue of such national importance that the political differences which may sometimes separate us in the House should not separate us on this. We must have a united effort and a single focus because the well-being of the nation is in the balance.

I agree with both Deputies that this is a critical moment. It will not just determine our relationship with Europe and its relationship with us, but will have a determining effect on the way Europe develops in the next five or ten years. We have reached a crossroads. We must make the right decisions and put those divisions that sometimes exist in this House behind us.

It is often interesting and instructive on occasions such as this to consider how we got to where we are now and how this situation arose. When one thinks about it, the vote of the people in the referendum on 12 June last year sent shock waves across Europe. I recall receiving telephone calls on that day and the next from counterparts who were stunned. They simply could not believe what had happened. The points they made were very interesting. They never pointed the finger at Ireland but asked how it was that a people that is such a part of Europe, so respected in Europe, whose destiny is so tied up in Europe and that is so positive about Europe could have made the decision that was made. That was also a question we asked ourselves. Almost a decade's work at the Convention on the Future of Europe on the constitutional treaty and subsequently on the Lisbon treaty looked as if it could be lost. That would have been a catastrophic loss to Europe and to each of its almost 500 million citizens.

Without the relatively modest institutional changes provided in the Lisbon treaty, Europe would be a less democratic place than it could be if the treaty was not to apply. Europe would undoubtedly be less efficient and less effective if the treaty was not implemented. The changes being introduced in the treaty would allow Europe deal more effectively with the energy challenge, challenges of climate change and the emerging economic challenge. Those changes, if not implemented, would be lost opportunities to deal with those issues. This was a bigger issue than any one of us, and a much bigger issue than any domestic political politics that would divide us here. It was an issue that was going to affect the lives, the well-being and livelihood of hundreds of millions of fellow Europeans. It is important, therefore, that we consider deeply what it was that brought about the decision on 12 June 2008.

When the Taoiseach went to the European Council in June 2008, just a week after the Irish vote, he made a number of points clear. The first was a point on which every Member of this House would agree, namely, that the Irish people had spoken and their decision would determine the Government's response because we, the Members elected to this House, have but one master in this matter, which is the people of Ireland. Second, he made the point that before any way forward could be charted, he, the Irish Government and the Members of this House would have to study very closely the messages that had been sent by the Irish people and study what prompted the people, who were and still are so immensely positive about Europe and who see huge advantage to being at the heart of Europe, to vote as they did.

The Taoiseach made it clear to the other Heads of State and Government at the European Council that reaching a policy decision on the way forward would take time and could not be rushed and that the decision of the people would require very detailed analysis, which would also take time. Between June and December 2008, in the period between two European Councils, a substantial amount of time and effort was invested in analysing the concerns and the issues that informed the decisions which were made by individual voters on 12 June 2008. The response to the "No" vote was prepared methodically. In the history of this nation, few if any public policies in my experience were constructed so painstakingly. I would go further and say, having lectured as I did for many years on public policy, that I cannot think of an occasion when more detailed and thoughtful preparation went into the evolution of a public policy. One of the great things about that preparation was that it was not just confined to the Administration or the Government in that Members of this House played a very real role, which again augurs well for the future.

First, the people were consulted in a major opinion poll survey. When the votes were counted and the results announced on 13 June 2008, we knew what way the people had voted but we did not know why they had voted that way. The first challenge before putting together any response was to try to get inside the minds of the people who cast their vote on 12 June. There was inevitably a significant amount of comment in the media, some informed and some not so well informed, and political analysis as to why the vote had gone as it did. None of this analysis was, however, scientifically based and not all of it was objective. There was a good deal of finger-pointing, which was and is particularly unhelpful.

The first of a number of steps aimed at establishing as objective as possible an analysis of the reasons that people voted "No" or "Yes", and why some abstained from voting, was to study those factors scientifically in an opinion poll conducted by Millward Brown-IMS. The opinions highlighted in that survey were then subject to further testing and analysis in a series of focus group studies, which we are absorbing in terms of how this process was operated. All of the data produced from this research was further analysed by a team from University College Dublin's Geary Institute. The analysis did not stop there. In addition to the results of the research and analysis, the Government in formulating its response to the 12 June decision of the people had available to it the truly superb work of the all-party Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. It is often said that Members of this House do not engage themselves very productively but if there was ever a case where that was untrue, it is in the work of this sub-committee, which did the nation some significant service.

