Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Oct 2008

Vol. 662 No. 3

Establishment of Sub-Committee: Motion.

I move:

1. That a sub-Committee of the Select Committee on European Affairs be appointed to be joined with a sub-Committee of the Select Committee on European Affairs, to be appointed by Seanad Éireann, to form a Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on European Affairs which shall be called the ‘Sub-Committee on Ireland's future in the European Union' to:

analyse the challenges facing Ireland in the European Union (EU) following the Lisbon Treaty Referendum result;

consider Ireland's future in the EU including in relation to economic and financial matters, social policy, defence and foreign policy and our influence within the European Institutions;

make recommendations to enhance the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in EU affairs;

consider measures to improve public understanding of the EU and its fundamental importance for Ireland's future;

and shall report thereon to the Joint Committee on European Affairs by 28 November, 2008.

2. The Sub-Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 83(1), (2) and (4) to (9) inclusive.

3. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (or a Minister or Minister of State nominated in his or her stead) shall be an ex officio member of the Sub-Committee and shall be entitled to attend and to vote.

4. The quorum of the Sub-Committee shall be 4.

5. Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in Ireland may attend meetings of the Sub-Committee and may take part in proceedings without having a right to vote or to move motions and amendments."

I support the motion to form a sub-committee, which shall be called the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union, and regarding the appointment of members to the Select Committee on European Affairs.

Today is an important day for the Oireachtas and for our country's future in the European Union. The sub-committee will have a key contribution to make as we seek to chart a way forward for Ireland in Europe in the wake of our referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

The sub-committee is to be tasked by the Houses of the Oireachtas with the following: to analyse the challenges facing Ireland in the European Union following the Lisbon treaty referendum result; to consider Ireland's future in the European Union, including in regard to economic and financial matters, social policy, defence and foreign policy and our influence within the European institutions; to make recommendations to enhance the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in European Union affairs; and to consider measures to improve public understanding of the European Union and its fundamental importance for Ireland's future.

We are creating an inclusive political process to examine the options and challenges facing us in Europe. The sub-committee will be expected to produce its report by the end of November so that its report will be available to Government. By establishing the sub-committee we are collectively resolving to address in a serious way the issues that were central to the referendum in June. Whatever happens in the months ahead, there is a responsibility on us to achieve the fullest possible understanding of public attitudes towards the European Union and to decide how we can best secure Ireland's vital European interests.

In the lead-up to the referendum in June we experienced a hard-fought campaign. For the Government's part, it is not our intention that the new sub-committee should rake over the referendum campaign. That is not why it is being established. I believe we can start from a positive place. The results of the recent research into Irish people's attitudes to the European Union show that we want Ireland to continue to be fully involved in the Union. A total of 70% of us agree that membership is a good thing, while a mere 8% disagree. The referendum campaign has not shaken Ireland's belief in the Union and we should take encouragement from that. What we must do first is fully respect people's concerns, second, seek to understand the motivation behind them and, third, reflect deeply together on how we can best respond to them.

I stress that the Government has no preconceived outcomes in mind for the sub-committee. There is a need for serious, inclusive political debate on Ireland's future in the European Union, the role we play in it and the role it plays in our lives. That is why I have proposed that the Oireachtas has a role in addressing key issues pertaining to our membership of the European Union. The task ahead is a serious one with far-reaching consequences. It demands that we embark on a calm, considered debate. Ultimately, we must come together to map out a future course that is best for us as a nation, but we must also be acutely aware of the enormous benefits that European Union membership has brought to Ireland.

At its most fundamental, I believe that since membership in 1973, Ireland's sovereignty has been developed and enhanced. From being directly dependent on Britain, our economy has been transformed, with our exports diversified to a range of markets worldwide. We are all aware of the hugely positive impact of membership on our agricultural sector. Ireland has also become a key location for inward investment, with Irish jobs being created and underpinned as a result. The role of the ECB has also been an important one in the present uncertain financial climate. Across the board, therefore, in the economic, social and political fields, I believe that membership has been fundamentally good for all our citizens. In short, the vibrant Irish society we have today would be unthinkable without our central involvement in the European Union.

