Jim Mitchell
Question:1 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Finance if he will explain his stance at the ECOFIN Council in Gothenburg last week in relation to the Treaty of Nice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19108/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. Priority Questions. - Official Engagements.
Derek McDowell
Question:2 Mr. McDowell asked the Minister for Finance the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with EU Finance Ministers during the course of the Gothenburg Summit; if he raised the outcome of the Nice referendum with the Ministers; if it was raised with him by other Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19192/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The agenda for the meeting of Economic and Finance Ministers that I attended on 15 June in Gothenburg consisted of a single item for discussion, namely the formal adoption of the 2001 broad economic policy guidelines following their political endorsement by the Heads of State and Government at the European Council earlier that day. Ministers also had a brief discussion under Any Other Business on issues arising from current work at the OECD and on the future organisation of work on the question of population ageing. The outcome of the Nice referendum was not raised by me at the ECOFIN meeting, nor was it raised by other Ministers.
Will the Minister elaborate on what he said to the media before and after the meeting regarding the Nice treaty? Does he stand over his remarks?
As is usual at ECOFIN and Heads of State meetings which Finance Ministers normally attend, the press asks for briefings. I spoke to the press regarding matters relating to ECOFIN and European Council meetings and questions were also raised regarding the outcome of the Nice treaty referendum. My words and comments were reported adequately and well in all media.
Does the Minister stand over his remarks?
Of course I stand over what I said.
Does the Minister agree his remarks at the press conference in Gothenburg were a particular McCreevy mix of personal vanity and his type of right wing politics and had very little to do with the national interest?
The Deputy is too kind to me in his suggestions. I was asked specific questions, which I answered. When I have been asked questions throughout my political life I have endeavoured to outline what I believe to be the situation as I see it and that is what I did on this occasion, as I have done for the past 20 odd years.
The Minister is being disingenuous. Does he agree he summoned the press with a view to sending a missile, whether it was aimed at the Taoiseach or the European Commission or both, and he cannot blithely walk away from the remarks as if they were casual, on-the-spot remarks? Were the remarks a targeted message aimed at the public, the Taoiseach and the European institutions?
Unlike many other Ministers and politicians, I spend much of my time refusing to give press briefings and conferences and I do not go out of my way to make comments to the press. However, as is normal, I was requested by the press to give a briefing. I was asked specific questions and I gave my assessment of the outcome of the Nice referendum. There was nothing in the replies which was in contradiction of Government policy. I was asked specific ques tions about what I thought the outcome of the Nice referendum meant and I gave replies. I gladly ask anyone to point out anything in the replies which contradicts Government policy.
Has the Minister had discussions with the Taoiseach about his statements in Gothenburg?
As the Deputy will appreciate, given that he is a former Minister, it is not the practice of Ministers or Taoisigh to refer to discussions that are held on any occasion. The Taoiseach and I are in regular contact, as is the norm between the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, on a wide variety of issues.
Will the Minister confirm that the Taoiseach told him he was adding to disarray in the Government on the question of Europe? Does he accept the image of the Government over the past few weeks, to which he contributed substantially, has been one of it looking two ways on Europe and he has been perceived as a Eurosceptic? Is the Minister a Eurosceptic?
I do not accept that anything I said in Gothenburg was in contravention of Government policy. It is not the practice for Ministers to refer to discussions that they have with the Taoiseach or other colleagues on any matter. The Taoiseach said nothing to me over the past week or fortnight that he has not said on many previous occasions. Any references in the media to anything else are totally incorrect.
Since we are not getting anywhere with that line of questioning, what did the Minister mean when he said the rejection of the Nice treaty was a remarkably healthy development?
In a democracy such as Ireland's the people have the right to make decisions and Ireland was the only country in the EU where the question was put to the people rather than to their elected representatives. In spite of all the advice given by politicians, organisations and the bulk of the broadcast and print media, the people decided to reject the advice, similar to what happened in Denmark when the establishment there advised the people to vote a certain way not long ago. The only exception was one newspaper with a small readership. It is good to know in regard to the long-term interest of the country that the people, despite everybody leaning in one direction, can take an opposing view. I spend a good deal of time canvassing in my constituency during general election campaigns and I am continuously disappointed that 100% of the people in County Kildare do not vote for me and my party. Until the last general election we had not achieved anything near 100% of the vote. However, one accepts the democratic decision of the people. The people gave a message in the Nice referendum and it behoves all of us to take it into account.
The Minister said it was "remarkably healthy". Would he consider it remarkably healthy if the people turned down the Nice treaty again? What should be the next step to get the people to adopt a different approach? He mentioned the Danish precedent. I am sure he is aware they got a protocol to the treaty at the time in order to put the referendum to the Danish people a second time. Does he believe the Government should seek some form of protocol to the Nice treaty before it is put to the people again?
No. I was referring to the last occasion on which the people of Denmark were asked to vote on a European issue, namely, whether they would join the euro. That was the last referendum held in Denmark and the people decided, against the wishes of all the political parties, to vote "No" to joining the euro.
I did not say it was a healthy political development that the people voted "No" to the specific issue of ratifying the Nice treaty. In line with all other members of the Government and with most Members of this House, I believe the Nice treaty should have been adopted by the people. However, we did not succeed in getting our message across. The people, in their wisdom, decided for whatever number of reasons – I am sure there are many – to reject that advice and to vote "No". One cannot be an à la carte democrat in Ireland. One either accepts the decision of the people or one does not. The Deputy and I have been through the same number of elections in this House and we have had to accept the decisions of the people on many occasions when our parties were not in Government. The sign of a healthy democracy is when people decide to exercise their vote. The most alarming aspect of the Nice referendum was the low percentage of the turnout. In time, people will look upon the decision of 7 June as a wake-up call. It has caused us some difficulties and will do so in the future, but it is a wake-up call for all the democratic Governments in Europe to realise that what they are possibly pursuing in a number of areas is not in line with the wishes of their people. That should be borne in mind by us all.
The Minister talks about accepting à la carte democracy. If he does not want to be an à la carte democrat, does he accept that the people's decision on the Nice treaty is final or does he believe there should be an attempt to reverse that democratic decision?
It is disingenuous of the Minister to say he celebrates the decision of the people without expecting them to infer that he also shares that opinion. He deliberately looked to create that confusion both among his colleagues in the European Council of Ministers and at home. That is an indication of the petty populism with which he is closely identified.
The Deputy spends his time as Opposition spokesperson decrying many of the things I have done. An independent assessment of my record over a 24 year period in this House will stand up better than most and it will show that I did not bow to petty populism. That is for other people to judge.
Why is the Minister doing it now?
I am not bowing to it now. I answered the specific questions put to me. Deputy McDowell, other Deputies and commentators believe it is sheep we send to Leinster House to mouth platitudes and to accept the popular flow. We all went along with the popular flow up to 7 June and the people then decided to reject our advice.
Deputy Mitchell asked me a specific question. As I said after the Nice referendum, it is time for reflection and for the Government and all political parties in this House to take stock of the situation. The Government will eventually decide what to do. It is not unusual to put the question again to the people. As the Deputy is aware, the question of divorce was put to the people and he and I were on the same side. I was in a small minority in my party as I supported it on the first as well as the second occasion. It was roundly defeated on the first occasion. Following changes, some of which were for the better, and laws were brought into effect, the question was put again to the people after a number of years. I was still on the same side and it was passed by a small percentage. There is nothing unusual about putting the question to the people again. The Government should consider that in time and it will not be rushed into making a hasty decision.