Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

I dtosach, is mian liom a rá, go bhfuil an-áthas ormsa go bhfuil an díospóireacht seo ag tarlu. Níl aon amhras faoi, ach go raibh ard-chaighdeán ann agus go pearsanta, chabraigh sé liomsa a thuiscint cad díreach a bhí i gceist i mbunreacht na hEorpa. Ní hamháin an rud a bhí scríofa ann ach an cúlra a bhaineann leis agus na féidearthachtaí atá taobh istigh den mhíniú sin freisin. Ghabhaim buíochas le feisirí na hEorpa a tháinig isteach chugainn anseo agus a dtuairimí a nochtadh duinn. Tá sé sin thar a bheith tábhachtach.

I am almost overawed by the passion and virtual unanimity that exists in the House on this subject. In the years since I first entered the Seanad, the diversity of opinions which are expressed here has greatly appealed to me. The Leader referred to this aspect to some extent when she spoke of having tolerance for another opinion and indeed not only having tolerance for it, but also endeavouring through debate to harmonise different views. The debate which will take place in this House will differ from the debate which will take place outside. Much will depend on the manner in which the media act, whereas a certain discipline and order exists in the House, in terms of both time and presentation.

I can empathise with Senator Brendan Ryan in his reminiscences about 1972, because to an extent, I found myself in the same position. I shared a platform with Matt Merrigan, a very highly respected trade unionist and a local socialist in Cashel named Packie Lahey, neither of whom are with us any longer. Undoubtedly, they are listening with great interest to the debate. However, I am not as apologetic for my role in the 1970s as Senator Ryan may have been. Admittedly, he may not be apologetic because he usually stands by his opinions very strongly. The reason I am not apologetic is because I did not see my position as being in opposition to our entry into Europe, but in the context of generating a discussion.

This is also vital in this case. How do we transmit the passion and unanimity expressed by Members outside of the House? Even if a "Yes" vote is secured, there will be some negativity if we do not succeed in ensuring that the people feel ownership of what is happening. The key issue is not the actual vote or the acceptance of the constitution of Europe. Rather it is that in the future, when we encounter challenges, we must be able to tell people that they understood fully what they entered into. This struck home to me today when Senator Kitt raised the issue of turf cutting. While it might be regarded as a mundane issue in the middle of a highfalutin philosophical discussion, those Members with access to or interaction with the west and other parts of the country, including my own, knew the importance of the issue. Therefore, while it is important to have an overview and an ideological approach, we must also look at other issues.

I probably take a different standpoint from most other speakers in that I compliment Sinn Féin, not for what it states, but for providing a focus for the debate. It took some courage for Ms McDonald, MEP, to express her views in this House in a climate of virtual unanimity. While we will be obliged to get behind the rhetoric and weigh each point of view when the time comes, if people do not provide a focus for debate, even if it is the opposite to what we believe, from where will the passion come to bring people out to vote?

Unless I am mistaken, a by-election was held in Dublin which attracted a turnout of less than 30%. This is worrying and I have examined British statistics regarding voting patterns which demonstrate how, over the years, fewer and fewer people appear to be turning out to vote. The only way to ensure there will be a big turnout in the vote is by ensuring that a fully-fledged debate takes place now.

Was Europe good for Ireland? Of course it was. Ireland was also good for Europe. Ireland is an old European nation. We were European before the European Union existed. Interaction from this country took place under many headings. I am not just speaking of missionary activity but also about people who helped to develop legislatures, who interacted on education and so on. All the members are aware of this. We are the old Europeans.

In a way, this raises a point made, I believe, by Senator Brendan Ryan. I can still remember the debate over Iraq when Europe was being chastened because it was "old Europe". I was totally opposed to the war in Iraq. I stated as much in this House and the reason I did so was that I believed it to be illegal. I also believed it was immoral and unjust. I am particularly worried about some of the developments, in a military sense, currently emanating from America. We need to have a situation in Europe whereby we can stand up for ourselves when the time comes and not be lectured about democracy, rights and providing back-up support. We should not be rushed into situations.

One thing to have emerged from the debate on the major issues today is how well-represented we are in Europe by our Members. It came across in this House more strongly than it has ever done in the European Parliament. One of the reasons for that is because it is so far removed from us. I hope that in whatever work or reform is carried out on the Seanad we will continue as before because we have proved that we can match any nation in Europe through the calibre of our representatives. Economically, we are the envy of Europe. I hope that in the context of defending our sovereignty and particularly our cultural identity, as years go by we will be able to say that as well.