Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Oct 2008

Vol. 665 No. 2

European Council: Statements.

I attended the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on Wednesday and Thursday, 15 and 16 October. I was accompanied at the meeting by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and by the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Dick Roche.

The Council took place against the context of the international financial crisis, and the agreement reached the previous Sunday by eurozone members. The Treaty of Lisbon and the climate change negotiations also featured prominently and have been well covered in the media. Progress was also made on other important issues, notably on improving co-ordination on immigration.

As the House will recall, I undertook at the June meeting of the Council to give a progress report at this October Council on our efforts to address the situation which faces us following the rejection by the public of the proposal to amend our Constitution to ratify the Lisbon treaty last June.

We are fully committed to finding a solution which both addresses the concerns of the Irish public and which is, of course, acceptable to our partners within the Union. I want to take this opportunity also to welcome the establishment of the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union and to wish it well in its important work.

I believe it appropriate to relay to the House the key points of my report to my European Council colleagues. I began by remarking that few, if any, of us could have envisaged how the world in which we live has been transformed in a number of fundamental respects in a few short months.

The global economy has faced into a serious downturn and the foundations of the international financial system, on which our collective prosperity and development depend, have been shaken to their core. In August, conflict between Russia and Georgia reminded us that the peace and security we enjoy is neither inevitable nor to be taken for granted. I paid tribute to the French Presidency for its handling of these crises.

I recalled for my colleagues my clear view that Ireland's prospects are absolutely interwoven with our membership of and full participation in the European Union.

I stressed, as I have done on other occasions, that recent events had underlined the critical value of our membership of the Union and the eurozone, and the access we enjoy to the support of the European Central Bank. I acknowledged, too, that we best advance our interests by acting in concert with like-minded other states on problems, challenges and opportunities that can only be responded to effectively by working across national boundaries.

I said that Ireland could not expect our partners to accommodate our traditions and priorities without our demonstrating a reciprocal approach. I stressed that we must accept that pooling sovereignty with others is not the same as giving it away.

I then went on to explain the main elements of what we have been doing in Ireland following the referendum result. I recalled President Sarkozy's visit to Dublin in July, when he met not only with me and some of my Government colleagues but also with Opposition leaders and representatives of civil society in order to familiarise himself with the views on all sides of our national argument about the Lisbon treaty.

An event such as our referendum vote requires time to be understood, for its significance to be absorbed and for the basis for moving forward to emerge. I explained that this is where we stand at the moment.

Four months on from the referendum was too early to be prescriptive about outcomes. Our domestic political debate was taking its course but I emphasised that it still has a way to go.

I explained that we have established a parliamentary committee on Ireland's future in the Union to examine the issues that arose during the campaign, including the concerns highlighted by the survey and how they sit in the broader context of our European Union membership.

I reported on the independent study we commissioned into the reasons people voted, or abstained from voting, and touched on the main findings of the report with which many of my colleagues were already largely familiar.

Before briefing them on the issues that had come most prominently to light in terms of the concerns which underpinned the Irish people's vote on 12 June, I stressed again that the survey results clearly showed our people want Ireland to continue to be fully involved in the Union. I underlined that the vote must not be described as an expression of an anti-EU sentiment.

I acknowledged that many voters with positive attitudes towards the Union decided to vote against the Lisbon treaty. Many people voted "No" or abstained because of a lack of knowledge or understanding of the treaty — a lack of knowledge which applies not only to the Lisbon treaty but more generally to the European Union and how it functions. I said that other partners shared this problem.

I referred to the sense of disconnect from, and perceived loss of influence in, the European Union, something that concerns not just Ireland. A Union where too many members of the public feel detached or disconnected is not as it should be. I underlined the need for a concerted response across the Union to these problems.

While careful not to prejudge the outcome of the work of the Oireachtas sub-committee, I felt it was appropriate to give my own assessment of the issues that were of most concern during the referendum campaign. I listed a number — both general and specific — which gave rise to very real concerns in the minds of our electorate. I stressed that it would be wrong to dismiss the anxieties surrounding them. They were genuinely felt and must be examined, understood and addressed.

They included the future composition of the Commission; issues related to defence and our tradition of neutrality; social or ethical issues; and taxation. I stressed that the concerns that surfaced during our referendum campaign would need to be adequately addressed if we are to find an acceptable way forward.

I believe that point is recognised by our partners within the Union, that is to say, they too see that the concerns of the Irish voters need to be addressed but while I believe they will work with us to seek a satisfactory way forward, the other member states are clear that they want the package of reforms in the Lisbon treaty to come into effect. Our task in the period ahead will be to work out how to address our concerns in a way which can be endorsed by all 27 member states.

That will not be easy. However, I believe it is strongly in our interest, especially in the current global economic and financial uncertainty, to find a solution. Pressure from our partners to come up with such a solution can be expected to intensify if, as seems reasonably likely in due course, we find ourselves alone in not having ratified the treaty.

Many member states have drawn our attention to important milestones in the course of 2009 relating to the Parliament and the Commission. I acknowledged their importance and committed myself to continuing to work with our partners to overcome the uncertainty that exists.

I said that by December I would aim to have identified the necessary steps that need to be taken, and expressed the hope that December's Council might see us defining together the elements of a solution and a common path to follow.

Finally, I committed the Government to working closely with the Presidency, the member states and the Union's institutions in the period leading up to the next European Council.

My colleagues took note of my report and analysis of the position. The agreed conclusions of the meeting accurately reflect the position and record that the Government will continue its work to resolve the situation. The European Council in December will return to the matter with a view to defining the elements of a solution and a common path to be followed.

Moving on from the Lisbon treaty, much of the Council and indeed the discussions in the corridors related to the international financial crisis we are currently going through. The meeting built on the agreed measures for a co-ordinated response which were developed and agreed the previous Sunday at a meeting of the heads of eurozone governments in Paris. That eurozone response was endorsed by the European Council.

Europe is leading the global response to this crisis, and the Council made clear that Europe will be a key player in seeking to re-shape the financial regulatory model to make sure that what we are witnessing at the moment is not repeated. Ireland will be an active and constructive participant in that effort.

There was agreement at the Council that national supervisory systems will have to work even more closely with one another than they have heretofore. On a very practical note, the Council also put in place measures to ensure that information flows and co-ordination are much better than they have been.

