I attended the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, 19 and 20 June. I was accompanied at the meeting by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, and the Minister of State with responsibility for European Union affairs, Deputy Dick Roche. The Council's proceedings were dominated by two issues, namely the Lisbon treaty following the rejection of the proposed constitutional amendment in the referendum here the previous week and the issue of rising food and oil prices.
As one would expect, while much of the discussion and media focus was on the consequences of our referendum result, a number of substantive steps forward were taken in a variety of areas of work. These included measures on Slovakia's accession to the euro zone, the establishment of the European institute of technology in Budapest, progress in the justice and home affairs area, notably on migration and visa issues, and on the issue of food and oil prices which is now top of the EU agenda. On the external relations side, the Council adopted important conclusions following discussion among foreign Ministers, including on the Western Balkans, Zimbabwe, Burma and Sudan.
The Council noted progress on the EU's climate and energy targets by 2020. We face an intense period of work on these important issues over the rest of this year in order for the European Union to continue to lead the international efforts to secure an ambitious, global and comprehensive post-2012 agreement on climate change. The Council also welcomed the progress on the internal energy market.
The Lisbon treaty aside, the other main focus of the Council was the issue of food and oil prices where there were lengthy discussions on both Thursday and Friday. There was a clear sense around the table of the impact this is having on the public and the very wide-ranging effect such price rises are having on the economy as a whole. I spoke about the difficulties people are facing from issues like high food and fuel prices coming on top of higher mortgage payments. I also encouraged the Commission to introduce short-term emergency measures to help the fisheries sector through current difficulties. The whole European economy is affected by the increases in food and oil prices, but they have a particularly large impact on low-income households. This is true of Ireland and our European partners. It is even more true in developing countries where the proportion of total income spent on food and fuel is larger again.
By agreeing to return to this matter in October, the Council ensured that this issue is set to remain on the EU agenda. The Council noted that work would be advanced on various fronts in the next months, including further assessment of the social and environmental consequences of bio-fuels policies, analysis of regulation in the retail sector, closer monitoring of the commodity related financial markets and further work on innovation and development in the areas of agricultural production.
The main focus of the meeting from an Irish perspective was the issue of the Lisbon treaty following the rejection the previous week by the people of a proposal to amend our Constitution to allow the Government ratify the treaty. I am pleased that the Council conclusions reflect the views and concerns I brought to the meeting, including the need to respect fully the Irish "No" vote in the referendum. I made clear in the run up to and during the Council that our ratification procedure and vote would need to be respected, just as we would respect the procedures and decisions of others. The central focus of our efforts over the two days was to try to manage the situation which arises as a result of the referendum outcome. The referendum was an Irish vote, but it has serious implications for all of our European partners.
Over dinner, I gave my European colleagues my initial assessment of what had happened in Ireland and explained that we now need time to analyse the result and its full implications. Only then could we turn to what possible ways forward there might be for Ireland and the Union. What I said to my colleagues at the Council reflected closely the comments I made to this House last Wednesday during our debate on the referendum. At the outset, I laid considerable emphasis on my view that the vote was not in any way a rejection of Europe and the good that it delivers. In addition to the more tangible economic developments which were widely accepted, I stressed the broad recognition in Ireland of the Union's achievements in securing peace, providing economic stability, reinforcing cultural, social and environmental development and promoting European values of democracy, tolerance and equality. I explained that, against that positive background, it is clear that the debate reflected anxieties about potential future developments and the potential future direction of the Union.
I spoke of the different types of issues which arose. I explained that some were sectoral, for example, those giving rise to unease to the farmers or trade unions. I said that some were very much national, for example, the fears held by some people on the issues of common defence. I explained that the sense of loss of influence had been a theme through the campaign and I drew attention to broader issues such as the very significant changes our country has undergone in recent years and the current tougher economic circumstances, including the issue of food and fuel prices which the Council had been discussing at great length.
I said that issues extraneous to the treaty had also played a considerable role. I spoke of the disconnect between the people and the European institutions and how this could mean that to some of our citizens Europe may appear to be a place of treaties and protocols, directives and regulations, instead of something that makes a meaningful and beneficial impact on people's lives. I stressed the importance of us now taking the time to analyse and consult so that we can properly understand the underlying factors that shaped the outcome of the referendum. I made clear our view that it was premature and could be unhelpful to suggest any next steps or timetables at this early juncture.