It goes without saying, therefore, that I am fully committed to Ireland remaining centrally involved in the European Union for the sake of our economic well-being and because I believe that treaty-based arrangements between sovereign States offer the best guarantee that the interests of small countries will be taken into account. I hope that the work of the sub-committee in the weeks ahead will help shed some light on that and point the way to solutions.

I am particularly pleased that the crucial task of charting a way forward for Ireland in Europe is being undertaken by an all-party committee of the Oireachtas. There can be no better forum for conducting this vital national task. Our future well-being depends on finding the solution that is best for Ireland and that can be endorsed by our European partners. I commend the excellent work that has already been carried out by the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and their Chairmen, both of whom have produced quality reports and recommendations on ways in which the Oireachtas can give the European Union-related aspects of its work greater significance.

The referendum, and the research carried out since the result, has shown there is deep concern about the gap that is perceived to have grown up between the institutions of the European Union and the people of Europe. National parliaments have a key role to play in bridging the divide. The work in the new Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union will focus on ways to enhance the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in European Union affairs. I am very happy that we are setting the foundations for a democratic, inclusive process that will lead to thoughtful and considered proposals for the best way forward for Ireland at this challenging time in the global economy. The Union has been a powerful force for good for Ireland and for Europe. Public opinion in Ireland, notwithstanding the recent referendum result, remains hugely positive towards Europe and the values it espouses in a swiftly changing world.

The importance of the work of the sub-committee should not be underestimated. We cannot pretend that our position in the Union has been unaffected by the outcome of the referendum. Nor can we pretend the result has gone unnoticed in the wider world beyond Europe, particularly the international investment community. In New York last week that point was made to me by several influential members of the business community. It is a collective problem to which all 27 governments need to find a solution. The concerns expressed by the Irish people on 12 June are real and they need to be addressed. The Government and our partners want to see those concerns addressed. I encourage the sub-committee to maximise the time available at this crucial juncture. I encourage it to invite and engage with people who have an expertise in European Union affairs and who have Ireland's best interests at heart. I hope the media will devote serious coverage to the sub-committee's work and to the evidence of the experts who appear before it.

I am convinced that our people want Ireland to fight for their interests at the heart of Europe and from a position of strength. What we need to do is to devote our energies to address the legitimate concerns of our people and to find a satisfactory solution that will secure Ireland's interests. The work of the sub-committee can play a substantive part in the future direction we take. Its deliberations will be open and inclusive. It can address the many questions and concerns that were raised during the debate leading to the referendum — for example, economic issues, social and moral issues, political issues, neutrality and the European Commission. I wish the sub-committee well in its important work.

I wish to share time with Deputies Creighton and Durkan.

The sub-committee will have a difficult task. While one does not want to pre-empt what the Chairman will say to the committee members, it is very important that they come with clean hands. The sub-committee is not about prosecuting the case for or against Lisbon but about adhering strictly to its terms of reference. I hope each member of the committee will approach it with an open and frank mind. The members will have a very difficult task to analyse the challenges facing Ireland in the EU following the result.

The Minister mentioned that we cannot pretend that our position in the Union has been unaffected by the outcome of the referendum. It is important that we understand the consequences of the vote. I hope the committee can tease out how the landscape has changed. Perhaps the Minister, as an ex officio member of the committee, will contribute to it to outline why or how that has changed.

Others issues for consideration include Ireland's future in the EU with respect to economic and financial matters. We have had seismic developments here in recent days. In one respect it can be said that it vindicates the view that one can look after one's own economic affairs. It will be interesting to see how that pans out. It will be interesting also to see what difference that makes to social policy, defence and foreign policy and our influence within the EU institutions. Ireland has enjoyed significant influence relative to its population within EU institutions. It will be interesting to see whether that has changed following the rejection of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

One of the terms of reference of the sub-committee is to make recommendations to enhance the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in EU affairs. The Joint Committee on European Scrutiny is doing good work in this area but lacks resources. Greater support must be afforded to it in carrying out its scrutiny role. The requirement that it report by 28 November represents a tight timeframe. I understand it will be a week before the sub-committee can be set up because the motion is not on today's Seanad Order Paper.

The Leader of the Seanad, Senator Cassidy, is working on it.

It would be helpful if the motion could be passed by the Seanad today. It is important that the Chairman and other members can commence their work as soon as possible.

