Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet with the President of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29472/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed).
Official Engagements.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with other European Union Heads of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29476/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the October 2008 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29481/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his attendance at the meeting of Heads of State and Government of EU and Mediterranean countries in Paris on 13 July 2008. [29512/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his discussions with political leaders during his visit to Paris on 13 and 14 July 2008. [29513/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Paris; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29516/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the President of France, Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29517/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the President of the European Council, Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy on 21 July 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29525/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy in Dublin on 21 July 2008. [29610/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:10 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the EU summit in October 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29611/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:11 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the contacts he has had with other EU leaders since the June 2008 summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29612/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:12 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 1 October 2008 with the French President, Mr. Sarkozy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33359/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:13 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting in Paris on 1 October 2008 with President Sarkozy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33562/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:14 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the summit of EU leaders on 15 October 2008. [35005/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:15 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the special meeting of the Heads of Government of the eurozone member states in Paris on 12 October 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35741/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:16 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting on 15 and 16 October 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35742/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:17 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he held on the margins of the recent European Council meeting in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35743/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 17, inclusive, together.
On 16 June, I met Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Belfast on the occasion of the visit of President George W. Bush. On 13 July, I attended the Euro-Mediterranean Summit which formally launched the "Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean". This summit, in Paris, was an initiative of President Nicolas Sarkozy. The summit was an important step in strengthening and widening existing relations between the EU countries and countries from the Mediterranean region. The summit also provided a stronger basis from which the EU and Mediterranean partners can co-operate on responses to common challenges such as climate change and security of food supplies. While at the summit, I also met bilaterally with Prime Minister Brown, as well as speaking to a number of other Heads of State and Governments. At the invitation of President Sarkozy, I also attended the French national day celebrations along with other Heads of State and Government in Paris on 14 July.
President Sarkozy visited Dublin on 21 July. This was the first official visit within the Union by President Sarkozy in his role as President of the European Council. During our meeting we discussed the Lisbon treaty and the outcome of the Irish referendum. I explained that the Irish Government fully respects the verdict of the Irish people and that the Government needed to develop a fuller understanding of the concerns that affected the outcome of the referendum, before moving to identify a way forward for the Union which could have the support of all member states. President Sarkozy confirmed that he too respected the outcome of the Irish referendum, but welcomed the fact the ratification process is continuing in other member states and expressed his commitment to the Lisbon treaty. We undertook to work closely together in the following months.
On 24 July, I met with Prime Minister Ivars Godmanis of Latvia in Government Buildings as part of the Prime Minister's working visit to Dublin. Our discussions focused on economic issues and the outcome of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. An extraordinary European Council was held on 1 September to discuss the Russia-Georgia situation. I spoke informally with a number of EU Heads of State and Government on the margins of that summit. I had a discussion with Prime Minister Rassmussen of Denmark on the margins of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals Summit on 25 September. I have also spoken by phone with a number of other Heads of State and Government. President Barroso and I had a meeting on the margins of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals Summit and we have also spoken by phone.
When President Sarkozy visited Ireland in July, he and I agreed that we would meet again, in Paris, before the October European Council meeting. That meeting took place on 1 October. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We discussed the Lisbon treaty and I outlined the main findings of our recent survey. I also explained that an Oireachtas committee would now examine the matter in some detail. I told him I would give a thorough progress report to the October Council meeting. We agreed to maintain our close contact in the following weeks and months. We also discussed the financial markets and I briefed him on the Irish Government's bank guarantee scheme. We discussed briefly the Commission's proposals for climate change, and the need for greater flexibility to ensure member states would meet their CO2 emission reduction targets.
I attended a meeting of the Heads of State and Government of the eurozone countries in Paris on 12 October. This meeting was convened by President Sarkozy in response to the ongoing uncertainty in financial markets. Along with the presidents of the European Central Bank and the European Commission, we agreed on a declaration setting out a range of measures which individual member states may avail of, according to their national circumstances, in order to provide greater liquidity and, where necessary, capitalisation to financial markets. The agreement reached in Paris is a very important step in the ongoing international effort to provide reassurance to the financial markets and to the general public.