That report recommended that voters' key concerns should be addressed and that public understanding of the European Union must be improved, including through the Oireachtas playing an active role in EU affairs. It recognised that the people wanted to stay fully committed to and involved in Europe and not be removed to the sidelines and isolation. Deputy Costello picked up on this very point in his contribution. There is a real role for this Parliament to play. There is a functional, absorbing, interesting and intriguing role that will win respect for us and will make absolutely certain that the rules that come down through our involvement in Europe are much more focused and more in tune with the wishes of the Irish people. The Lisbon treaty opens an exciting prospect for national parliaments to operate horizontally across the whole of the Union and vertically within the administrations. It provides a challenge, which, if we rise to it, will win respect from the people.

When the Taoiseach went to the December 2008 European Council, he carried with him a policy which was undoubtedly one of the most meticulously prepared in the history of the State, and rightly so, because we faced an important crossroads point. At the European Council in December 2008, the Taoiseach made it clear that the concerns of the Irish people would have to be met in a way which was robust and capable of withstanding any legal challenge. If a commitment to another referendum could be entered into, it could only be entered into in those circumstances. The people are our masters in this and responding to their concerns must be any Irish Government's priority - this would be true irrespective of the parties in an Irish Government.

Specifically, he argued that the Irish people's concerns regarding the rotation of Commission membership would need to be addressed. It will be recalled that in the Convention on the Future of Europe, we, a small country, and some of the other small countries cautioned that this was an area where the siren call of efficiency should perhaps not be heeded against the reality of the democracy that people feel comes out of the Commission. He also made it clear that the arrangements would have to be legally binding guarantees on those articles in the Irish Constitution which deal with the right to life, family and education, which would have to be respected. Specifically, he said the concerns of the Irish people regarding taxation would have to be addressed in a way that was legally robust. This was not just the view of the leader of the Executive or Cabinet; it was, he was able to point out, also the view of the Members of this Parliament. Concerns which had arisen during the course of the referendum campaign on security and defence would also have to be addressed, again, in a legally binding way. Finally, the Taoiseach picked up the matter just addressed by Deputy Costello, namely, that the concerns about workers' rights that had arisen during the course of the referendum campaign and that had been measured in the post-referendum surveys would have to be addressed.

The response from the European Council in December 2008 to the Irish concerns and proposals was a remarkable example of the solidarity which Europe has shown in times of crisis and of the willingness of our European partners to address constructively and thoroughly the concerns of the Irish people. The abusive poster which was designed first by the extreme right wing in Austria, showing three monkeys delivering a message, was referred to in an earlier contribution. If there was ever an example of action by a European leadership which belied the cynicism of that message, it was to be found in the December conclusions and subsequent conclusions of the European Council. The member states did listen, they did engage, they did absorb the message and they did show a willingness to put out their hand to assist us, and to respect us as a nation and our decisions.

The conclusions of the December 2008 European Council included a commitment to the retention of a Commissioner per member state in the event of the Lisbon treaty being ratified. It agreed that legally binding guarantees and assurances in areas of common concern to the Irish voters would be given. I wish to note how significant this decision on the Commission was. Over the preceding period, there had been a substantial debate in Europe on the Commission, the Commissioner's role and the number of Commissioners. At one time, there had been suggestions that a Commission of perhaps nine members was the optimum. There was then an argument that we needed to make sure there was equality within the Commission, and this argument was won.

The overwhelming argument, however, was for a smaller Commission. It was a measure of the degree of respect the European Union and member states hold for the Irish people and their decision that in spite of all the debate and the concerns raised by individual member states about the size of an overly large Commission they decided to reverse the original proposal. They did so because they respected, listened to and absorbed the message of the Irish people. They were generous also in their anxiety to support the Irish people.

At the European Council of 18 to 19 June it was confirmed that when the treaty of Lisbon enters into force a decision will be taken to provide for the Commission to continue to include one national Commissioner per member state. In my view that is an extraordinarily generous act by the other member states. More important, it was an extraordinary victory by the Irish people.