The most difficult aspect of the sub-committee's task will be the requirement to "consider measures to improve public understanding of the EU and its fundamental importance for Ireland's future". Most Oireachtas Members supported the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Since its rejection, we have concentrated on ascertaining the reasons people voted "No". Some of these include confusion about the contents of the treaty such as a belief that it would lead to the introduction of conscription. However, we should bear in mind that many of those who voted "Yes" were also unclear about the contents of the treaty. Some 18% of respondents to a poll taken after the referendum said they had a good understanding of EU institutions, but the majority said they had no idea how they worked. More worrying than this lack of knowledge is the indication in the poll that most of the people surveyed have no interest in improving their knowledge. It will be a significant challenge to cross this divide. It is a question not only of how we get information to people but also how we make them interested in learning about the European Union.

Will the Minister give an indication of the funding and resources that will be made available to the sub-committee?

I welcome the motion. It is important that the Oireachtas responds to the fallout of the rejection of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. I am pleased it is happening through the framework of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs. It is the appropriate framework, particularly in the context of the tightening economic situation.

Deputy Timmins referred to the terms of reference of the sub-committee. The provision to analyse the challenges facing the State following the rejection of the referendum is broad. A disservice has been done to the public in recent months in that politicians have not spelled out the implications of the "No" vote for citizens, the economy and the role of the State within the European Union. This is something the sub-committee must explore and I look forward to being part of it. It is vitally important for us as a nation to reassess our position in the European Union and to determine whether we want to be part of a forward-looking and forward-moving Union committed to integration or to step back and take a more isolationist approach. While it is important that we all go into this process with an open mind, I am strongly of the view that Ireland should take its place at the heart of the European Union.

The provision to make recommendations to enhance the role of the Oireachtas in EU affairs is fundamentally important. The recently established Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Scrutiny has one of the most important roles within the Oireachtas in assessing and scrutinising all legislation from the European Union. The committee must be adequately resourced in order to do its job as effectively as its counterparts in other parliaments in the Union. Our performance in this regard is unsatisfactory and it will require a commitment from the Government to ensure the mistakes made in the past in the implementation and transposition of EU regulations do not recur. Debates on future EU referenda should not be confused by issues such as problems arising from directives on turf-cutting and so on.

We must resolve all such issues by fully scrutinising the relevant proposals at an early stage. I hope the Minister will commit to elevating European affairs to a greater level of importance in the House by bringing debates on these issues into the Dáil Chamber. At present EU affairs are discussed in the bunker that is the committee rooms and these discussions do not impact on the public consciousness. I hope the sub-committee will forge a way forward in order to rectify this.

I endorse the comments made by my colleagues in welcoming the establishment of the sub-committee. As other speakers have observed, we are faced with a tall task in the aftermath of the rejection of the Lisbon treaty referendum. Nevertheless, it is a task that is winnable and which can be undertaken satisfactorily. Interestingly, when the Joint Committee on European Affairs had its first meeting in November last year, members were unanimous in their view that the referendum should be held in the autumn of this year. The time schedule for the sub-committee to complete its work is tight. However, time is not on our side in devising a course of action in order to ensure Ireland's position and influence are not further diminished within the European Union. It is preferable that whatever decisions are made should be made before the EU elections. However, I am not sure whether that is feasible.

We must ensure the Chairman of the sub-committee is allocated the resources necessary to allow it to carry out its tasks. The same is true in the case of the existing committees. For the Oireachtas to do the job the public wants it to do in ensuring there is transparency and accountability in respect of the EU institutions, there must be a concerted effort. Success will not simply fall from the sky.