I attended the European Council in Brussels on 15 and 16 October. I was accompanied by the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. As I will make a statement to the House on the Council shortly, I will now merely give a summary account of its proceedings. Discussions at the Council took place against the context of the crisis in the financial markets. The European Council affirmed that it is determined to take co-ordinated and thorough action to restore the smooth running of the financial system, thus ensuring the normal and effective financing of the economy and a return towards growth and employment. The Council also endorsed the principles of the concerted action plan agreed in Paris by the eurozone countries. Climate change and energy issues were also discussed.
At the Council I presented a progress report on the post Lisbon treaty referendum situation in Ireland, which is something I undertook to do when the issue was last addressed at the European Council in June. I informed my colleagues of the substantive steps taken since 12 June, and the findings that have emerged. I outlined my aim that by December, we will have identified the necessary steps that need to be taken with a view to defining the elements of a solution and a common path to follow. The conclusions of the Council, which have been placed in the Oireachtas Library, accurately reflect that position.
I assume that the Taoiseach briefed the Heads of Government on the Millward Brown analysis of why people voted the way they did on the Lisbon treaty. Reports were that the Taoiseach gave an in-depth presentation to the members present. President Sarkozy said that he expected the ratification process of the Lisbon treaty to continue, and that he expected agreement between the 27 member states on the common path to follow during the European Council meeting in December. What position is the Taoiseach in to give a briefing on that path and how it is to be followed?
At their Paris meeting on 12 October, the eurozone countries set out a common set of rules to assist the banking sector until the end of 2009. Governments are entitled to guarantee loans between banks and they can buy preference shares. The final text of the pledge stated that each member state will make available to financial institutions tier one capital. I know that the Government made an effort to change the word "will" to "can", but that was not adopted. The Taoiseach said last week that the banks were well regulated and well capitalised. Arising from the current situation, does he envisage a situation where the Government must capitalise the banks? In the context of the agreement by the eurozone countries on 12 October in Paris, how does the Taoiseach see that happening and to what extent?
What was agreed in discussions on our position in the aftermath of the Lisbon treaty at the October meeting was that we would outline a progress report. The conclusion of that meeting was that we would work with the institutions and with other member states to see if we can address the concerns that arose out of the research we conducted. We can then chart a way forward from there. That process of engagement continues with the institutions and with the Presidency. We undertook to come back in December to see what progress has been made and to set out a road map.
Some of the issues concerning them relate to other institutional matters, such as the basis under the which the European elections will be held in June. They need to get clarification about that, and we need to get clarification about what they can do to assuage the concerns that arose on various matters. I will outline in detail in my statements on the Council what those specifics were.
The eurozone meeting was called in an effort to co-ordinate a response at that level. We had already made our move prior to that, in our own national interest. We had been in touch with the competition Commissioner to ensure that we were in compliance with EU state aid and competition rules. The confirmation of compliance arose upon our return from that meeting late that night. Various opinions were put forward on the statement that was to be made. It is not mandatory that Ireland had to capitalise its banks. Chancellor Merkel made it clear at the meeting that we were talking about a political declaration and a toolkit as to what countries may use in an effort to show co-ordination and ensure that we can demonstrate to markets and the wider public that the EU has a broad strategy that is common to all.
The important point to make concerning that matter, which exceptionalises Ireland in one sense, is that we made a guarantee in respect of all assets and liabilities prior to this co-ordination mechanism being agreed at that meeting. There are others whose response to it is a partial guarantee plus partial capitalisation. Some of the recapitalisation requirement arises in certain countries because of the fact that some other syndicated loans relate to taking on the risks of the US sub-prime market, which is not a characteristic of Irish banks' portfolios. In those respects, therefore, the requirement for recapitalisation does not arise on the basis that the value of that paper is little or nothing. People would have to mark down pretty quickly if they had that sort of portfolio in their banking system, which we do not.
