Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Jan 2014

Vol. 828 No. 3

European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2013 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I will pick up where I left off on Tuesday.

We are being presented with a fait accompli. As with much debate in the House, the train has left the station but we are only now being asked to discuss the fate of its passengers and its direction. The reduction in the number of MEPs from 12 to 11 is regrettable and damages democracy. Across the political spectrum, we often hear that Europe is remote from people, that people do not know who their MEPs are or that we need to bring democracy closer to people. A number of years ago, we used to have 16 MEPs and most people were able to rattle off the names of their regions' MEPs.

The Bill is a retrograde step. For example, I never suspected that I would wind up in the Ireland north constituency, since I live in the middle of County Laois. People on the Kilkenny border between Durrow and Johnstown and people in the village of Cullahill are now in the same constituency as the people of Inishowen, Achill Island and Connemara. It is a large constituency.

The two four-seaters will make it difficult for MEPs to represent people, but Dublin's constituency of three seats will make it difficult for independent and smaller parties' voices to be heard in the European Parliament.

For example, if Deputy Finian McGrath wanted to run to get one of those three seats, he would have great difficulty in trying to get over the line whereas the Minister's party would be able to drive a juggernaut through Dublin.

I would have to bring out a CD.

Not according to the poll ratings at the moment.

He would need to share Deputy Boyd Barrett's poll rating.

It is important that such voices be heard. The 31st Dáil is different from previous Dáileanna in that it has a number of colourful characters and various shades of political opinion. We need the same in Europe. With the reduction to three seats in Dublin, however, achieving that will be more difficult.

The European Parliament's role has been enhanced. It started with weak powers, but it is now side by side with the Commission. It is important that marginalised communities feel that their voices are represented in Europe. It used to be the view that the dominant lobby groups, for example, corporate Ireland and other sections of society, were well represented whereas people in marginalised communities received crumbs from Europe in the form of local development funds, etc. and had little say. This situation needs to be brought to light.

The reduction to 11 MEPs is a fait accompli, but we must oppose the Bill because of it. We must highlight the fact that marginalised communities and people who do not count themselves as being marginalised are not being represented. People all along the western seaboard could now be hundreds of miles from their MEPs. For example, if Mr. Pat The Cope Gallagher, MEP wins a seat, he will also represent my county. That will be difficult. The area is massive. It cannot be done. How the enlargement of Europe is being balanced must be reconsidered. Countries such as Ireland that are more sparsely populated need a greater number of MEPs per capita. It is not like the city of London with its 9 million people where identifying one's MEP is easy thanks to the local media. Ireland north and Ireland south could each have 30 local newspapers and eight, nine or ten radio stations. It will be difficult for the areas' representatives to keep in touch. It is also important that people see the relevance of Europe. Our party supports membership of the EU, although we obviously want a different type of Union. It is key that there be a connection between people and the European Parliament.

Sinn Féin is fielding candidates in each of the island's four constituencies. We are the only party on the island to do so. We will do our best to ensure a Sinn Féin voice in each European constituency come June.

Why does Sinn Féin not run a second candidate in Laois?

The next speaking slot is being shared by Deputies Finian McGrath and Boyd Barrett.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this legislation. Like all politicians, I love elections and enjoy the debate and the cut and thrust, except when it is my own election. I wish all the upcoming candidates well and commend them on their bravery. No matter what the cynics and armchair pundits say, campaigning is tough on the candidates, their heads, their families and their friends. This is an important point to make in the context of the Bill. When one wins, though, it is amazing.

We need young, vibrant candidates. One such person in the Clontarf ward of the local elections is the excellent Independent Councillor Damien O'Farrell. He is a man for the future and I urge people to support him.

Is the Deputy going to retire?

The campaign is on.

It is important we send strong voices to Europe to let people know the facts on issues such as youth unemployment and the banking debt. The latter is not our debt and we need a better deal that does not choke the economy, our people and the country's future.