I wish to mention to the House at this point that the Presidency has indicated that it intends to call an extraordinary meeting of the European Union Heads of State and Government for Friday, 7 November to discuss the financial situation ahead of the international conference the following week to be hosted by President Bush.

The Council also discussed the energy and climate change package. The negotiations on that front are continuing and we hope to reach agreement on the package in December. There is much work to be done to ensure the system is as efficient as possible. Member states are concerned at the potential impact on their economies.

While it may not currently dominate the news given all that is happening on the economic and financial front, the threat of climate change does not recede because it recedes from the front pages. Europe must continue to show leadership in this area if an effective global deal is to be reached next year in Copenhagen.

On the related subject of energy security, the Council agreed to step up work on various fronts including interconnection and improving the way we work with supplier and transit countries.

On migration, the Council formally adopted the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum which had been developed by justice Ministers. The pact is designed to bring greater consistency, and therefore greater effectiveness and fairness, to the way we apply our immigration and asylum policies.

It was an important European Council at an important moment for the European Union. As usual, there were differences of view between member states who share broad goals and, as usual in the Union, we found ways of resolving these differences through give and take.

It is worth noting that the work of the October European Council captures neatly why we need the European Union. It makes us much stronger on all fronts — dealing with the financial crisis, for example, climate change, energy suppliers or immigration. None of those challenges can be responded to alone. Ireland must work effectively within the Union if our responses to these challenges are to be effective, and if our views are to be influential.

Not surprisingly, our partners remain very anxious to know what we propose to do regarding the Lisbon treaty. We have said all along that a "No" vote on 12 June was not a vote without consequences. Our partners are convinced that the reforms in the Lisbon treaty are necessary for Europe to function effectively, and have invested much time and effort to that end. For many, the Georgia situation, and indeed the financial crisis itself, have heightened their anxiety to see the reforms implemented, and confirmed their view that they are necessary.

For Ireland, recent events underline how crucial our EU membership is to us. As a small country we have always managed to ensure that our concerns were taken on board by participating actively and by showing solidarity and playing our full part in working towards shared goals. That approach is the one that has served us well and will continue to serve our interests; it should guide us also in the coming period.

In the lead-up to the December meeting of the Council I will be working towards defining the elements of a solution and an agreed way forward. At the same time, the House, through the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union, should ensure the issues and consequences arising for Ireland are teased out publicly and thoroughly. The sub-committee's work is an important part of the national debate and I look forward to its report in late November.

We have to a degree started to articulate the public concerns relating to the Lisbon treaty which require to be addressed. In time we will explore, in conjunction with our partners, how best to proceed in that regard. Times of crisis sometimes make more stark the reality that our future is bound with that of the European Union. It is in our national interest to play a full role within it, working with others to advance our interests and pursue our goals and have our positions heard, understood and taken on board.

We must find a way forward. The Government is fully focused on finding a way which addresses the concerns of the public and which is realistic, focused and acceptable to our partners in the European Union. I look forward to continuing to work with Members on that matter.

I wish to share time with Deputies Timmins and Creighton.

That is agreed.

It is important to recognise the impact President Sarkozy has had as President of the Council. His actions show what someone can do when they are really focused and have an agenda to follow. On his visits to Georgia, China, Ireland and the United States President Sarkozy displayed a sense of urgency and direction.

I noted with interest the remarks made by the British Chancellor, Mr. Darling, when the current financial crisis arose. He stated the time had come for the European Union to react as the European Union. Despite all the Euroscepticism in many spheres in Britain, when problems arise, people focus on the capacity of the European Union to respond.

In the context of the Lisbon treaty which my party supports and wants to see endorsed and passed and what Ireland must do, there is a lesson to be learned. The reaction of the European Union to the difficulties in the banking system, problems of liquidity and solvency and the need to create a flow of credit in order that businesses might continue to operate was both swift and decisive. The financial crisis is not over by any means but the European Union responded.

Instead of the other 26 member states waiting for the Irish to make up their minds on how we should proceed, they should focus on a number of other areas and make decisions on the direction to be taken in respect of each. I refer, for example, to energy security, which is critical to business interests in Ireland. The committee chaired by Deputy Barrett is doing good work in examining matters relating to interconnectors, wave and wind energy and renewable resources. It would be extremely important to business interests if the European Union were to adopt a stance and state it would guarantee energy security for all 27 member states. This is another reason Ireland should continue to be central to the European process.

Immigration, as an issue, has always been swept under the carpet. At least, we have had the courage to discuss it openly and in a rational way. When the Taoiseach was present at a formal meeting of the Council last year, I attended a meeting hosted by the European People's Party at which comments were made to the effect that if the population of Africa doubled in the next 20 years — which it will — and if only 10% of young males from that continent decided to emigrate, no country in Europe would be able to withstand the immigratory pressure.

There have been different responses to immigration. For example, Greece and Malta sent people back to their home countries, while the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr. Zapatero, legalised 100,000 immigrants. There will obviously be a need for services in the European Union to be driven forward during the next 20 years but an issue arises. A structured response is required to immigration and it must be fair and disciplined and in the interests of member states and immigrants. This is a matter on which the European Union can provide a response.

The third issue that arises is that of climate change. The European Union can set out its stall in this regard. Ireland has always been disposed towards taking the interpretation of directives to the ultimate in the first instance and this has given rise to difficulties later.

I am going to inform people that those in the European Union should not sit around and wait. In fairness, they will probably not do so. On the issues to which I refer — energy security, engaging in a fair and broad response to immigration, climate change and the financial crisis — the European Union can outline the reasons people should remain part of the European process and project. The Millward Brown poll indicated that 70% of people believed the European Union had been good for Ireland and that 60% believed the country should remain part of the central agenda. The question is what we can do, when examining the relevant issues, to ensure these two factors remain in focus.

The European Union can respond by indicating the reasons Ireland should want to continue to be part of the project to create jobs, encourage investment and foster research and development opportunities in order that young people might fulfil their dreams and enjoy life. That is what the future should be and we should not look toward it with fear. There are great sources of hope and inspiration, on which we should focus when considering the reasons for remaining part of the European project.

