Speech by Minister Martin at Humbert Summer School - Lisbon vote is fundamental to our future

LISBON VOTE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR FUTURE

Speech of Micheál Martin, TD

Minister for Foreign Affairs

Opening of Humbert Summer School

Over the years the Humbert Summer School has developed a well-deserved reputation as a place where major national issues are discussed both constructively and in detail. This year's programme, and the topic you have chosen, reflects the fact that we are in a time of great uncertainty for our country. Many people are already feeling the impact of a severe recession and many others are fearful about what may yet happen.

What we need today more than all else is a realistic appreciation of the challenges facing us. This needs to be coupled with a determination to meet these challenges in a concerted and resolute manner. Over the course of this year fundamental issues concerning our economic future have been at the centre of a growing national debate. Dramatic measures to tackle both the financial and fiscal crises are both in place and on the way.

On October 2nd the people will go to the polls in a referendum which I believe forms part of the road forward for our country.

This will be the seventh European referendum since we joined what is today the EU. It will also be the most important.

This is not just another referendum. The outcome of this vote will fundamentally define the terms of our engagement with our European partners for years to come. This will impact on us in many ways which go well beyond whether or not the specific provisions of the Lisbon Treaty are enacted.

Such a serious decision needs a genuine national debate. This is much bigger than parties, interest groups or local issues. It must be decided on its own merits and nothing else.

Europe Listened to Ireland

One of the things which has to be made clear at the start of this debate is that this is no simple rerun of last year's referendum. The proposal before the people involves a comprehensive response to the democratic will of the people.

After last year's result the government decided not to rush a response, even though there were many voices calling for immediate action. We decided that a serious attempt had to be made to fully understand the many reasons why people voted No. This was not an easy task because it was not possible to discern any coherent platform amongst the No campaigns. Joe Higgins, Youth Defence, Declan Ganley and Sinn Fein often took directly contradictory positions on the same issues. This provided no basis for negotiating with other countries.

Instead we decided to take a broader approach and listen to people themselves. Through a combination of direct contact with people and independent research we made every effort to understand the major issues of concern which arose during last years referendum campaign. We wanted to understand this vote so that we could negotiate an appropriate response at European level. The major issues of concern were the retention of a Commissioner, tax, abortion laws, neutrality and workers' rights. In each of these areas people were concerned about the potential impact of the Lisbon Treaty - and in each of these areas we asked the other member states to provide guarantees which would answer these concerns.

One of the consistent claims by anti-EU groups is that we should have demanded that Lisbon be ripped-up and that negotiations should have started from scratch. In reality, the choice was a simple one: did we want negotiations where the only item on the agenda was the concerns of the Irish people or did we want to have 27 separate countries fighting their own corner. I have no doubt that the right decision, the one which most respected the will of the Irish people, was to go the route of putting the Irish agenda first.

I don't propose to go into the detail of the guarantees now, but we should acknowledge the level of engagement and generosity of all of the members of the Union. In my discussions with other governments I found an absolute respect for the will of the Irish people. This does not mean that they agreed with the decision of the Irish people - they have a right to their own opinions - but they were willing to respond comprehensively.

In addition to the agreement to retain a Commissioner for every state, the legal guarantees now mean that there is absolutely no reason for doubt about the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the areas of greatest concern to the Irish people.

Just as the arguments against the Treaty last year were routinely contradictory, the attacks on what has been achieved through negotiations have been split between those which say they address the wrong issues and those who say they address the right issues but are worthless.

In relation to the argument that the guarantees address the wrong issues, it is incredible that people who put up tens of thousands of posters, for example, demanding the retention of a Commissioner are now saying that the retention of a Commissioner is irrelevant. Sinn Fein is out front so far on this cynical tactic - attacking the failure to deliver their huge agenda for renegotiation, involving many issues which were completely irrelevant to the debate last year. Of course the first time Sinn Fein revealed this agenda was after the result.

In relation to the idea that the guarantees are themselves worthless, most of the arguments have been based on the core belief that we should distrust everything that comes from Europe. This goes against our experience of 36 years of EU membership. Successive European developments such as the creation of the single market and the launch of the euro have delivered immense benefit to the people of Ireland.

There are two very important points that can be made. Firstly, the European Union honours its agreements. In fact in over 50 years of giving guarantees such as these it has always honoured them. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, we can see this ourselves because of how similar guarantees to us in the past have been honoured. Most importantly, in the 17 years since the Maastricht Protocol relating to our abortion laws was agreed it has been fully respected.

Of course the usual groups will continue to ask us to question the value of our guarantees. The fact is that they constitute a legally-binding international agreement. Moreover, they will in the coming years be attached to the EU Treaties as a Protocol. This ought to cut off any credible challenge to their value.

Ultimately, the importance of the guarantees is that they respond to people's concerns and allow the debate to now focus on why both Ireland and Europe need the Lisbon Treaty.

Why We Need Lisbon

For me what Lisbon is about is the very core idea of the European Union. The Union is founded on the understanding that many challenges are too large for countries to face alone. It is the most successful multi-national body in world history. Even its most bitter enemies would have to admit that it has delivered unprecedented peace and progress for countries once so used to never-ending conflict.