The vast majority of Oireachtas Members, as well as all members of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, were solidly in support of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. However, this was never reflected in the media in the coverage afforded to the proceedings of the committee. We remonstrated with various media bodies on this issue, including the national broadcaster from which we received a letter indicating that the McKenna judgement was a factor in its decisions in this regard. That issue will not go away. The national interest was hijacked during the referendum campaign by a minority with a far broader interest. Eurosceptics throughout Europe came together in a single, organised, well funded, well focused and politically active bloc. This was hugely detrimental not only to the State but also to the entire European project. I ask that this be borne in mind by the Minister and his colleagues throughout the European Union.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I support the establishment of the sub-committee. It is important we begin a debate on the situation in the aftermath of the rejection of the Lisbon treaty referendum in terms of our future within the European Union. This debate must involve all political parties from across the political spectrum. However, much more is required. All of society must become involved in the debate and it must be genuinely reflective. I am concerned there may be a view that we can merely go through the motions, secure some minor changes and present essentially the same proposal to the public with the claim that it is a different proposition. It would be taking a big gamble and while it could work, it might not. If we adopt that type of approach we will only add to the cynicism about domestic and European politics. There have been thorough polls about why people voted the way they did on the Lisbon treaty. The Government commissioned a poll, which reported in September, and the Eurobarometer poll was conducted by the EU. In addition, there have been many different newspaper polls. The message from these polls as reported in the media is that there were two critical issues. It has been said that the main single reason for voting "No" or for abstaining was the absence of an adequate knowledge of the issues involved. Second, despite the "No" vote victory, a substantial majority of "No" voters shared one thing in common with "Yes" voters, which is that they believed Ireland's interests are best served by remaining fully involved in the EU. There are important lessons to be learned from highlighting those two issues, but one cannot just take the matter at face value. Polls cannot be absolutely substantiated in terms of finding why a person made a particular decision. As a local politician who tried to sell the "Yes" vote in the Lisbon treaty campaign, I still believe there was a fundamental fear among the public that we might be ceding too much power to the EU, although they might not have known exactly how. That is related to the fact that people said their main reason for voting "No" was the absence of adequate knowledge of the issues involved. It is not just that they decided they did not know enough about this matter and therefore voted "No"; underpinning that decision was their fear that by signing up to the Lisbon treaty we might be ceding too much power to Europe. That issue must be dealt with in terms of our post-Lisbon response and what we do next.

People had fears about our neutrality and what would happen after the treaty, which links to the democratic deficit issue. There are people who think that an ever-increasing European Union is the way to go, while others such as myself, and many who voted "Yes" or "No", may ask where exactly we want to draw the line in terms of our co-operation at EU level and how much power we want to cede to Europe. They were not just concerned about the Lisbon treaty, they were also concerned about future treaties. A number of people said they wanted to draw the line at some stage. They were not sure on which side of the line they stood with regard to the Lisbon referendum and therefore did not want to take any risks. That was quite a noble way to look at things. Some people say the public were not informed and ask how could they have done this irresponsible thing, but I do not agree with that. They acted the way voters always do, exercising complicated judgments. They may not have known exactly what was in the treaty, and neither did Charlie McCreevy, but they had a complicated view of the sovereignty issue and how much power we exercise domestically and at EU level.

As a society we need to decide how much power we wish to exercise here at home — we need to be very clear about that — and how much power we are prepared to cede at EU level. Another part of it is how much power we would like to exercise at local government level. All the indications are that those are the issues. People were concerned about the impact of the treaty on fishermen, bogs and neutrality. There was a multiplicity of issues and the public had a complicated view of them. We need to have a debate about the democratic process, including what decisions we think should be made here, which ones should be made at EU level and why we think so. Other commentators have said that also. The way people voted did not only concern the EU's democratic deficit, it also had to do with the democratic deficit in Ireland. Many things that go on in this House would fuel that perception. There is the question of how much power is exercised by the Oireachtas. Sometimes it seems as if we are just rubber-stamping matters, debates are curtailed and for many months the House is not sitting so the Opposition cannot hold the Government to account. Decisions are taken outside the House concerning partnership agreements and briefings at EU and other levels that have nothing do with a democratic debate on how we should organise our society. I hope this new committee will start that type of debate, which will then move out into society at large. If we do not do so, we will be setting up problems for the next Lisbon treaty or for the future generally and we will make people more cynical about politics.

Awareness is part of the problem but it is not enough to educate people about what is in the Lisbon treaty. The matter is much more complicated than that and involves decisions, debate and dialogue on what we wish to happen at the EU and domestic levels. We need to educate ourselves, not to mention the public, about how things operate with regard to neutrality. Many people had concerns about what the Lisbon treaty or future European Union treaties would mean for Ireland's neutrality. They wanted to know if our sons and daughters would be sent to take part in wars abroad. Until I entered the Oireachtas, initially as a Senator, I never knew anything about the triple-lock mechanism. I had never heard of it before becoming a Member of the Oireachtas. If I did not know about it as a county councillor how can we expect the public to know about it? We need to explain what happens concerning any decision on whether or not to participate in a military mission.