I strongly agree with Deputy Kenny's assertion that the European Union should not spend too much time analysing where it should go from here and that it should deal with certain issues. I thank the Taoiseach for providing an outline of what happened at the Council meeting.

Since the establishment of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union, I have been struck not by the lack of information available but by the lack of knowledge and also the absence of a desire to acquire such knowledge. We must consider every mechanism possible to make what is a boring subject interesting or to encourage people to at least learn more about it and how it impacts upon them. The Taoiseach could assist in this regard by addressing the Dáil before each Council meeting and indicating the issues he hopes to raise and the matters that will be on the agenda. The relevant Ministers come before the Joint Committee on European Affairs before each Council meeting they attend. I accept that if the Taoiseach came before the Dáil to provide information such as that to which I refer, his actions might never be publicised because this matter does not help to sell newspapers and, by and large, members of the media are not interested in it.

I wish to highlight a number of issues, although it might be more appropriate to raise them at Question Time. Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs elaborate on the proposed establishment of a financial crisis cell, indicate what will be the composition of such a cell and outline the role it will play? It is stated in the Presidency's conclusions to the report that, "The European Council calls on the Member States to ensure that their future national measures also respect those principles, and to take account of the possible effect of their decisions on the other Member States". Was it apparent at the Council meeting that other member states were somewhat dissatisfied with the Government's decision to guarantee all deposits and bank dealings before discussing the matter with the European Commission? Was there a backlash in respect of this decision, which was the correct one and which was well within the rules of the Commission? Did the Government discuss with the Commission any aspect of this matter before it made the decision to which I refer or did it contact the latter when the decision had been made?

Deputy Kenny referred to energy security. The Council dealt with the matters of energy and climate change which are supposed to be dealt with before the end of the year. It also agreed to speed up the work relating to energy security. Energy efficiency and production are perhaps the most important economic issues with which the world will be obliged to deal. We have not given the necessary time to considering either issue. The cost of energy has been relatively low in recent decades. This has impinged upon the desire to arrive at an energy policy. We have to look at every aspect of energy production. Ireland is a small country, which does not consume very much in the global scheme of things. Perhaps we should examine the possibility of Ireland becoming a hub for energy production.

The establishment of the reflection group on the future of Europe is an important development. When people vote on the Lisbon treaty and other EU matters, one of the problems is that they generally tend to feel like they are on a train and do not know where it is going. Some countries may have an idea of what the endgame will be. It is important that all member states know what the EU is actually aspiring to. Like all democracies and organisations, the EU has to evolve. The reflection group will serve a good purpose if it outlines where we are going. Are the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs disappointed that Ireland is not represented on the group?

As a member of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union, I have listened to representatives of many groups over recent weeks. The sub-committee was told that 152,000 people are directly employed and 300,000 people are indirectly employed as a result of foreign direct investment in this country. Such companies pay €16 billion directly to the Exchequer. In that context, it beggars belief that we voted "No" in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. It is a reflection on us all. It is something we have to address. It is good to hear the implications of our "No" vote being articulated. One of the weaknesses we had during the referendum campaign was that the public felt a "No" vote would have no implications, but that is not the case.

I thank the Taoiseach, the Minister, Deputy Martin, and the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, for coming to the House to discuss the recent important meeting of the European Council. I echo Deputy Timmins's point that it would be constructive to discuss matters which are due to arise at Council meetings in advance of such meetings. The Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union have discussed the need for more plenary debate in the Chamber. I hope the Taoiseach and his colleagues will take that on board.

I would like to raise a few issues which arise from the Taoiseach's report on the Council meeting. I have attended a few meetings in Brussels since the meeting in question. It seems to me that a clear view has developed at EU level that some kind of referendum will take place in Ireland before June 2009 to facilitate the European elections. Rightly or wrongly, that impression is filtering down from Brussels to the heads of Government and the member states. I do not suggest the Irish Government has put that idea forward, but it has not expressed disagreement with it. I would like some clarity on the matter. There is a sense that the European elections must be run under the terms of the Lisbon treaty. I do not feel we should be put under that kind of pressure, as it would not be productive or constructive.

I would be interested to hear more about the EU proposal to develop a kind of rapid response unit to deal with the economic and financial crisis. It is extraordinary that the heads of Government of the eurozone countries recently met for the first time ever, as that should be a common occurrence. It is extremely important that we provide for co-ordination between those member states which comprise the eurozone. If such a structure were in place, the other member states would inevitably follow the eurozone states as a matter of necessity. I would like that to be placed on a firmer footing. Perhaps the Taoiseach will comment on that.

It became clear, not just during the financial crisis but also during the Georgian crisis, that having a high-profile President of the European Council is a hugely valuable asset for the European Union. It is important for the Union to have such constant representation for longer than six months at a time. The EU is fortunate to have a man with the personality of President Sarkozy, who is the head of a large member state, in charge. That was an asset during the course of the financial crisis. It is important for the Government to keep the need for a more permanent President of the European Council on the agenda, by means of the Lisbon treaty or otherwise. That would benefit all member states in the long term.

I would like to speak about the EU energy and climate change package. Does the Taoiseach believe that Ireland has received a positive response from other EU member states in this regard? This is one of the areas in respect of which I have concerns. Ireland has certainly lost some goodwill at EU level as a result of the "No" vote earlier this year. There is no question about that. As I said to the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, at last Wednesday's meeting of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union, I do not believe the Government has been sufficiently forthright in transmitting to the public the negative implications of the "No" vote for Ireland's credibility at European level. Does the Taoiseach feel that when the climate change package is being agreed, Ireland will not get the type of deal we might have hoped for if there had been a "Yes" vote in the referendum earlier this year? Will the result of the referendum damage us in that respect?

I would like to conclude by speaking about an issue that was raised at the sub-committee last week. Deputy Timmins alluded to the establishment of the reflection group. I understand that Ireland nominated a high-calibre, top-quality individual for membership of the group, but we did not manage to get him on to the group. Is the Taoiseach disappointed with that? Does he think the rejection of the nomination results from the "No" vote? If we had secured a "Yes" vote in June, is it possible the outcome of that process would have been different? Perhaps there would be an Irish voice at the reflection group.

I would like to share time with Deputy Costello.