It is important to remember that because others are recapitalising, it does not mean there is a requirement on us or that we are mandated to do so. We have made the point clearly from day one, as regards the decisions we took given what we were faced with, that one of the ideas was to reduce to the greatest extent possible the exposure of the taxpayer to risk. There is far less risk to the taxpayer in respect of the State guarantee scheme we devised than would be the case were one to make a direct investment in a bank whose capital ratios were decreasing. We have not said that this will never be considered, but we have refused to speculate on it because it is not helpful.
I believe strongly that the taxpayer should be the last resort, not the first resort, in respect of providing further capital, if necessary, to institutions if they require it. There are a number of options to be considered by such institutions before the taxpayer would be asked to provide the necessary recapitalisation. Those would have to be investigated, assessed and examined. The State guarantee scheme has provided a greater degree of time and space to consider those issues, rather than following headlong along a road that others felt necessary for their given set of circumstances, which are not necessarily our requirements at this time.
That would be a more accurate indication of the Government's position, which has been our position from the outset — that the issue of recapitalisation may or may not arise in the future and may or may not require Irish taxpayers' support in future. However, there are many options that need to be examined before that would be given full approval or consideration.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply, I wish to ask a few more questions if I may. In respect of Lisbon, the special all-party sub-committee is doing its work well. It is identifying issues in a way that may not have been reflected upon before. I respect the sub-committee's work and I assume it will produce its own recommendations in due course. However, at the end of the day, the Lisbon treaty cannot come into effect unless it is endorsed by Ireland.
It can only be endorsed by Ireland in one of two ways. The first is by some sort of legalistic constitutional route, which is not favoured because the people have already been asked the question, and the second way is by an analysis of what else one can do, or by asking the people another question in some form or other. I assume European governments are telling the Taoiseach they need to get this matter out of the way as quickly as they can because they must make a decision on whether to hold the European elections on the basis of the Nice treaty. If the matter is not decided before then, the European elections will become a quasi-referendum on Lisbon. Does the Taoiseach have a view on that matter?
The Taoiseach said he had not read the treaty and the Irish Commissioner had not read it either. As regards the issues that arose and which were identified in the analysis here, including conscription, abortion and corporation tax, does the Taoiseach think they can clearly be dealt with beyond any doubt? Does the Taoiseach foresee a situation where declarations will be made to provide absolute clarity? Will the Government address the question of an opt-out on justice? Will the Taoiseach be in a position to give his European counterparts a definitive answer in December as regards the Government's intention to endorse Lisbon in such a way or not?
While a general election is not due in Britain for some time, I am concerned that if one takes place there sooner and the Conservatives win — they seem to be a long way in front in the polls — then Lisbon will be dead. Mr. Cameron has said he will withdraw the approval of Lisbon given by Prime Minister Brown and his predecessor, Mr. Blair. I am sure that is a matter for consideration by the Irish Government as well.
As regards the banks, the Taoiseach said a number of options need to be considered and assessed. Has the Government carried out an assessment of the ability of Irish financial institutions to continue to trade? From my experience of talking to business people around the country, credit facilities are drying up. They are being tightened to a point whereby businesses are finding it exceptionally difficult to continue. As Deputy Bruton has pointed out on many occasions, credit and access to money provide the oil that keeps business moving. The Taoiseach should consider this matter seriously because if credit is drying up or restrictions are now being put in place that causes credit to dry up, then firms will go out of business. We must all examine the situation seriously. Has the Government carried out an assessment of credit flow available to businesses in Ireland? Having analysed the options to which the Taoiseach referred, will the Government have to put in place a recapitalisation scheme for Irish financial institutions? If so, to what extent will that be necessary?