This was made possible by a drive to make sure that the Union is confronting the problems of today and not those of the past. The biggest threat for member states is that success can breed complacency, and the Union will be left ineffective in the face of a rapidly changing world. It is simply not possible to see the scale and pace of challenges facing member states and to ignore the need for a reformed and more effective Union.

It's not just about having to adapt to a 27-member Union, it has to do with the areas where the Union is enabled to take a leading role. In only the last year or so the number of areas where fast and effective action has been impossible under current Treaties has been ever more clear.

The energy crisis has escalated, with parts of Europe at times left without gas - but the Union has been seriously constrained in its ability to act. While progress is being made in relation to the climate emergency, the Union has again been directly limited in its actions. Most importantly, while the Union has made valuable contributions to tackling fiscal and financial crises it has been directly hampered by a lack of consistent leadership. In the last 15 months there have been 5 different Presidents of the European Council - making even the more simple negotiations more difficult. This has been to the benefit of no one.

The Lisbon Treaty is not just an acceptable compromise, it is an essential charter for ensuring that the European Union delivers for us and the other member states.

Economy is Central to Vote.

The EU is about much more than the economy, but this aspect of its work has inevitably come to the centre of the debate. Even before the crisis it was clear that the EU needed to reform in the face of rapid globalisation and its many challenges. The economic crisis has brought this to the fore in a way that few could have imagined.

The fundamental economic necessity of the EU for Ireland is overwhelming. This is about an awful lot more than simple market access and, now more than ever, the EU is an essential partner for us on the road to recovery.

As I have said an EU which is slow or unable to respond to major problems facing its member states is bad for Ireland. The economic dimensions of a reformed and more effective Union are obvious, something which has been aptly demonstrated by the fact that the people who invest in Ireland and create the jobs that we need now more than ever are strongly supporting the Lisbon Treaty.

Beyond the formal content of the Treaty we also have to be aware of a wider economic impact of our decision on the Treaty.

The successes which we achieved during our membership were not solely down to the formal legal provisions of the Union's treaties. We haven't just been members, we have been positive and active members. While some other countries have been inconsistent in their policy, we have been fully engaged and have been more influential as a result.

When it has come to key investment decisions, Ireland has had a major competitive advantage because of this policy. During my time as Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment I regularly met senior international business leaders who employ thousands of Irish people as well as those who were considering new investments. Without exception, our position at the core of the EU was seen by them as an important part of considering Ireland for investment and job creation. With Ireland they have been assured that whatever the development of the Union, such as the adoption of a common currency, we would influence and participate at the heart of positive developments.

There is simply no question that a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by Ireland after receiving clear guarantees on our concerns would seriously damage this advantage. It's not capable of being quantified at this point, but we can be sure that those who claim that a No vote will be irrelevant to investment and job creation have never been involved in negotiating investment and job creation.

In recent weeks we have seen Sinn Fein, Youth Defence and Joe Higgins try out a new line on the economy which is that the EU is to blame for the crisis and that it represents a failed extreme 'neo-liberal' economic model. This is, of course, nonsense.

There is no member country which would claim that it would be better off outside of the Union. Equally the idea that the EU represents a barbaric neo-liberalism doesn't stand up to even the most basic examination. Such an ideology holds that the state should do almost nothing and it should absolutely stay completely away from regulations. Last Week Sinn Fein made the incredible statement that every single proposal of the Commission was neo-liberal.

A reality check would show how the Commission has, amongst a potentially huge list, has pushed forward health and safety protections for workers, maternity leave for mothers, family leave for fathers, redundancy protections, workers consultation, the withdrawal of unsafe chemicals, cheaper roaming charges for mobile phone users, and access to health services throughout Europe.

The EU is in fact the very entity which requires and enables countries to bring in social protections - so that economic growth and social progress can go hand in hand. As part of the response to the Irish people, the Union has again reaffirmed this solemnly.

The effort to try and blame the EU for the recession is deeply cynical and I believe the Irish people will see through it.

Sovereignty

As I mentioned earlier, many of the arguments against Lisbon come down to the idea that no matter what the Union says we shouldn't trust it. This approach sees Europe as a threat to nation states. As a result emotive language such as "they're telling us what to do" or "we're giving away our power" is common. Ultimately these arguments have to be as questioning the very essence of the EU rather than just a problem with whatever treaty or decision is being discussed. The only way to ensure that we agree with everything the Union does or every decision of its Courts would be to give them no powers whatsoever.

If the EU is to work we need to remember that every country cannot have its way on every issue all the time. One of the very reasons why limitations were introduced on vetoes in the first place was the recognition of the failure to act effectively in the face of the last major world recession.

Certainly we must retain the requirement for unanimity on critical areas, and we have always insisted on this, but the net effect of extending majority voting in other areas will be positive. Those who criticise majority voting should remember that the EU single market could not have been created without the ability to take decisions by majority vote. The single market has been of great advantage to Ireland, enabling us to increase our exports to EU countries dramatically and to attract increased volumes of foreign direct investment which has created jobs and prosperity in this country.

