Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)

I thank the Minister of State for giving of his time to discuss this report. It is timely that we are holding this discussion given the Taoiseach's forthcoming meeting with the European Council. We have an opportunity to reflect on Ireland's position on the non-ratification of the Lisbon treaty. I commend the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union and its Chairman, Senator Donohoe. I spent many evenings listening to their deliberations. I have not yet had time to examine the report in detail, although I have scanned through it.

A lot of thinking will be required on how we should express ourselves and reflect the concerns of the public. These concerns were thrashed out by members of the sub-committee in their discussions with the wide range of witnesses who appeared before them. The task ahead is huge but the people have spoken and we must accept their decision. I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate these issues in this Chamber because there is no better place to hold a debate on our connection with Europe. Every other month, we have a golden opportunity to discuss these issues. It has been suggested the Houses of the Oireachtas should spend more time on European matters, which I hope would lead the media to reflect on how Europe can be presented.

I have reflected on why the people said "No". There is no doubt we came in too late to the campaign and were reacting to it. We were engaged in a defence mechanism and no matter how many times I tried to explain the issue of the Commissioner, it was no use.

People came up with the idea we had over-regulation, with which I would agree. I felt we were being dominated by Europe, particularly when directives came through. One would ask if we were able to thrash them out properly, have the final say in the matters or have the ultimate say in blocking some proposals coming from Brussels. I was never sure we were in that position. I hope that whatever proposals come from Brussels now, we in Ireland will decide whether we agree with them. We, rather than Europe, will speak for our people. Brussels will not speak for Ireland. That is a very important message to get out.

We are in control of our destiny in Ireland. We must link with the public and understand the issue. There is no doubt the public did not understand the treaty, and to be honest it took a while for me to grasp it. By the time I had, the public had already made up its mind. The concerns that we were over-regulated and that decisions were being made in Europe rather than in the Parliament in Ireland must be addressed. The public must be reassured that we are in control of our destiny.

If it is possible we and every other member state should retain a Commissioner. The public felt there would be no link between Ireland and Brussels if the Commissioner was taken away. There would have been no two-way process. We have an opportunity to indicate we will retain our Commissioner. We explained to the public that the Commissioner's job was to speak to his brief rather than Ireland but that did not cut ice. The people took it that the Commissioner was speaking for them and he or she was their representative. We must clarify the matter and get the message out that our Commissioner will be the link. Perhaps we must give more power to the Commissioner in order that there will be a real link between Ireland and Brussels. That is important.

We spoke at length about neutrality. I tried to explain the triple lock mechanism to the public but it is gobbledegook to them, although it works in here. I know what the triple lock mechanism is and the reassurance it provides. One point we should get across is that there will be no dilution of our neutrality and a referendum will have to come about if there is to be a change in that policy. The point that there will be no European army must be reinforced.

I wish the Minister of State and the Taoiseach well in the challenges ahead. We must get the issue right, reflect the concerns and respect the Irish people. At this time the public is considering the issue again. We cannot impose anything on the people they do not like but they are ready to revisit the matter, particularly if there is less control from Brussels and more power for the Irish Parliament.

The Seanad provides a golden opportunity to debate these matters at length. We tried this in the last Seanad and there were visits from the various MEPs at different times. We should encourage a greater link between the European Parliament and the Seanad, although we may not be able to encourage such a connection with the other House. We have enough speakers to link the public to the issue and reach out to it.

We must ask the media to help us this time; it has not helped us yet. Whenever there is a debate in this Chamber on European affairs or reform of the Seanad with the aim of linking to Europe, we never get a line in the newspaper. That is a shame.

I wish the Minister of State well and wish every success to the Taoiseach. There is support for the Minister of State and the report of the sub-committee. I hope its recommendations will be dealt with in due time.