The meeting of the European Council on 15 and 16 October last considered the great challenges facing the European Union's leadership. The intended focus of the meeting, the Union's energy and climate change programme, was superseded by the crisis in the international financial system. One of the notable aspects of the current crisis has been the leadership displayed by the EU, the European Central Bank and the European Presidency. They have taken decisive action to try to stabilise the European and global economies. The creation of a financial crisis cell should enable swift action to be taken to deal with any future crisis faced by a member state. It is another example of the importance of clear lines of communication and decision-making within the EU. I join Deputy Kenny in commending the leadership of the French Presidency during a time of unprecedented turmoil in the global markets and great uncertainty across the banking system. President Sarkozy took decisive action to ensure solidarity among European leaders in the face of the banking crisis. It is significant that he co-ordinated the eurozone countries on 12 October to support the banking sector.

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs should note the various recommendations of the European Council. The Council has emphasised the need for reciprocity between the banking sector and the member states guaranteeing it. The Council considers that measures to support financial institutions in difficulty should accompany measures to protect taxpayers, in the interests of securing accountability on the part of executives and shareholders. That recommendation contrasts with the blanket guarantee that was hastily given by the Irish Government to the Irish banks. That guarantee contains precious little to protect taxpayers or secure such accountability. Irish taxpayers are carrying the risk for €500 billion, at a relatively small cost to the banks.

The Council has emphasised the need for bank executives' bonuses to reflect their contribution to the long-term success of the company and the need to control excessive risk-taking. In Britain, several chief executives of banks bailed out by the Government there have been required to step down. Gordon Brown has made it clear that the days of excessive bonuses in the banking sector are over. In France, President Sarkozy has told businesses to rein in chief executive pay and unwarranted golden parachutes. By contrast, the Government here has repeatedly refused the Labour Party's request that chief executive salaries in the guaranteed banks be capped and that the people who have exposed the banking sector here to serious risk be held accountable for their actions. Member states are required to report to the Council, by the end of the year, the decisions they have taken to link executive pay to the real performance of a company and curb risky behaviour by banking executives. I am interested to hear what the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance will tell their European colleagues in December. The Council has pointed out that the maintenance of confidence in the financial and banking system requires rigorous implementation by financial institutions of recommendations on the transparency of their commitments and risks. Can the Taoiseach explain to the House, in transparent terms, exactly where the Irish banks have committed themselves and how much risk they are carrying? Indeed, the Taoiseach might take this opportunity to clarify an issue that was raised earlier by Deputy Rabbitte.

He was incorrect.

It appears that AIB and the Bank of Ireland are saying they will not collectively take the burden for the rest of the banking system.

That is not what they are saying. A journalist in the Financial Times said it.

I am only asking. There will be a question and answer session and the Taoiseach will have the opportunity to clarify the matter.

It is inaccurate.

I am very glad to hear it.

This is the third time I have said it.

I welcome the European Council's approach to the banking crisis. With its emphasis on the protection of taxpayers, transparency in the banking system, a system of executive pay in the financial sector that encourages responsibility and co-ordination between EU member states so as not to risk "beggaring thy neighbour", it provides a model which the Government would do well to emulate.

It is important to note that climate change is also evidence of the times in which we live and may prove even more unpredictable and catastrophic than the financial crisis. Hence, I welcome the European Council's renewed determination to honour its ambitious commitments on climate and energy policy. However, given that Ireland still has one of the highest carbon emissions per capita in Europe, the targets the European Union has set for Ireland may yet prove to be the most ambitious commitment of them all. Ireland’s emissions declined by 500,000 tonnes in 2007. Unfortunately, if we are to meet our obligations under the European Union’s energy and climate policy, we will need to take a further 18 million tonnes of carbon out of the economy in the next 12 years. Given the urgency with which we need to substantially reduce our carbon emissions and the difficulty in doing so, I again ask the Taoiseach to explain to the Dáil what he will propose to the European Council in December when it meets to decide on the implementation in each member state of the climate change policy package.

Given the conclusions of this European Council, the forthcoming Council meeting will be a busy one for the Taoiseach and the Government. In some newspapers I saw reports that his colleagues on the European Council had "ordered" the Taoiseach to return in December with a solution to the Lisbon treaty dilemma. The Taoiseach would agree with me that such headlines, whether accurate, are not helpful. As I have reiterated on a number of occasions, the rejection of the Lisbon treaty is not just an Irish problem, but also a European one. A number of questions must be worked out before a resolution can be reached and the imposition of arbitrary deadlines does not mean we will find the answers any faster. In the light of the global economic climate, the future of the European Union, its effectiveness and its capacity to respond to changing times assume a new urgency. However, given the seriousness of the issue in hand — Ireland's future in the European Union — the Taoiseach should ensure Ireland is not forced into any premature ultimatum.

I note also that the European Council has adopted the European pact on immigration and asylum. Migration is a global phenomenon, one that requires co-operation between both host nations and countries of origin. The Labour Party favours fair immigration and integration policies that maximise the benefits of migration for both the host country and migrants. However, it is imperative that a balance be struck between the need to manage migration in and out of the European Union and respect for human rights, human dignity and the rights of refugees. Given the sensitive nature of this balance, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should outline to the Dáil as soon as possible exactly what measures set out in the pact on immigration and asylum will need to be "implemented immediately at both EU and national level," as is recorded in the conclusions to the European Council.

The subjects dealt with by the recent European Council meeting — global financial crisis, climate change and energy security and migration — are more than a snapshot of our time. They are critical challenges and will continue to be so in the future. It is imperative that the impasse arising from Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon treaty does not distract us in Europe from the urgency of these challenges which can be dealt with only at a European level. European leadership has never been more important. I hope the Government in these testing times will ensure Irish leadership is not found wanting.

I thank Deputy Gilmore for sharing his time. It is good to see the Taoiseach here in the Dáil for this debate on the European Council. We all consider there should be more debates like this in the main Chamber in plenary session. That is one of the recommendations that will come from the sub-committee. I can give the Taoiseach a preview, although it is not official.

I will get in early for a seat.

It will be a case of, "Do you come here often?"