I will take the second question first. The issue of recapitalisation does not necessarily mean that one will get more expansive lending facilities or policies. One of the issues that arose in the debate here concerning the Bill which forms the basis of the bank guarantee scheme — as set out before the Houses of the Oireachtas and subsequently enacted — was a strong assertion from various parts of the House that there were lending practices in excess of what was prudent and which should not have been provided in any circumstances. One of the issues that is now arising for all banking systems in the context of the ongoing turmoil relates not just to capital adequacy ratios, but also what lending practices will be. To what extent is there confidence in business circles to seek funding and get it? To what extent are banking and lending institutions becoming more conservative as a reaction to what has happened? Their access to medium or long-term lending is only now beginning to emerge in inter-bank markets, which certainly was not the case in the first three or four weeks of this crisis when it hit us recently. These are big issues and that settling in financial markets has not yet occurred.
We see what is happening in equity markets in terms of business sentiment and what people are saying about business confidence. In fact, we know there are many share listings which are currently way under the known capitalised value and assets of many companies. That is an indication of how soft confidence is or how much it has evaporated. One of the issues about the bank guarantee scheme which the Minister has outlined to the House, relates to ensuring lending practices are prudent. We have to find the balance between ensuring we have learned the lessons of the expansive credit we saw in the past and which led to some of the problem, although it was not necessarily the source of the problem, and this must balance out against business requirements. The House can be assured the Minister for Finance, myself and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, will continue to assess and watch to see how we can ensure and encourage lending institutions to provide necessary lines of credit for the maintenance of jobs for those businesses which have expansion or investment plans. We know others are in retrenchment mode and are not seeking lines of credit but are just trying to keep their heads over water and get through this phase. It is obvious there is no solution of one size fits all nor has this been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately, one of the consequences of the turmoil is the obvious reaction within banking and within business regarding seeking and obtaining access to credit. How this is feeding into the real economy is of concern to us all.
People sometimes see this financial crisis as something which only concerns the financiers or the bankers. It also concerns business and employers having access to lines of credit so they can conduct their business. On the other side, people with creditors are finding it difficult to bring in payments on time which in turn affects their own cash flow arrangements and impacts on their ability to continue to maintain previous levels of employment. Therefore, this is having and will have an impact on the real economy.
In so far as is possible and in the public interest the Government must ensure the banking facilities and the banking and lending institutions continue to do business. I raised this issue in a speech at Trinity College within days of the guarantee being announced, the need for banks to be open for business and the need for Ireland Inc. to stay open for business.
I refer to my recent trip to China. It is important to point out that Irish business is out seeking business in new markets and Ireland is much admired in many respects for the services such as international services, financing, educational services and for the small and medium-sized enterprises working in food, recycling, energy products and a range of areas where business to the tune of €65 million to €75 million was done in the space of a week. It is clear from the discussions that took place in China that big changes need to happen. The US economy was working off big deficits, financed from trade and capital surpluses mainly from Asia and OPEC countries. We need to see more saving and less consumption in that economy and less saving and more consumption in Asian economies and overall we need to have an international financial system with the confidence of business so it can get back to normality as quickly as possible. The global nature is reinforced when one attends meetings such as those I attended where I listened to accounts of the Singaporean, Malaysian and Korean economies. In the case of South Korea, its currency has dropped 30% in a week. We are all familiar with the situation in Iceland but this is a continuing issue. It should be remembered that this is an ongoing problem and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we need to monitor it closely on an ongoing basis so we get the balance right between the need for prudent lending to reinforce business confidence and confidence in the banking system while at the same time ensuring businesses get access to lines of credit in order for them to continue in business and to avoid having to lay off people.