The decision made by the Heads of State at the Council contains the most specific guarantees addressing the concerns of the Irish people. On the issues of the right to life, education, and the family the decision is clear beyond debate and nothing in the treaty of Lisbon, the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the provisions of the treaty in the areas of freedom, security or justice affect in any way the scope of applicability or the protection of the right to life as set out in Article 40 of the Constitution. I was personally affronted by some of the arguments made on this issue last year because I pride myself as someone who strongly supports the right to life and I make no apology for that. Sometimes it is regarded as a conservative viewpoint but it is my viewpoint and it was also the viewpoint of the majority of the people. The changes to the Constitution under Article 40 were put in place by the will of the people and this has been put beyond debate or doubt regarding this sensitive matter. That is a wonderful achievement because it shows that Europe respects our view although many member states differ with us on these issues. Whatever decision is made in this area will be made by the Irish people alone.

I hold the same view regarding the protection of the family, dealt with in Article 41 of the Constitution and the protection of rights in respect of education in Articles 42 and 44. Our achievement and the guarantees given put beyond any doubt or honest debate these issues; they are for the people alone to decide.

The guarantees could not be put in clearer terms. The European Union is frequently, often justifiably, criticised for the complexity of its language. However, when trying to draw up agreements between 27 different countries with different legal systems and very different histories, frequently the documents produced are, of necessity, complex. The idea that somehow they could be otherwise is a delusion. However, when addressing the issue of taxation and the concerns expressed by the people in June 2008 on taxation the language could not be simpler. The treaty has nothing to do with this area. One sentence emerges and puts the issue beyond doubt and honest debate and the language is crystal clear. The Council decision states, "Nothing in the treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any member state, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation". Let us hope that puts the canard about taxation to rest once and for all. The guarantee provides that none of the fears or concerns expressed last year to the effect that the treaty of Lisbon could open a Pandora's box on taxation could ever materialise. We can only welcome this clarity but we should not consider such clarity in a political way as a triumph for us. It is a triumph for common sense and a response by the European Union to the people. If credit is due, it is due to the people who voted on 12 June 2008.

In every referendum held here, the issue of Ireland's traditional military neutrality has been a hot topic for debate and it mystifies me that this continues to be the case. I agree with John Hume's view that Europe is about peace, not war and about progress not militarisation. The European Union has been a remarkable example of how nations once locked in war then embraced peace. The decision of the June Council on the area of security and defence should put to rest once and for all any reasonable concerns in this area. The opening paragraph of the decision makes clear that the Union's actions on the international scene are guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity and respect for the principles of the United Nations charter and international law. I perceive no threat in this. The paragraph continues in reference to the other areas and the guarantee makes clear that the Lisbon treaty would not prejudice in any way our traditions nor is it anything we should fear.

With the indulgence of the House I refer to some other issues and concerns. We should ask ourselves why we should encourage the people to vote "Yes". We should do so because if we vote "Yes" Europe would be come a more democratic place, we would retain a permanent Commissioner, the people would have put the issue of taxation sovereignty beyond doubt, we would give Europe a clear voice on the international stage and we would give legal effect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I agree with Deputy Costello that it is one of the most uplifting documents ever produced by Europe and provides a very real set of rights for trade unions throughout Europe. A "Yes" vote would put in place the reforms which would help to make Europe more efficient and more capable of dealing with the challenges that lie ahead, it would empower the Union to tackle the major challenges that none of the individual member states could solve on their own and it would create specific legal guarantees which deal with all the concerns of the people.

I refer to how we should conduct the referendum. I agree with the previous speakers in this regard and it is imperative that the campaign in the weeks ahead should be fact based. A referendum commission will be put in place and will be well funded to establish the facts. I am very pleased several civic groups have been formed. However, a special responsibility lies on the Members of the Oireachtas and political parties. Above all it is imperative that those who believe a "Yes" vote is best for Ireland and its future should put any differences to one side and focus on a common message. Last year's campaign was not our best hour. Squabbling deflected from the message supported by more than 95% of the Members of the Oireachtas and that must not be allowed to happen again. There is a collective responsibility to deal honestly and objectively with the issues arising. We must listen with respect to those who take a different view from that which we espouse. We should also be fearless in putting forward the facts. I believe passionately in Europe and that our future lies there, as do 95% of the men and women in the Houses and we should be proud to make those points in a respectful way. There is no room for complacency and what is needed is a united effort to achieve the common purpose of keeping Ireland at the heart of Europe and I am heartened from what I have heard.

See this speech in context