It was understandable in the circumstances that the main item on the agenda was the financial turmoil at the time. There was sustained support for the concerted position taken by the member states, particularly in the eurozone and the United Kingdom coming together. At the same time they were very critical of how the financial institutions operated, their remuneration, regulation, incentives and so on. The establishment of the financial crisis cell was a particularly valuable result of the Council meeting. It is amazing that having established the eurozone through monetary union, nobody thought of having a mechanism in place to bring people together on a rapid reaction basis when there was a financial crisis. The financial crisis cell will bring representatives of the incumbent EU President, the President of the European Commission, the president of the ECB, the central banks of member states, the president of the Eurogroup and the governments of member states, not just eurozone states. It is a very valuable and important initiative from the European Council. It can be activated by any member when there is a financial crisis in that country or in a broader context. That is the most important element.

My interpretation of the Heads of Government of EU member states at the summit was that they were somewhat disappointed with the Irish Government's attitude. They were more supportive of the Labour Party's view on the financial guarantee than the Government's position. The Government was somewhat out of kilter with the thinking of the European Union. They would have much preferred if the Government had injected some liquidity rather than giving an open-ended guarantee.

The taxpayers might not have liked it.

Is that the Labour Party's position?

The Taoiseach knows the Labour Party position.

We have articulated the Labour Party position strongly. The European Union position was that all member states should come together and that the issue was one of liquidity rather than providing guarantees for the various financial institutions. While we have gone down the road of doing this, President Sarkozy believed we had been successful in doing so and taken all of the liquidity out of the City of London.

Does Deputy Costello believe that for one moment?

I would like to know what the discussions were on this matter.

The Taoiseach will get his chance. We ask the questions; he will answer them.

We have to stand up for ourselves once in a while.

The decision taken was that each member state would ensure a mechanism was found to inject liquidity into their financial institutions. Has any mechanism been found to do this or is there any intention of doing so?

I am glad the Taoiseach is here.

I can listen to the contributions but cannot stay for the questions and answers.

It is safer in here.

We will stay.

President Sarkozy mentioned the Deputy's e-mail.

This is not a question but it is the most serious item I could raise here today. At yesterday's meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs we had the Departments of the Taoiseach, Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment represented. They came to brief us on the submission being made by the Government by the end of this month, not on the Lisbon treaty but on the Lisbon Agenda on growth and employment. It was a work of fiction. It did not reflect anything that is happening. It must have been written 12 months ago. It will be very serious if that 77 or 78 page report which has to go to the European Union to give a picture of where we stand for the years 2008 to 2010 is submitted, unless it is significantly amended.

The document gives the impression that everything is rosy in the garden in Ireland. It was written before the budget and the recent major financial turmoil. There are only one or two paragraphs in it that relate to the budget.

At the European Council a major decision was made to inject €30 billion into small and medium enterprises to kick start employment and growth in EU member states. That fact is not referred to at all in the major submission that has been drafted and which will be sent to the European Union. If we are going to generate employment, surely we should be examining mechanisms to draw down some of the very substantial amount of money that is now available, particularly in the context of the current credit crunch. The Taoiseach should read the submission before it is sent to see if he is happy with it.

Almost everything that needs to be said has been said about the Lisbon treaty. The Taoiseach did not get as hard a time on the issue as many of us had expected he would. The treaty will be centre stage again in December. I wish to warn the Taoiseach that the sub-committee that has been established is charged with examining the challenges facing Ireland and Ireland's future in the European Union; it is not a sub-committee to determine the way forward for Ireland, post-Lisbon, or how we find a solution for the Lisbon treaty, which is a much more difficult matter. I urge the Taoiseach not to expect that all of the solutions will come from the sub-committee. He will have to devise his own roadmap for the way forward in December, at which time the pressure will definitely be on him. It is very difficult to see what progress can be made prior to the local and European elections next summer and how the situation can be addressed, not to mention putting concrete proposals on the table in December. I hope that plan A is not the sub-committee but that other activities are being engaged in by the Taoiseach and others.

The issues of energy and climate change have been stressed. These are two of the most serious issues to which we have no answer at present. Each member state seems to be engaged in an individual response to the problems of energy supply. The Germans, for example, are doing one thing with a pipeline, while the Balkan States are doing another. The only way we can effectively deal with the question of security of energy supply is through a co-ordinated, concerted approach at EU level. An EU-Russian summit is scheduled for 14 November to discuss Georgia. At issue is not just the conflict in Georgia, but the fact that gas pipelines traverse that country. Perhaps that summit could be expanded because the one thing the European Union has not been doing is presenting a united front with regard to energy supply and security. In fact, it has become even looser since the Georgian conflict erupted. I ask that something be done in this regard at EU level.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis seo labhairt ar roinnt de na gnéithe a phléadh ag cruinniú Comhairle na hEorpa sa Bhruiséil níos luaithe sa mhí seo. Ba mhaith liom déileáil leis an ráiteas a thug an Taoiseach inniu. Is trua go bhfuil sé tar éis an Teach a fhágaint gan éisteacht liom. Ní éisteann sé liom riamh — b'fhéidir go bhfuil sé sin an fáth nach dtuigeann sé go díreach an pointe a dhéan muintir na hÉireann sa reifreann. Labhair an Taoiseach mar gheall ar dhearcadh na hÉireann tar éis do phobal na hÉireann chonradh Liospóin a dhiúltiú sa reifreann níos luaithe i mbliana. Ba é an príomh-ábhar a phléadh ag an gcruinniú ná an cruachás eacnamaíochta agus airgeadais domhanda atá againn faoi láthair. Ba cheart don tAontas Eorpach bheith dáiríre i dtaca leis na margaí airgeadais agus iad a riaradh i gceart. In ainneoin gur léir do chách nach féidir leis an gComhaontú Cobhsaíochta agus Fáis an scéal mar atá sé faoi láthair a chur i bhfeidhm, tá Comhairle na hEorpa fós ag úsáid an "mantra" céanna — gur cheart do bheartas buiséadach an Rialtais fanacht lastigh den leibhéal atá leagtha amach faoin gComhaontú Cobhsaíochta agus Fáis, agus é leasaithe. Is léir, ón gcruachás atá ann faoi láthair, nach noibríonn an cur chuige sin. Ní oibríonn an chóras "one size fits all" nuair atá éigeandáil nó cruachás i gceist. Sa chás seo, ba cheart don tAontas an Comhaontú Cobhsaíochta agus Fáis a chur ar leataobh. Ba chóir don tAontas spás a thabhairt do bhaill an Rialtas déileáil leis an gcruachás mar is féidir leo, ina mbealaí fhéin agus lena stíl fhéin.

