Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

It is never an affront to the Irish people to solicit their opinion on a constitutional matter. As I have stated on previous occasions, treaty ratification where unanimity is required is implicitly a two-stage process. In the first stage, every member state's opinion is canvassed and nobody has a veto on others deciding what is their position. As provided in the Lisbon treaty when it comes into effect, if there are at most only two or three dissenting countries, the European Council will consider the position, including what can be done to remove obstacles preventing ratification, as it has done on this occasion. This gives the lie to the notion that this is the last ratification that would be submitted to the Irish people.

The original constitutional treaty was successfully negotiated under the 2004 Irish Presidency, which was a source of considerable pride at the time because it was beyond the capacity of Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi. All member governments signed the treaty but France and the Netherlands rejected it in subsequent referendums. Adaptations and curtailments were made and the revised Lisbon treaty which emerged received parliamentary ratification in both countries without subsequent popular protest.

In France's case, President Sarkozy during the course of the May 2007 election which brought him to power won a mandate for parliamentary ratification. However, none of our partners was prepared to go through a second negotiation but in any case what we needed was not a change in the terms of the Lisbon treaty but authoritative clarification to eliminate any excuse for mistrust, misunderstanding or misrepresentation, accepting that some would continue to oppose it regardless.

Representative democracy is just as valid as direct democracy, with which some of our continental partners have had bad experiences, leading to or contributing to forms of dictatorship. Our experience has been good but we must respect the democratic institutions and procedures that exist in other countries and not presume that our way is the only way or the best way for other people.

The voice of the people is not suppressed in other EU countries and is expressed, as it is on most issues in this country, through parliamentary representatives. Every other country has either ratified or has the intention of completing ratification of the Lisbon treaty. The history of the EEC, EC and EU since 1957 has been that no one country - large, medium or small - has had the right to fix its boundary and say thus far shall it go and no further. We are part of a common enterprise that embraces - or soon will embrace - nearly all the nations of Europe, many of which suffered horrible historical experiences over the past 100 years.

It is beyond my comprehension how the President of the Czech Republic, a self-avowed disciple of Mrs. Thatcher, can liken the EU to the former Soviet bloc, which was held down by force, where the Soviet Union suppressed the Prague Spring of 1968 and where border troops of the GDR shot would-be escapees to the West.

It is also beyond my comprehension that there are hard-left organisations and groups in this country, many of which were close enough to Soviet-style socialism until its collapse, and which accused the European Union - the greatest force for peace, prosperity and democracy that the world has ever seen - of imperial or militaristic ambition. The only ambition I see is a desire to reduce and rationalise defence expenditure while giving the EU an effective peacekeeping and, where appropriate, peace enforcement capacity, with military force being only one instrument among many in a tradition of soft diplomacy.

It is too often forgotten by many people that the de Valera legacy is not only one of neutrality in regard to military alliances but one of support for collective security at international level. On UN membership, he said in the Dáil on 25 July 1946:

Therefore our people should realise that when we enter into an organisation of this sort we are committing ourselves to take collective action with other people. The difference between a war such as may arise under the obligations of the charter and other wars is this: that that type of war would be a war of enforcement, enforcement of obligations, and also enforcement of rights. If there is ever to be a rule of law, nations must make up their minds that they will take part in such enforcement.

The EU undertakes at a regional level actions on behalf of and with the sanction of the UN, of which we can partake subject to Oireachtas approval. There is no problem of principle in this regard for any follower of Eamon de Valera. His idea was to bring about a state of affairs in which large as well as small nations would accept the rule of law. This is what happens in the EU and unlike the UN, the EU has no great power directorate where only five countries have power of veto.

When Ireland won its independence after generations of struggle, it was for most people in order that, in the words of Robert Emmet, we should take our place among the nations. There were some advocates on the anti-treaty side of an isolated republic but de Valera was not among them.

We would do well to heed President Sarkozy's advice when he addressed not us but his own people. He stated:

A nation needs to decide which family it belongs to. A nation alone is a nation with no influence. We have to stop deluding ourselves that by burying our heads in the sand we are capable of protecting anything.

If one looks back over Irish history from the Flight of the Earls to the Wild Geese to Young Ireland and the Easter Rising, our patriots were looking for friends, allies and partners in Europe. When Thomas Davis wrote "foreign alliances have ever stood among the pillars of national power...intimacy with the great powers will guarantee us from English influence" he had in mind France and the leading German states. Equally, there are other traditions which value a close relationship between Britain and Ireland. The European Union transcends these differences and makes us partners of both Britain and the continental countries. It makes no sense, from any Nationalist or republican perspective, however, to confine ourselves within what was a claustrophobic relationship between the two islands. The EU freed us from that relationship, both politically and economically.

By common consent, EU membership has played a major role in the transformation of Ireland. That is the case because, unlike Britain and Denmark, we have, since 1973, adopted a positive, committed and enthusiastic attitude to Europe. Our attitude is not that of suspicious, almost xenophobic, British eurosceptics, most of whom hail from the right wing of the Tory Party where Ireland has traditionally had few friends. During a lull in peace negotiations at Chequers in the year 2000 or so, Tony Blair expatiated informally on the unhealthy hold on British public opinion of three newspaper managers, Rupert Murdoch, Lord Rothermere and Conrad Black, who between them had deterred new Labour from holding the promised referendum on the euro.

In the previous referendum on the Lisbon treaty, The Sunday Times, the Irish Daily Mail and some of the British-owned tabloids reflected the prejudices of their owners and campaigned against ratification on the basis that it was not in Ireland's interests. In view of the fact that at that time Irish public opinion was the subject of a massive and well-funded assault by the now nearly defunct Libertas organisation, which had close links to American neoconservatives, the arms industry and right-wing eurosceptics, we should guard against any sort of manipulation on this occasion. We should be clear with regard to one thing, namely, in their eyes the alternative to full EU partnership would be an independent Ireland that is a convenient low-tax haven and wholly in the Anglo-American sphere of interest. These elements view Ireland as a country which had high ambitions, which enjoyed outstanding success but which should now be placed firmly back in its box.

Sinn Féin, which, as with all previous EU treaties, is opposed to the Lisbon treaty while proclaiming that it is pro-European, appears to be inspired by long-outdated conceptions of national sovereignty and also a belief that this is a political opportunity for it to expand its small base in the Republic. This is a mirage which separates it from all the mainstream parties. I wonder about the coherence of that party's approach in the context of its desire to have the single currency extended to the entire island while opposing the Lisbon treaty.

Europe has no desire to impose secular norms on our socio-moral legislation. The principle of subsidiarity applies and how we order legislation affecting the family or life is entirely a choice for us. The inspiration behind the European Union was largely Christian, and, indeed, Catholic. It would, therefore, be a great pity if the EU were to be rejected on foot of a mistaken belief that it is inimical to such values. The EU has been far more socially progressive and favourable towards workers' rights and equality. The same could probably not have been said of Ireland if it had been left to its own devices. The EU's ethos is based on the social market economy and trade unions have a far better chance of exerting influence by working from within rather than by opting out.

Subject to the will of the people, I look forward to Ireland fully rejoining the European mainstream in the aftermath of the referendum on 2 October. I also look forward to picking up the threads of what has been by far our most successful foreign policy initiative since Independence. There is not a single thing to be gained by placing ourselves offside with our friends and partners. A positive vote will assist in putting us back on the road to recovery and will restore our self-confidence and our faith in the European project.

See this speech in context