Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I wish to say a brief few words in regard to the report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union and the broader theme of where we go from here. All members of the sub-committee and, in particular, Senator Donohoe, are to be praised for the enormous efforts they put into the work of the sub-committee. While there were a few highlights of the sub-committee's work as far as the media was concerned, much of its work was done not behind closed doors, but away from the glare of the media and public attention. In that sense, the work of the sub-committee almost mirrors the project of the European Union in terms of its institutions. While Europe is open and transparent, much of what happens there, from a policy perspective, does not receive the political or media attention it deserves. This is one of the difficulties of trying to sell the concept of further European progress and co-operation. The vast majority of the hugely outstanding work done in what is called "project Europe" does not get the political attention it deserves.

My colleague, Senator Burke, mentioned the current crisis in the Irish food industry and its knock-on effect at European level. There is a certain irony in the fact that the agricultural community, the Minister and all of us must now turn to Brussels and to Europe to seek aid and support in our hour of desperate need. We are all aware of the widespread debate that took place a few short months ago with the farming organisations and the difficulty the Government, and all of us, had trying to sell to Irish farmers the concept of further European political progress. We must now, once again, call on Europe from an agricultural perspective to come to our aid at a time of grave national and economic need. I know that the Minister of State and his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, will not be found wanting in this regard.

The work of the sub-committee was difficult because a referendum was held and the people had spoken in this regard. One cannot change a result just because one does not like it or believes it is or may be fundamentally damaging for the country. There is little point in our saying the same question must be posed again. It is like saying that the 2007 general election must be re-run in the same constituencies with the same candidates. While some of us would wish that could be case, it will not happen. Certain amendments, clarifications and changes must take place.

The people who spoke out most strongly against the Lisbon treaty are in the majority. The "No" vote constituted a broad church. Many of them prefaced their comments by saying, "We fully support the European Union, we want Ireland to be a part of it, but..." and that led to questions. Europe will always be a package of measures and proposals and it will never be the perfect political project, but I know of no political project across the globe that has been as successful as the European Union and has the capacity to be even more successful in the years ahead.

The analysis as to why people voted "No" is interesting. I am sure future students of politics will study it in even greater detail. It was a broad spectrum coalition, all parts of which I respect, ranging from the far left to what some people call, even though I am not comfortable with the term, "the far right". The issues which caused people such concern, namely, the abortion issue, workers' rights, our Commissioner, etc., must be addressed. I was quite comfortable with the language, content and intent of the Lisbon treaty, as it was worded, but I must recognise that the majority of people were not. Therefore, it is important that we address those issues.

The whipping boy we allowed Europe to become has resulted in a perception that it is to blame for all ills. All Governments, domestically, take the credit for all good measures while Brussels gets the blame for bad proposals and bad measures. If we reflect on what we have been debating here on the margins of the political programmes in recent days, we have had two, if not three, discussions on the removal of cribs from stores and streets. That was not a European but a domestic decision. People are concerned about the question of changes in social law, such as civil unions, etc. The argument can be made that there is a certain degree of European perspective on that, but the Irish Government has brought forward such proposals, they have not been forced on anybody by the so-called planet Europe. Many of the causes as to why people voted "No" last June were domestic rather than European.

If we think back to last June and ask what went wrong, as happens in the political cycle of events, the Government was beginning the inevitable downturn all Governments face, the economy was beginning to slip downwards and the people were quite angry. On the other hand, we have accepted the mantra of blaming over-regulation, the wrong legislation and measures such as that which has resulted in Veritas experiencing difficulty in regard to religious advertising on television. Europe seems to get and take the blame for all those unrelated disconnected matters. That is why the task ahead for the Minister, his Government colleagues and all those who believe that the Lisbon treaty is not only good but important and essential for Ireland is a difficult one. It will be a long winding road and will not be an easy journey.

I respect how the Irish people voted in the referendum in June 2008. We cannot repeat the same question. The genuine concerns raised need to be addressed. We cannot demonise the people who voted "No" as they are in the majority of people and they had an entitlement to vote they way they did. Neither should we personalise the campaign because we made significant political figures of people who, in most cases, would not have been elected to a parish council. We should focus on the issues and remind people that what the Lisbon treaty offers is a continuation and a development of the project that has transformed this country and given everybody a new economic, social and political lease of life since 1973. We must accept the decision made last June but, collectively, try to work our way out of it and progress towards passing not an amended but a clarified version of a treaty, which is essential for our economic and social development.