Tá roinnt den mbunaíocht Éireannach agus Eorpach tar éis an argóint a dhéanamh go léiríonn an gcruachás eacnamaíochta an gá atá ann Conradh Liospóin a fhaomhadh. Is a mhalairt de chás atá ann. Chruthaigh na bancanna, na stocmhargaí agus an chóras airgeadais an phraiseach atá ann faoi láthair. Léiríonn an éigeandáil a bheidh ann ar feadh tamaill eile teip glan polasaithe, an mhargadh saor — na polasaithe ceanann céanna a luíonn i gcroílár an Aontas Eorpaigh. Dár ndóigh, rinne Conradh Liospóin iarracht na polasaithe céanna a bhuanú.

The recent economic and financial crisis should give all EU members pause for thought and should spark a Europe-wide debate on the treaty response required to protect citizens and to call a halt to deregulation and market liberalisation policies, which have caused enormous problems throughout the EU. Indeed, such policies were central to the defeat of the Lisbon treaty, not just in Ireland, but also in France and Denmark, when it was put to the people in those countries as the EU constitution.

I was interested to read the Taoiseach's comments on the post-referendum situation in Ireland, particularly when he said to his EU peers that "Finding an acceptable resolution to our Lisbon dilemma is a task which my Government is clearly focused on". To whom will the resolution be acceptable? I ask because the Government's behaviour up to now suggests it wants a resolution that is acceptable to EU leaders but not to the Irish people. Why is it that we must find a solution? The solution lies with our EU partners accepting the legitimacy of the Irish decision and going back to the drawing board.

Where is the Taoiseach's backbone? He should stand up for the Irish people and stop crawling around like Gollum. Gollum is character in The Lord of the Rings, who slavishly follows his masters. He has two sides or a split personality. One of the sides slavishly ——

Deputy Ó Snodaigh's party would recognise that themselves.

I am looking at a slavish personality on the other side of the House.

Gollum slavishly follows his leaders, is at their beck and call, does as they wish and fulfils the tasks set for him by his masters. The other side of his character is quite humane, capable of listening to people and has love and hope. It is a pity that better side is not reflected in the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Taoiseach. As they have often told us, the EU is based upon equal partnership. If that is true then they should not be slavishly crawling around after EU leaders. Gollum can be rejected as a personality for the Taoiseach and the Minister. To do so, they must have the balls to stand up for the Irish people. They must show backbone. In the past seven months Sinn Féin has consistently argued that the Government and EU leaders must respect the Irish "No" vote and set out how they intend to deal with Irish concerns about a new treaty. Once again the Minister, Deputy Martin, ignored the result of that vote and bowed to EU bureaucrats and the arrogance of many EU leaders who believe they can bully the people into submission. I realise the Minister, Deputy Martin, understands Irish history and that the Taoiseach shares an interest in it. Will you give these people a lesson in Irish history? The more someone tries to bully, threaten, harass or repress us the more likely we are to resist. If the Minister conveyed that message he would not be obliged slavishly to follow them or be at their beck and call. He could make the case that the Irish viewpoint is the correct one, as we are equal partners.

We have led the way with the required new treaty. We published and distributed a detailed proposal, in various languages, setting out the way with which we believe these issues can be dealt. I can provide copies to the Ministers present in case they do not have one. We did this to try to be constructive and focus the attention of EU leaders and the Government on a new treaty. Unfortunately Fianna Fáil and the Green Party have shown little appetite for addressing the concerns of the people to date. Instead, they are slowly but surely attempting to prepare the ground for a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Shame on the Government. The Minister and his party have the gall to lecture others about respecting democracy at home and abroad. In particular, shame on the Green Party which correctly harangued Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in Government in the past when they decided to put the Nice treaty forward in a second referendum. Where is that backbone now? It is definitely lost among the Green Party Deputies and Ministers.

The preparation for a second Lisbon treaty referendum is obvious through the public comments of Ministers. Their failure to bring forward any real proposals to address Irish concerns is evident through their actions at the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union, which was established in the House in recent weeks. Sinn Féin has worked constructively with the committee, but we have voiced our concerns repeatedly at the work-plan of the committee, the lack of balance among the invited speakers and the complete failure to engage with the public, which was the stated rationale behind the committee when it was established.

Instead, we have seen efforts to frame a bogus debate on Ireland's membership of the EU for several weeks. Not only does this miss the point as all parties believe Ireland's place is at the heart of Europe, but it is dangerous. It sends out mixed messages about Ireland's membership of the EU at a time of economic uncertainty which is deeply reckless. There is no threat to Ireland's membership of the EU. Let me repeat, and perhaps the Minister, Deputy Martin, can repeat when he is summing up, that Ireland's membership of the EU is not under threat by the "No" vote in the Lisbon treaty.

In the past week there was a worrying announcement by Fianna Fáil Deputy Seán Ardagh that the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution will attempt to reverse or bypass the Coughlan judgment from 2000, which ensured there must be a balanced debate in the broadcast media during a referendum campaign. Having lost the argument during a fair referendum Fianna Fáil and the Green Party are now trying to manipulate their way through a second referendum. The people will not tolerate such underhand tactics. Sinn Féin will defend the democratic right to a fair referendum, confirmed by the Coughlan judgment.

The Taoiseach has stated it is his aim to identify by December the necessary steps which need to be taken next year. The necessary steps remain obvious to me. The Lisbon treaty has been rejected by the people of the State and, therefore, cannot be ratified. This message should be sent loud and clear to EU leaders and this could still happen. However, I do not believe the people across from me in the House have the backbone to do this, which is a pity.

Instead of trying to find a loophole, the Taoiseach should insist the Lisbon treaty is set aside and a new treaty re-negotiated, hopefully along the lines of our proposal. We do not have the be all and end all for the treaty, but it must be negotiated to protect Ireland's interests. These interests were reflected in the debate during the Lisbon treaty campaign and in the people's decision to reject the treaty. They seek a better deal for Ireland and Europe. I do not believe there is an appetite among EU leaders for a new treaty, nor do I believe is there such an appetite on the Government benches. That is just hard luck. I remember as a child, when dinner was served one had to eat it. In this case the dinner is served, the treaty has been rejected and now the Government must re-negotiate and produce a better deal and a better dinner. In the past six months the Government has ignored the wishes of the people at its own peril. It is clear what needs to be done. The Government must listen to what the people have said and must be constructive. Sinn Féin published its document in July. I have not seen anyone else publish such a comprehensive document detailing how we can progress to a new treaty which reflects and protects the interests of Ireland in the EU in future.