The reality of how the crucial negotiations go is that majority voting can be a powerful driver for faster, more inclusive decision-making with smaller countries using their influence very effectively.

26 Parliaments have now ratified the Lisbon Treaty, in most cases by overwhelming majorities. The ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty has been a very thorough one. A clear massage has come through: that Lisbon is consistent with the core model of Europe we have already signed up to. It does not mark a revolution in sovereignty and it does preserve the basic balance between states and institutions which is at the heart of the Union.

Irish Identity & Sovereignty

I think it is also important to address the issue of Irish identity as part of this wider sovereignty point. There is not and should never be a single definition of Irish identity, but I very much believe that any fair reading of our history shows that even though we are geographically peripheral, we are and always have been a European country. Culturally, intellectually and politically Europe has always been an important part of what we are.

It is an obvious point to make at an event commemorating a French general, but at every stage of our struggle for national independence we drew inspiration and often support from Europe. Irish republicanism itself was not possible without a European enlightenment and French republicanism which showed a route away from Jacobitism. Our language revival drew on similar movements in Europe. Our greatest national sporting movement emerged at a time when other countries were formalising their sports.

Beyond this was a consistent belief in Ireland's place not as one of competing nations but of a community of nations. One of the great ironies of the use by both Libertas and Youth Defence of the 1916 Proclamation in posters is that it was people who were active in that rising who were the most passionate about Ireland being part of multi-national organisations which could agree strong rules and enforce the rule of law. Their concept of sovereignty was that it includes the right to agree to limit your own actions as part of the pursuit of the common good. Seán Lemass, who participated in the rising as a teenager, was talking about an idea similar to the European Union as early as the 1930s, and he was the driving force behind our application for membership.

What I think all of this adds up to is that pro-Europeans should start making the point that it is the ideas of anti-EU groups who represent a move away from the ideas of sovereignty and identity upon which this state is founded.

A Debate Worthy of the Issue

It is one thing for a referendum to touch and issue of great national importance and quite another for the referendum debate to be worthy of the issue. There is no point going over what did and did not happen last year except to say that the atmosphere of charge and counter-charge with ever decreasing clarity must not be repeated. I have heard many people say that there was no rebuttal- when in fact it got to the stage where all anyone on either side seemed to be doing was rebutting.

The anti-Treaty groups believed that confusion was positive for them so that they could use the line "if you don't know, vote No". The response to this has to be "if you don't know, here's how you find out".

When false statements are made against the Treaty these have to be replied to forcefully and promptly. However, the positive message cannot be allowed to get lost in the clamour.

A lot of attention has focused on how broadcasters fulfil their legal requirement to provide balanced coverage. The BCI has issued new guidelines on this which mean that some of the absurd outcomes of a strict stopwatch approach might be avoided. For example, there was nothing democratic about lone individuals getting coverage on main news bulletins because they called for a No while organisations representing thousands of people were ignored because they were on the more crowded Yes side.

It would be a mistake though to see the time issue as the most important. It was the nature of coverage which often caused the most problems rather than the amount of time each side received. Few people can have realistically been enlightened by panel discussions which involved people talking over each other and the presenter merely calling time. These were often the forums for the most outlandish claims to be made - and while they were always challenged by the opponent, what the public was often looking for was a referee.

In order to try and ensure that this debate is as informed and constructive as possible a number of steps have been taken. We have ensured that the public has been updated at every stage of the process, including a specific campaign to make them aware of the nature and extend of the legally guarantees provided by the other member states. The Referendum Commission has been working to make its communications more effective and relevant to the information people want. This work will continue up to polling day.

Lisbon: Fundamental to our Future

For a wide range of reasons this debate will mark a defining moment for Ireland. It will make a fundamental statement about our future. As such it is more important than party allegiance, interest groups or local issues. It deserves a serious national debate where people who feel strongly get involved in the campaign and the public engages with the issues.

The bottom line for Ireland, as it is for every member state, is that if we believe that the European Union is a positive force then we need it to be reformed and efficient. We need it to be allowed tackle today's challenges. We need it to focus on the economic crisis.

As I see it, we have an absolute obligation to deal energetically with the problems that face us. We cannot afford to ignore realities or to put our heads in the sand. Nor should we be tempted to wallow in despair. There is a good future for Ireland and we need to grasp it and make it happen.

Experience tells us that there is rarely any magic solution to complex problems. We need a clear-headed approach that defines workable solutions to the current set of economic, financial budgetary, and employment crises.

We know that we cannot control international economic developments, which will inevitably impact heavily on the extent and timing of our recovery. There are, however, certain elements that remain in our own hands. One of these is our position within the European Union. This is what we will be deciding on the 2nd of October.

For a wide range of reasons this referendum will mark a defining moment for Ireland. It will make a fundamental statement about our future. As such it is more important than party allegiance, interest groups or local issues.

It is important that we make the right decision, one that will help to hasten our recovery, and improve the prospects for job creation and an early return to national prosperity. The answer has to be Yes.