Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I listened with care to the point that was made by Senator O'Toole. Senator Quinn made the same point at this afternoon's meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. The last thing I want is to be involved in any controversy regarding the establishment of this sub-committee. Senator O'Toole is quite right — if the Houses were operating ultra vires their own rules, it would be a serious reflection on the House. I understand the approach being adopted in this motion was discussed with the House. The information available to me suggests that the secretariat that was examining this proposition regarded both approaches as equally valid. I refer to the approach advocated by Senator O'Toole, which is that the committee would have to take it upon itself to establish a sub-committee and members of the committee would then be assigned to it, and the approach which is being adopted. That is my advice. I have asked staff to check that again. It is the advice as I stand before Senators.

This approach is being taken for a reason. The Minister, Deputy Martin, wanted to have a debate in the House. He also wanted as many people as possible from all sides of the debate to enjoy membership of the committee. If one examines the current composition of the relevant committee, it is clear that those who have concerns about certain issues and negative feelings about the Lisbon treaty are not represented on it. We decided to do business in this manner for positive rather than for negative reasons. I assume Senator O'Toole, whose mind I can practically read, will respond by saying that if one is operating in a manner that is ultra vires, it does not matter whether one has the best intentions. I accept that it does not mean one is operating in a manner that is intra vires. I ask the Senator to accept my bona fides in this regard. I have been advised that this is an equally valid way of doing business.

I wish to respond to a couple of comments. I agree with Senator Alex White that Europe is so important to the people of this State that the bona fides of everybody who campaigned on the "Yes" and "No" sides are under scrutiny. Nobody on either side of the campaign said that Ireland should leave the EU. All involved said they supported Europe. If they were speaking truthfully, we all have an equal responsibility to work through this. The last thing I want, or anybody in this House wants, is for Ireland to be isolated within Europe. As I have said on numerous occasions, only to be accused of scaremongering, my biggest fear is that at the end of this year, this treaty will be ratified by all other member states. If they believe it is the best deal for their citizens, for their nations and for Europe as a whole, their right to want to move forward is equal to our right to want to make our decision.

We rightly and properly demand that the decision of the Irish people be respected by the other 26 member states. Equally, the other 26 states can say that while they accept that right, we must respect the fact that they want to move in a certain direction. That forces us to test all sorts of hypotheses that were put forward in the period leading up to June. I do not want to go there, however, because I do not believe it would be fruitful, progressive or right to refight the referendum. The reality is that the Irish people have said "No". I respect that decision even though I am one of the most disappointed people in this Chamber in that regard. Equally, the Irish people have said they want to stay in Europe. I want to respect that decision too. How do we produce a solution that addresses these contradictory positions? The establishment of this sub-committee is a good way of doing that.

I fully respect the bona fides of Senator O'Toole in raising the issue. I ask him to accept my bona fides too. Since I heard of his concerns, the results of my queries have indicated that there is——