Mar atá ráite agam, tá sé soiléir cad is gá a dhéanamh. Ba cheart don Taoiseach, go háirithe, seasamh suas ar son muintir na hÉireann agus toil an phobail a chosaint. Ba chóir dó léiriú le Airí, Príomh-Airí agus Taoisigh tíortha eile na hEorpa nach bhfuilimid sásta glacadh le conradh Liospóin. Tá conradh nua de dhíth orainn agus de dhíth ar an tAontas ina iomlán. Tá súil agam go dtuigeann an Rialtas é sin, go bhfuil sé soiléir. Go dtí seo, is cosúil nach dtuigeann an Rialtas cad go díreach a tharla nuair a vótáil pobal na hÉireann i gcoinne an chonartha. Tá deis ag an Rialtas, ag an gcéad chruinniú eile de Chomhairle na hEorpa i mí na Nollag, léiriú dos na gcomhaltaí eile nach bhfuil pobal na hÉireann sásta leis an bplean a chuireadh os ár gcomhair i gConradh Liospóin. Táimid ag lorg bealach eile. Ba cheart dúinn déanamh cinnte de go bhfuil flaitheas na hÉireann cosanta, go bhfuil neodracht na hÉireann cosanta agus go bhfuil cearta oibrithe na hÉireann, agus na hEorpa ar fad, cosanta. Ní chóir go dtiocfadh íslú ar na cearta sin, mar a bhí léirithe sa chonradh úd.

The Minister will now take questions for 20 minutes.

I refer to discussion on the banking and financial crisis. Will the Minister, Deputy Martin, elaborate on the financial crisis cell established and what is required on the part of each member state? Will there be a formal structure and secretariat? Do I understand correctly that it can be activated by each member state as they see fit, depending on the emergence of a domestic financial crisis or a financial crisis throughout the European Union? Earlier I raised the matter of the Lisbon Agenda and I meant what I said. The Minister should revisit that substantial document produced by the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Finance and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on the Lisbon Agenda and correct it before we become the laughing stock of Europe. It is so outdated that it is pretty much meaningless. It is a 77 or 78 page document which must be transmitted to the European Union by the end of this month and it represents Ireland's analysis of the situation. Each member state must present such an analysis and its plans for the next two years.

Will the Minister comment on immigration and asylum? We should all welcome the idea that there be a common European approach to dealing with the matter, but there are many hazards and pitfalls. Every country has a different asylum system. We have a system of direct provision which has been strongly criticised by human rights organisations. The payment for children and adults has not changed since the system came into existence. Approximately 7,000 people are in the system, a large number considering that the number of asylum seekers has been decreasing every year. A very large percentage have been in the system for three years or more. We must put our house in order in that respect. We have withdrawn funding from various education and integration projects in the budget. I would like the Minister to comment on the immigration and asylum programme that is to be implemented and which will have to be transposed into law before 2010.

I thought that Pat Cox was on the list for the reflection group. The least I had expected was that the Government would put forward some name for it. If we are to have a high powered group looking at where the European Union is going, it is a shame the name of no Irish person has been forward by the Government. Perhaps the Minister might explain why that has not happened.

The Council agreed that a financial crisis cell would be established, which would provide an early warning and information exchange mechanism for EU member states to relay information to the President of the Commission, the European Central Bank and the euro group of countries. The details and procedures for the cell are to be finalised by ECOFIN. It is desired by all member states in order that there will be co-ordination, an early warning and a provision of information on any initiatives undertaken, either at member state or EU level.

The Deputy's points do not actually pertain to the document on our implementation of the Lisbon Agenda. One is free to take a subjective view of the material presented by the Government in its submission to the European Union on our adherence to the principles of the Lisbon Agenda. History shows that of all the member states, we have been the most energetic in pursuing the Lisbon Agenda, especially when it comes to economic development. In the last 12 months there has been a significant downturn in the economy, as well as a global financial crisis, all of which is impacting on economic performance this year and will do so next year and possibly the year after that, but that does not invalidate the fundamental tenets outlined in the document.

The migration pact is a political statement on the principles that should underpin the approach of EU member states to immigration and asylum measures. It does not have a direct legislative implication for Ireland or other member states, but it is a very useful statement of principle which will inform the approach of the European Union in dealing with migration and asylum issues. There are three elements to it, namely, the management of legal migration, the fight against irregular and illegal migration, and the recognition of the connection between migration and development, especially for non-EU countries that are countries of origin of migrants. The pact strikes a balance between the rights of migrants and asylum seekers and the need to strengthen policies to combat illegal migration. It was an initiative of the French Presidency which was determined to get it through. It is a welcome measure——

Does it provide guidelines?

It is a statement of principles.

With regard to Pat Cox, there are 27 member states and the reflection group is composed of 12 of them. The majority of member states do not have a member of the group. Pat Cox's name was suggested about ten months ago, but it seems that the former Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzales, who is chairing the group, went more for academics and former administrators. There are not too many former politicians in the group.

Will the Minister outline the terms of reference of the reflection group and when it will report? Does it actually have terms of reference? In the last few weeks at the sub-committee I have heard about the implications of the "No" vote from people involved in the private sector, people like Catherine Day. The representatives of the IDA and Enterprise Ireland said there had been no immediate impact, but that there would be somewhere along the line. There is concern about the uncertainty, especially regarding foreign direct investment. Will the Minister outline the implications? Has the "No" vote impacted in any tangible way on Ireland and its role in the European Union?

Is there an expectation among our European colleagues that there will be a second referendum in Ireland? Is there pressure to hold such a referendum? President Sarkozy has stated he will come here in early December. Will the Minister confirm if he is coming and what will be on the agenda?

