Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

The point I was making is that if, and only if, we achieve legally binding arrangements on the issues outlined can we go back to the people. That is the point that is being made.

Senator Ormonde was absolutely correct when she said the will of the Irish people is supreme in this matter. Senator Alex White made a lucid contribution. He pointed to the situation that now faces Iceland where it appears that 80% of the population now look favourably towards Europe. He also made the fair point that every treaty involves give and take. It is only a peculiar minority that takes the view that "no surrender" is a good basis for going into any important treaty discussions. Senator White also made the point that the 26 other members states have rights too. Senator Leyden picked up on the same point.

Senator Donohoe talked about the lack of confidence on the "Yes" side. That is a good point. The "Yes" side was cowed, especially in the debate prior to the referendum. It was shouted down. When one tried to point out the truth that other countries were going to go ahead and ratify the Lisbon treaty, one was told that one was bullying. The reality is that the people who told that particular untruth are now oblivious to that issue. On whether the Government is committed to another referendum, the Senator must have missed the point, which is the one Senator Norris picked up. I said that if, and only if, one gets to a point where one has satisfied all of the concerns of the Irish people can one start talking about a date for another referendum. The constitutional reality is that if we are to ratify the Lisbon treaty, there must be another referendum. I made that point as far back as the McGill summer school earlier this year.

Senator Mullen made an important contribution. When he reads the words I have spoken into the record, and those of the Taoiseach, he will find great satisfaction in them. Specifically, what we are talking about is protecting sovereignty in areas such as social and ethical policy, taxation, defence and neutrality. That is not out of kilter in any way with European law. I advise anyone who is interested to examine how the German basic law enacted the provision to go into Europe. I referred to that elsewhere.

Senator Mullen also illustrated the problems of the referendum process. He made the point that if one asks a question one gets many different answers. I agree generally with the comments of Senators Burke and Bradford and I regret that I do not have time to go into them in detail. I would have believed that, from the point of view of Sinn Féin, "no surrender" was not a policy that had any attraction. I am amazed that those who advocated "no surrender" historically are not consigning that bankrupt policy, put on a pedestal by Sinn Féin, to the dusty annals of history. However, that is neither here nor there.

The Senator also stated he wants to see Ireland at the very centre of the European Union and I accept his bona fides in that regard. While Sinn Féin may have some ingenious Baldric-like plan to do this, the reality is that the Union is a construct of 27 sovereign member states and we cannot dictate to them how they should operate any more than they can dictate to us how we should operate. The intellectual dishonesty of the Sinn Féin viewpoint is demonstrated by the fact that, while Martin McGuinness extolled the virtues of the European project as a peace process in an excellent speech recently in Belfast, his colleagues in the South were, at the same time, talking about the European Union in completely different language.