On the question about the Lisbon treaty and our engagement with our European partners, the Government has indicated to our partners that we will engage with them to see in what way they can address the issues which we have identified as being matters of major concern in determining people's attitude towards the treaty. Having conducted and completed that exercise and reported back to the December Council meeting about the ongoing work, we will determine where we go from there as a country. I ask the House to note the European response to the Georgian situation, climate change, the international financial crisis and the co-ordination mechanisms that have been devised under this Presidency, and the fact Europe has led the debate. There will be a meeting in November with the Americans, the Asian countries, the Chinese and others, to talk about a new Bretton Woods 2 arrangement which will basically revise the whole financial architecture which has determined world money markets since the end of the Second World War. This is an indication of the significance and the imperative of co-ordinated action at European level and the need for European institutions to enable quick and agile decision-making to be taken and initiatives and political leadership to be provided at European level in respect of issues which are of global and not just regional significance. We will have to discuss this in our public discourse after December when we will need to figure out for ourselves where we stand with regard to these matters and where Ireland's interests lie.
It has been reinforced to me in the past number of months that membership of the euro area and access to the liquidity of the European Central Bank has been fundamental in maintaining financial stability in our own domestic system which came under threat and without which I would hate to think where we would be today or what sort of an economic discussion we would be having today. Before we took the decision to protect the system there could have been a wiping out of 25% of GDP in a matter of months and the country would have been set back by 20 years. This is the size of the contribution that the European Union and its institutions has made to this country in recent months, post-dating the Lisbon treaty rejection and the arguments circulating in the debate beforehand. This new set of circumstances, these new realities that have come home to roost and are continuing to be contended with at global level by many serious regional organisations and large and small countries, continue to and must inform our future attitude and position with regard to the European Union. These are issues we need to address and reflect upon. However, I am not here to advocate that position in respect of this Question Time but it is important we do not forget and that we highlight this for the Irish public so they know that were we dependent on the limited resources of our own Central Bank in the context of what was an assault on the system, I would hate to think where this country would be today without membership of the European Union.
With regard to the eurozone meeting I agree with the Taoiseach's description of the implications of the financial crisis for the real economy. I also agree with him that if we were reliant on our own currency, if we had the punt now, the situation in this domestic economy would be worse than Iceland. Is it not the case that, notwithstanding the Taoiseach holding that view, that in so far as there is a discernible pattern in the European response, we have been out of kilter with it, in terms of the route we have chosen? The Taoiseach made a half dozen references to the guarantee. Is it the case as reported in yesterday's Financial Times that he has exempted the two largest banks, Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland, from subscribing to the commitment in the guarantee that in the event of a default, the other banks, the covered institutions as they were referred to, would be called on to make up the default before the taxpayer would be hit? The Taoiseach told the House time and again during the debate that the sector, as he called it, would bail out a bank which defaulted in the circumstances that it is eminently feasible to envisage. Yesterday, the Financial Times reported the Government has exempted the two largest banks from that undertaking and that another large bank, the Ulster Bank, is not subscribing to the guarantee. In those circumstances, is the Irish taxpayer not entirely vulnerable and entirely exposed? Is the buffer the Taoiseach told us was there to protect the taxpayer, namely, that of the other banks being summoned and having to make their contribution to the bailout, no longer there, or is the Financial Times wrong?
If there are banks which do not wish to take up the terms of guarantee, that is a matter for them and we would not then guarantee their liabilities or assets. If they do not wish to take up the stringency of the conditions that we have attached, it is a matter for them. That is the first point.
That means they are not there to make the contribution in the event of a default.
It is not a question of enforcing a guarantee on a bank that does not want to take it up.
When we made our initial decision in regard to the Irish banks which were incorporated in the State, a strong argument began to emerge in this House that others needed to be accommodated very quickly. The point I made at the time was that perhaps they were joining a club but they did not know the price of that. The price was not that we were giving a guarantee for nothing so that people would come in under the umbrella and safety of the Irish State. It was argued in this House, because of the views that were being expressed from some of the institutions at the time, that some would feel left outside if they did not come in and feel they were being discriminated against.
When they checked on the conditionality and stringency of the guarantee conditions, it was open to them not to be prepared to pay that price. In fact, some institutions, because they are not incorporated in the State and their headquarters are incorporated elsewhere, are now benefiting from implicit and in some cases explicit state guarantees from other states where they are incorporated in those other states. As I understand it, one person said yesterday evening he did not feel it was necessary to take a guarantee on the double because he could get it from the parent institution.