My understanding of the financial crisis cell is that the Government requested a change to the policy on capitalising the banks, specifically a change in the wording from "will capitalise the banks" to "may capitalise the banks". Will the Minister enlighten me on this? Was there dissatisfaction expressed or intimated on the position Ireland took without consulting the European Union? Perhaps the Government actually consulted it. I referred to the report in which member states were requested to co-ordinate their responses. Was this a reference to Ireland's position?

Was any consideration given at the Council meeting to assisting Iceland? The European Union has slipped up in this case. We did not offer any assistance and the Icelandic Government had to go elsewhere. It was a missed opportunity.

The Council has established an independent reflection group to help the European Union to anticipate and meet the international challenges in the period 2020 to 2030. Basically, it is looking at the key issues and developments which the Union is likely to face, analysing those, strengthening and modernising the European model of economic success and social responsibility, enhancing the competitiveness of the EU, the rule of law and sustainable development as a fundamental objective of the EU, global stability, migration, energy, climate protection, the fight against global insecurity, international crime and terrorism. Particular attention will be given to better ways of reaching out to citizens and addressing their expectations and needs. That reverts to Deputy Timmins' point on communicating Europe and connecting with the citizen.

It shall not discuss institutional matters nor, in view of its long-term nature, will its analysis constitute a review of current policies or address the Union's financial framework. The Deputy asked for the terms of reference, areas and content and that is it, broadly speaking.

Does the Minister have any idea when it will report?

I do not. That is obviously a matter for the group itself to deal with, in consultation with the Council. The Deputy asked about the impact of the Lisbon vote. On the economic front, as a former Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment I am well aware that one of the key marketing ploys of Ireland has been to present the country as an English-speaking member of the eurozone and a gateway to the European market. In the aftermath of the Lisbon vote, my officials were asked to intervene in one particular case to convince an American company that the decision to vote "No" against Lisbon did not mean we were pulling out of the EU. The point there is that people from further afield interpret things differently. They may read something into a vote on a specific treaty which is more than it entailed.

The Internal Market has been powerful for Irish-owned companies, particularly in the indigenous sector. The graphs explain the diversity in our export profile from when we started in the Union in 1973, when we were wholly dependent on the UK for our exports, to the current situation where we have a significant reach into all the main EU markets.

As regards the Deputy's point, my fear is that when it comes to negotiating key issues in the next two to three years, our negotiating strength will have weakened.

It certainly will.

That will not be said by anybody immediately but it is something that people will feel. From the financial perspective of agriculture and the health check on the Common Agricultural Policy, one always wants to negotiate from a position of strength, as a country that is at the heart of Europe. I have no doubt that, over time, that position and capacity to negotiate from strength will be weakened.

Significantly.

That is a significant consequence of our decision. We can argue about it and the Deputy may decide that he does not agree, but that is the reality to me. There are other issues as well, but I have responded to the question the Deputy posed.

As regards Deputy Creighton's point on the second referendum, we have not confirmed with anybody in terms of a decision that the Government has taken because we have not taken a decision. We have undertaken to bring clarity to the situation at the December Council and to provide direction for the period ahead after that Council. To date, we have undertaken an analysis of the underlying reasons why people voted "Yes" or "No". We commissioned that comprehensive research and published it. An Oireachtas sub-committee has been established to examine the broader issue of Ireland in the EU and the key issues in terms of our EU membership. That work will be finished by the end of November. The Government is undertaking its own internal examination of all the options, legal and so on.

It is clear, however, that there is no desire on the part of other member states to renegotiate. The presentation by Deputy Ó Snodaigh is overly simplistic. It is also misleading to the extent it suggests the potential exists to renegotiate the Lisbon treaty substantially; it simply does not. It takes 27 states to renegotiate, while 24 parliaments have now ratified the treaty. There is absolutely no desire to renegotiate it, but we are endeavouring to provide some resolution for this country. It is in this country's interests that we provide some roadmap forward. We are not acting in a slavish manner to other European leaders. We have worked in concert with the European leaders.

Contrary to what Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, our overall strategic objective is to act in the best interests of the Irish people. The Oireachtas and the public at large need to reflect on it and ask what is in the best interests of future generations. Is it in their interests to be on the margins of Europe in terms of influence and engagement? Or is in their best interests to be at the heart of the EU, progressing Europe's capacity to deal with major issues of the day, including the global financial crisis, conflict resolution — as we did in Georgia — and climate change?

We have been cautious as regards any expectations our colleagues in Europe may have. We have pointed out that our first objective is to respect the vote of the people, analyse it and decide how the country can move forward within the EU.

Conclusion No. 13 of the meeting in October stated:

The Council expresses its solidarity with the efforts made by Iceland, a country which is closely integrated into the EU single market through the EEA agreement, and which requires the support of the international community. It expects Iceland to honour its international commitments.

That was a reference to potential external international help that Iceland could receive and of which the EU would be supportive. A number of member states raised that matter towards the conclusion of the Council meeting.

Did we seek a change in the banking policy?

I will make two points on that matter which has been referred to by a number of people. First, the Commission is the body that decides on compliance with competition and state-aid law. I am grateful to Commissioner Neelie Kroes who worked with our Minister for Finance and the Government generally to confirm that we were in compliance with that. Every country makes inputs in terms of the fine tuning of language, but broadly speaking we are happy with the outcome because it provides the overall framework for what we have done. The countries took different options and approaches.

Why was there not a common approach? Where was Europe on the banking crisis?

The European Council and the euro group took a common position.

They had to be forced into it.

We did not have to force them into it at all. That is over the top.

They were not at the game.

By and large, the normal, routine conduct of monetary policy within the EU is the preserve of the central bank and finance ministers. President Sarkozy initiated an important meeting of the euro group——

When the thing had moved on.

——to deal with the global financial crisis, which is an exceptional and extraordinary situation. Up to then, the European Central Bank played a significant role in ensuring continuing liquidity for banks across Europe, and particularly for the Irish banks. Deputy Timmins mentioned Iceland and I respectfully suggest that we could have been in that space if it were not for the European Cental Bank and the role it played in assisting Ireland to overcome the challenges.

I appreciate that. Is President Sarkozy coming in December?

President Sarkozy has indicated that he is always available to come to Ireland.

Will he be Santa?

He enjoys robust debate at the best of times. I would say he would anticipate further robust debate even from existing candidates and maybe future candidates. In any event, he is available to come here but there has been no confirmation of when he may arrive again.

Top
Share