The European elections are important, but I am disappointed with the Bill, which changes the constituencies following a reduction in the number of Ireland's MEPs from 12 to 11. The constituencies will be Dublin, South and Midlands-North-West. Currently, there are four constituencies, those being, Dublin, South, East and North-West. This is an attack on democracy and reduces the democratic will of the Irish people in Europe.

I mentioned Councillor O'Farrell, who will not be contesting the European elections, only the local elections in the Clontarf ward.

In Dublin, the population per MEP will be 424,356. In Midlands-North-West, the figure will be 409,276. In South, the figure will be 419,520. How in God's name can the people of Ireland be represented with numbers like these? God help the poor MEPs when they are elected. They will have their hands full.

The Bill is not acceptable. Germany has one seat for every 852,539 people. Malta has a seat for every 69,352 people. God help the German MEPs. How would the Minister manage to deal with the likes in Kilkenny? He believes he has a big constituency.

Ireland used to have an MEP for every 381,897 people. Now, it will only have an MEP for every 416,615 people. We must be careful not to reduce the level of democracy. If there is a disconnect between people and their parliamentarians, be they in the Dáil, Dublin City Council, like Councillor Damien O'Farrell, or the European Parliament, it will be a threat to society and democracy.

We need voices in Europe that will be heard and that will challenge the current movement towards a European Union superstate. People are very concerned about that. People want Europe, its peoples and its economies to work together, but they do not want to be forced through the back door into the creation of a European superstate. This morning I heard Angela Merkel making the point that she is getting a bit cheesed off with the rest of Europe because we are not moving faster towards integration. We need to watch this as well. We need voices out in Europe that will deal with the banking issue and the ECB issue. Many people will be concerned about the direction of the European Union. We all want a Europe based on democracy and inclusion, respecting different views and different cultures, but some people out there have this view that we are now bumping into one big superstate, dominated by the big players. That is not acceptable to the people of this country, but it is also not acceptable to the people of Europe. It is unacceptable to have 5.6 million people under the age of 20 unemployed. We have 60,000 young people in this State on youth unemployment, and that is not acceptable either.

The militarisation of the European Union worries me, as someone who serves on the defence committee in the Oireachtas, because we hear a lot of talk about battle groups. I have concerns about that. Ireland has a strong tradition in the United Nations of peacemaking and peacekeeping, and that is the tradition we should follow. That is why we are respected all over the world. I urge the Minister and the Government to be very careful about getting too involved in battle groups. People are also very concerned about some of the foreign policy issues as well. It is important to remember the great anti-war campaigner, Margaretta D'Arcy, who is locked up in Limerick Prison. This woman should be released. She is anti-war, she is a peace campaigner and she should be released now. This is all linked with the whole debate about the militarisation of the European Union, but also the militarisation of Shannon Airport. It was a previous policy of the Labour Party and its members, before they jumped into bed with Fine Gael, that we were going to stand up for people like Margaretta D'Arcy. Now they run away and hide and avoid the issue. I will not avoid the issue, and I will stand up for people like Margaretta D'Arcy and people who are fighting for international peace.

This Bill is closing down democracy. I want a country and a State that is built on democracy and that respects the rights of people. This Bill is reducing the number of seats, and that is why I will oppose it strongly.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard Durkan)

Thank you Deputy. I am glad you returned to the subject matter of the Bill at the end. I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.

There is an artistic vocation lost on the Deputy.

Deputy Creighton was looking for the Minister.