Of course he did. I predicted that in the House during the debate.
That is a matter for them.
However, they are not around to contribute in the event of a default.
If people do not come into the scheme, the exposure of the State to those guarantees does not arise.
Bank of Ireland and AIB came in and the Government exempted them from the conditions.
Let us be clear about this. There can be no question but that providing a guarantee was and is necessary in order to provide us with the time and space to see how we can bring back stability to the banking system. As far as I am concerned——
Are Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks in or did the Government exempt them from the most onerous conditions?
No, the banks are subject to the terms of the guarantee scheme the same as everybody else.
Is the Financial Times wrong?
I am not responsible for the editorial line of the Financial Times.
It is not an editorial line.
As Taoiseach, I am answering that the banks are part of the State guarantee scheme the same as everybody else.
It is not an editorial line.
Whatever line it is——
It states that the two biggest banks——
We cannot have quotations at Question Time, as Deputy Rabbitte knows.
It states that the Government has "dropped an insistence that the industry as a whole help to pay the costs involved in settling the debts of any insolvent bank".
We cannot have quotations at Question Time. It is not allowed.
That was the biggest condition. The Government has exempted the two biggest banks and the other major bank, the Ulster Bank, is not in. This means the taxpayer is entirely exposed and entirely vulnerable to any default.
I must move on. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
The Taoiseach is not seriously suggesting that Irish Life & Permanent would bail out an unnamed bank if it goes bankrupt.
The Deputy has made his point. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
This is a coach and four.
No. What I am seriously suggesting is that a journalist in the Financial Times does not——
We cannot allow quotations at Question Time. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Is the Taoiseach denying it or not?
I am making it clear.
The Taoiseach is not making it clear.
I am making it clear that the State guarantee scheme applies to banks——
This has blown a hole in the scheme as wide as the House.
The Deputy will have to discuss it later. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
The Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union aside, will the Taoiseach tell the House what other steps, if any, he is employing to identify, in his own words, the steps that need to be taken next year to define with Ireland's EU partners the elements of a solution and a common path to the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty? What other steps is the Taoiseach taking to address and identify, as he said, the steps that may or may not need to be taken? Does he not accept that the issues clearly identified surround workers' rights, protecting public services, democracy and sovereignty, and that these have been articulated time and again? Does the Taoiseach not accept that the Lisbon treaty has been rejected by the electorate in this State and that the real onus and responsibility on the Taoiseach is to accept that fact, to state that fact and to start building an alliance across Europe for a better deal?
In light of my first point regarding workers' rights, can the Taoiseach explain to the House why just last week Fianna Fáil MEPs voted against a social progress clause to be included in any future treaties put to member states following a parliamentary debate in Strasbourg on the Anderson report? How does he explain the voting position taken by the Fianna Fáil MEPs, which was not unique among Irish MEPs in attendance at that meeting? Why would they take such a contrary view to a social progress clause being included when it has already been identified as one of the key areas of concern to the Irish electorate arising from the detail of the Lisbon treaty itself?
I am not aware of the issue that has been raised regarding a vote yesterday or the day before in the European Parliament. I will check it out and get back to the Deputy.
It was last week.
The issue arising with regard to our engagement with the European Union member state partners relates to the fact we voted against and rejected the treaty. Ratifications are continuing in other member states. They are substantially ratified in 24 of those states and it is likely that 26 will have it completed by the end of the year.
Obviously, member states have queries for us as to what issues arose in regard to the defeat of the referendum, and where they might be of help and give further direction, clarification and an indication of their intentions in regard to the implementation of the Lisbon treaty. This would assist in dealing with the 42% who claim, based on the research we undertook, they were confused with regard to the whole matter.