While the new committee is welcome, it will not stop here. It comprises politicians but it should not involve going through the motions just so we can say we have done a few things to fix it before going to the public again. We must have proper debate and dialogue.

It is now almost six months since the Irish people rejected the Lisbon treaty. Opinion surveys by the European Commission office in Dublin, various newspapers and most recently the Government itself, have confirmed what we already knew. The people rejected the Lisbon treaty because it reduced Ireland's political strength in Europe, eroded neutrality and undermined workers' rights and public services. People were also concerned at the impact on tax sovereignty and of international trade agreements on Irish farming.

Since the Irish rejection of Lisbon, Sinn Féin has consistently argued that the Government and EU leaders must respect the Irish vote. We published detailed proposals setting out how these issues could be dealt with and called on the Taoiseach to represent the national interest and use the mandate he had been given. We called on him to tell his EU partners that the Lisbon treaty ratification process must end, that a new round of negotiations must begin and, critically, to state there can be no re-run of the referendum.

Unfortunately, the Government to date has shown little respect for the outcome of the referendum, and so far has refused to raise in any serious way the clear concerns of the electorate.

Sinn Féin believes that Ireland's place is in Europe. We want to see Ireland play a central part in shaping the future of the EU in the interests of all citizens not only of this member state, but Europeans as a whole. For us, this means changing the current course of the European Union. We want to move it away from the centralising, privatising and militarising direction in which it is currently going in favour of a more democratic, social and peaceful one, promoting prosperity and equality for all.

Over the past number of weeks Sinn Féin has had a robust engagement with the Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, about the Government's proposal to establish a sub-committee to deal with this unfolding situation. In particular, we discussed the make-up of the group and its terms of reference. We were, and continue to be, concerned that the Government is merely preparing the ground for a second referendum. The terms of reference make clear, in my opinion, that the Government is attempting to frame a bogus debate on Ireland's membership of the European Union when what we need to be discussing is the direction of the European Union and Ireland's place in it. Amendments which we suggested to the terms of reference to reflect this reality were rejected, as he will be aware.

Our contention was, and is, that a better deal is possible for Ireland and the sub-committee should be discussing how such a better deal can be delivered. Sinn Féin intends to take up its place on this committee and we will do so for positive reasons, but let me tell the Minister that we will not be part of any choreography to set aside the democratic wishes of the Irish electorate. We are not willing to participate in a narrowly defined stocktaking exercise. We will not participate in any exercise aimed at clearing ground for a re-run of the Lisbon treaty referendum. Opt-outs and declarations will not change the substantive problems with this treaty and, as we made clear in our submission to the Government after the referendum, far-reaching reform is required if the European Union is to be put on the right course. It is not just republicans who need to be satisfied. The Irish people need to have confidence that this process is a genuine attempt to address the concerns raised during the referendum.

If the Government and Opposition parties are serious about engaging in an honest debate in the sub-committee and beyond, it is to be welcomed. We want to be constructive and positive. We want to play our part in ensuring that Ireland remains at the heart of Europe and that the European Union develops in a manner consistent with the needs and aspirations of the people. It is also crucial that the debate encompasses all sections of public opinion, the majority of whom were, and continue to be, opposed to the Lisbon treaty.

In two weeks the Taoiseach will travel to Brussels to attend an EU summit to discuss the fall-out from the rejection of the Lisbon treaty by the Irish electorate and what he intends to do next. The choice facing the Government is clear — either the decision of the people is respected, the Lisbon treaty is set aside and a new treaty negotiated or the Irish Government, at the behest of the EU elite, re-runs the referendum. For Sinn Féin, the choice is obvious. There can be no re-run of the Lisbon treaty. The opportunity that still exists to deliver a better deal should be grasped and we look forward to playing our part in what will hopefully prove to be a constructive engagement over the weeks remaining to the end of next month.