The Council members listened carefully to my comments. They accepted the outcome of the referendum. They were aware that this is not the first time the EU has found itself in this type of situation. I am sure they were conscious of the fact that such a vote reflects broader concerns over how the Union manages its business and its relationship with the citizens of the member states. They were certainly very concerned at what the outcome means. They highlighted the dilemma of trying to respond to the concerns of the Irish people while still trying to advance a process which they consider to be vital and which has been in preparation for many years.
Many of them were perplexed. Some found it hard to understand how Ireland could reject a treaty which they see as improving the functioning of the Union and redressing perceived difficulties of democratic accountability. On several occasions over the two days, colleagues commented on what they considered to be the prominence of issues in the campaign which are either unaffected by, or well catered for, in the treaty. Many had received briefings, including through their embassies in Dublin throughout the course of the campaign. They were well informed about the views and issues aired during the campaign and the impact they might have had.
Until the referendum vote, the governments of these states were hopeful that the treaty would enter into force next January. They consider this treaty to be vital to the ability of the EU to function in the interests of all their citizens. That view is reflected in the conclusions which recall the purpose of the treaty. Many made it clear that they have no wish to revisit the text of the treaty, which is itself a compromise text which took many years to negotiate. Several sought guidance on the type of timeframe that Ireland would require to analyse and reflect on what had happened. A number raised questions related to next year's European Parliament elections. Questions were also raised regarding arrangements for the Council Presidency and appointment of the next European Commission, where continuation of the current treaty means a reduction in the number of Commissioners next year.
I made it clear that, however frustrating for them, it is simply too early to know how to move forward at this point. I was straightforward and honest and said that I did not have answers at this time. I stressed that the views and concerns expressed in the campaign were varied and complex. There is no quick fix or easy solution at this stage. I underlined that we must not prejudge how this dilemma might be resolved. I stressed that we intended to proceed in very close consultation with our EU partners. Any potential way forward must be acceptable not just to Ireland, but also to every other EU member state. I underlined the need for time to allow us to analyse and consult in order to understand why the people had rejected the proposal. Only then could we even begin to turn our minds to possible ways forward.
Working closely with the incoming Presidency will be central to the consultation with partners. During the meeting, President Sarkozy and I agreed that he would come to Dublin at the start of the French Presidency on 11 July for intensive discussions. I am pleased that, following discussion, the Council accepted that deeper analysis and consultation is needed before any conclusions can be drawn.
As is normal, a copy of the conclusions has been laid in the Library of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is important that there be no doubt at home or abroad that these conclusions reflect accurately the position as of today. I will paraphrase the key points as follows. The Council noted preparatory work undertaken in line with last December's Council conclusions, noted the outcome of the referendum on the basis of an initial assessment provided by me, agreed more time is necessary to analyse the situation and noted that the Government will actively consult, internally and with the other member states, to suggest a way forward. The Council noted that parliaments in 19 member states have ratified the treaty and that the ratification process continues in other countries, while also noting that the Czech Republic cannot complete its ratification until its constitutional court delivers an opinion. The Council also agreed to my suggestion to revisit the issue in October and underlined the need not to become distracted from the core business of continuing to deliver concrete results in the various policy areas of concern to the citizen.
Following the "No" vote less than two weeks ago, the Government's main task is to manage the situation that arises as a consequence, both domestically and with our partners. There are various elements within that task of which the European Council last week represented one. We will press on with the necessary analysis and reflection so that we can understand in some depth what has happened. The Government agreed yesterday that the Minister for Foreign Affairs would commission survey research to help us with that. Alongside this work, there will be detailed consultation both at home and with our fellow member states.
In the circumstances which it faced, last week's Council demonstrated the strength of Europe's working methods, namely a determination to resolve issues through discussion and debate and, where necessary, to allow time to explore how ways forward acceptable to all might be found. The Council avoided any moves which might have made the situation that Ireland and Europe faces more difficult. I said to the House last Wednesday during our debate that I will devote my energies to this issue. I assure the House today that the Government is fully focused on finding an acceptable and viable way forward for our country.