We must try to bring clarity to these issues and work with colleagues in a constructive way and in good faith, and then report back to the Dáil as to the outcome of those discussions. We are seeking to ascertain whether there are ways and means in which we can enhance the provisions, the interpretation and the understanding of the treaty in a way that would be helpful to the Irish people, and to see if they wish to reconsider this matter. At the end of the day, that is a matter for Government or the Oireachtas to decide in the future. What we cannot do is sit there and suggest we will not engage and that we are not prepared to work in solidarity with others to see in what way we can address these issues. We will then come back to the House.
Taking what the Taoiseach has said, the other course of action that is expected by more than 50% of those who voted on the Lisbon treaty is that the Taoiseach would embark on a proactive exploration of the potential to form new alliances demanding a new negotiated deal. No efforts have been employed in this respect and there is no evidence the Taoiseach has given serious consideration to that particular need. Does the Taoiseach not accept — this is reflected in the commentary in various periodicals and newspapers — that the Irish people feel more and more that the electorate is being sidelined until after the December summit, when a situation will be bounced upon them coming into the new year? Will the Taoiseach accept there is a bounden responsibility on him to accept the democratically expressed wish of the Irish electorate regarding the Lisbon treaty, to make it clear to the other member states of the European Union that the Lisbon treaty is over and done with and that there is a responsibility to address what matters must be addressed in terms of reform within the European Union and how it manages its affairs?
This requires new address and a new approach, taking on board all of the concerns expressed by the Irish electorate, views which have been and continue to be articulated by the citizens of member states throughout the European Union. I put it to the Taoiseach in terms of his responsibility that he has failed the electorate by not following through on its decision. It is not too late to make a firm stand and to make it patently clear rather than the equivocation which is at present but an invitation to all of those who regard the electorate's decision, their democratically expressed voice, as the wrong answer. It was not the wrong answer. It is the people's answer and, therefore, it is the right answer.
As I stated, in a 27-way negotiation, 26 member states indicated they wish to proceed with ratification of the treaty. They have this right and entitlement which I must respect. They also have to ask me whether there are issues I can discuss with them that might be helpful to clarify or improve people's understanding or views of the Lisbon treaty where clear indications were given that items were in the treaty which were not. Perhaps clarification of these matters would make it clear in the minds of many people. The research provided confirms the people were absolutely confused with regard to the issues.
The interpretation suggested by Deputy Ó Caoláin is his interpretation. However, the decision is being respected. The issue for us is to figure out where it leaves our relationship with Europe, what are the consequences for us and whether our interests are best upheld by standing as an obstacle to the provisions of the Lisbon treaty on the basis that the 26 other member states wish to proceed with it. We must make these judgments. The idea there will be no consequences is not only a naive assumption, but it fails to understand——
The French and Dutch did not view themselves as obstacles. Their opinions were not viewed as naive and their political leaders did not view their electorates as naive.
I am not suggesting the electorate is naive. I will be clear and reiterate what I said. I stated the idea that rejection carries no consequences is naive in the extreme in terms of where our interests are in Europe in the short, medium and long term. There are no illusions about this. The idea from Deputy Ó Caoláin that there are 26 willing partners available to renegotiate a treaty along the lines of his and Sinn Féin's suggestion is poppycock. They have been asked——
The Taoiseach has no idea. He has not explored it.
Allow the Taoiseach to reply to the question.
I have every idea because when Deputy Ó Caoláin went back to the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, I went to Brussels and asked colleagues whether they were open to renegotiating the treaty.
They said "No".
They do not wish to re-ratify or renegotiate the treaty. We can decide not to ratify the treaty if we wish. The consequences which flow from it will affect our interests. Any suggestion to the contrary is naive in the extreme. It is my job as leader of the country to go to the people and institutions and discuss those issues which were of concern to us to see in what way they can assist us in bringing greater clarity to those issues and to come back to this House to debate them. In due course the Government and this House will decide what they wish to do about it. The idea that there are 26 member states, even using Deputy Ó Caoláin's great persuasive powers, all set to take on his view of Europe is naive in the extreme.
The Taoiseach is naive to continue to ignore the Irish electorate.
Apologies to other Deputies but I have run out of time.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.