I thank Members for their agreement to the establishment of the committee. I have been engaged in discussions since late July with representatives of the different political parties to ensure that the Oireachtas would have a role not only in debating but in charting a way forward regarding this country's engagement with the European Union. That is the rationale behind the establishment of this committee at its most fundamental. As one Opposition Member stated to me, it would be unthinkable if the Oireachtas was not to discuss this issue not only given the decision of the people in the referendum per se but, broadly, in terms of identifying the issues for Ireland and Europe into the future. Deputy Tuffy asked where do we draw the line and these are issues in which the committee needs to engage.

I am somewhat disappointed at Deputy Ó Caoláin's reference to a bogus debate. I made clear in my engagement with him that it is anything but. I would have taken his participation in this as evidence that this was to be an opportunity for all shades of opinion in the House——

——to make a contribution to what is a substantive and meaningful debate about Ireland and its role within Europe, how we see our future within the European Union in terms of the key issues, both economic and social, for Ireland and what kind of assurances people want into the future. We are making a genuine effort to try to resolve and understand these issues. Hence, we engaged in substantive research to get a more accurate picture of the views of people as a basis upon which we can have debate.

I take Deputy Tuffy's point that we are in a position to bring in civil society. The committee should be in a position to invite people in to articulate their position and get clarity on some of the issues. This should be a calm objective debate which will allow data, information and facts to come through in its conduct. If people have issues, let them come to raise them and let us get clarity on them.

I take Deputy Timmins's point about clean hands and coming to it with as objective a position as possible, and the issue of resources on which we already had an understanding. Following our engagement with the Oireachtas Commission, the resources will be made available to facilitate expert perspectives and views.

I take Deputy Timmins's point on the consequences of this, but the committee can also tease through that in terms of the new Union position in which we find ourselves and how we take that forward. He mentioned economic issues in the European context. What is not widely understood is that over the past number of months, indeed, over the past 12 months since all of this issue of financial uncertainty arose, the European Central Bank has played a central role in terms of facilitating liquidity for banks across Europe, including Ireland. One could ask the question about where we, as a small country, would have been over the past 12 months without the European Central Bank.

These are questions on which we need to ponder. If one takes one line about whether we want to stop where we are in our engagement in Europe and perhaps take a more isolated marginal position, where does that leave us? These are the questions that the committee, in essence, must tease through.

Deputy Timmins's point about the knowledge of European Union institutions is well borne out by the research that was undertaken. In fact, the research summed up that, in essence, during the Lisbon treaty referendum we were discussing and debating reform of institutions about which people knew little. That is a failure of communication of the issue, both on our side in the European Union and by all of us collectively. Deputy Tuffy raised that point of how one communicates the nuts and bolts of Europe to the people on the ground in a way relevant to them.

I take Deputy Creighton's point about the consequences for the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. I have already met with that committee, which has undertaken valuable work and which produces good reports, particularly on the idea of a European office here in the Parliament. I am working with the Oireachtas Commission, notwithstanding the limited resources of these days, to see if we can get that established because it is a good proposal.

Deputy Durkan correctly referred to the fact that time is tight. He also made the point that we need to work out where Ireland wishes to be in terms of the future within the European Union, that is, at the centre or at the margins. I am conscious of that point also.

In terms of the division of powers, the Lisbon treaty to a certain extent attempted to address that point. I was struck by Deputy Ó Caoláin's point that Europe is about increased militarisation. That is a debate that was never communicated properly. I was at the United Nations last week, for example. In many missions in which the EU is involved, which are UN-mandated peacekeeping missions, it is the Ukraine, for example, which provides the helicopters for the soldiers' mobility etc. That is what military capability in a peacekeeping context was about. We have soldiers in Chad. Are we really saying that we should not ensure all necessary infrastructure and facilities for the mobility and safety of our troops are provided? These are issues which need to be teased out more to give people a better understanding of how language can be wrongly interpreted. The enhancement of military capability was seen by some people in only one way. Such people did not see the EU's more fundamental mission of conflict resolution and peacekeeping, or the need for our peacekeepers to be properly resourced so that their safety is not at risk and they are not vulnerable when they are protecting displaced people and refugees, of which there are hundreds of thousands in Chad and elsewhere. I thank the Acting Chairman for his forbearance and tolerance and I thank the Members for their agreement to the establishment of this sub-committee.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share