I will also be opposing this Bill, because it worsens what is already a crisis of legitimacy for the European Union. For a long time, there has been a growing disconnect between ordinary citizens in Europe, whether in this country or elsewhere, and the institutions of the European Union. It is what people call the democratic deficit. This Bill further widens and deepens that democratic deficit. It further exposes something those of us who opposed the various European treaties in recent years have long argued. Those like Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party which supported the various treaties - Lisbon, Nice, Maastricht - have all argued that what they and the European Union are trying to create is a democratic union, a union of solidarity, and the sort of union that is key to preventing the horrors that we witnessed in the 1930s and 1940s, with the Second World War. All the evidence is that it is the exact opposite. The sort of European Union that is developing is a recipe to repeat the horrors of the 1930s and the 1940s. When we look at the frightening growth of the far right, openly neo-Nazi parties around Europe, parading the streets and engaging in vicious racial violence and articulating the sort of obnoxious views that were articulated by the Nazis and the fascists of the 1930s and 1940s, which led to such disaster for the world, we would have to start to question seriously what is going on in the European Union. How has alienation with the European Union grown to such a point that it has become a major contributory factor in fuelling the obnoxious ideas of the far right and neo-fascist organisations across Europe? That is exactly what is happening.

It is terrifying. I have spoken to people in Greece about Golden Dawn, which is an openly fascist organisation. Its support is growing as a direct result of what the European Union has done to Greece. There is a feeling that ordinary citizens are absolutely ignored, dismissed and are simply fodder to be trampled upon by the troika. Even the name "troika" is suggestive of the undemocratic direction of the European Union. I think it is a Russian word which one would associate with autocratic, centralised regimes. The pretence and decoration of democracy that the European Parliament represents belies the actuality of the European Union, which is diktat from the European Central Bank and the European Commission and their pals in the IMF. It makes a mockery of democracy.

Some of us met with a delegation from the European Parliament last week. They came over here to examine the aftermath of the troika programme. Even they pointed out to us that it was ridiculous that they were only now getting a chance to look at the impact of the troika programme after it was all over, essentially asking us was it bad, did we have any input and if there was any real consultation with the citizens of this country over the so-called bailout. We all had to admit the truth, which was that there is no consultation. The citizens had no say whatsoever. It was imposed and inflicted on them by the ECB, the EU Commission and the IMF. It was a centralised diktat by institutions that are dancing to one tune and one tune only, and it certainly is not the democratic tune, the tune of ordinary citizens or voters in Europe. They were dancing to the tune of the financial markets, of the banks, of the financial elites and the European Central Bank which represent those interests. It really makes a mockery of democracy and against that background, to dilute further the influence of the citizens of this State and of other states across Europe just makes a bad situation worse. It is questionable, frankly, whether these elections mean anything against a background where we have the dictatorship of the troika. As much as the Government may trumpet the so-called exit from the programme, we all know that it is meaningless because the terms of the fiscal treaty mean that the ECB and the EU Commission will still dictate to countries across Europe, regardless of what citizens vote for or want.

Against that general background, it is wrong to further dilute the influence of ordinary citizens not only in this country, but throughout the European Union. I am not a little Irelander or parochial politician and I suspect most citizens of this country share my passionate belief in internationalism, international co-operation and solidarity with other citizens of Europe. That is not what this legislation is about, however. This Bill is an example of large states manoeuvring to concentrate their power and influence over the European Union. It is being done against a more general background of a dictatorship of unelected EU bodies, one which was considerably strengthened by the mandate given to the European Central Bank. The ECB's complete independence from any control by elected representatives makes it a thorough financial dictatorship. This is not an empty phrase but the precise position in respect of the European Central Bank.

The consequences of these developments have been disastrous and the political price being paid is a terrifying rise of the far right across Europe. It is not an exaggeration to describe the situation unfolding in Europe as a repeat of the 1930s, albeit in slow motion. The same movie is playing but at a slower pace. We have an economic crisis, a political centre that has become completely discredited, dangerous forces of the far right beginning to emerge on the margins and widespread disaffection and disillusionment with political institutions among ordinary citizens. This measure makes the position worse.

I oppose the Bill for the reasons I have outlined. While I suspect it is a forlorn hope, I ask the Government to consider the dangerous implications of what is taking place in Europe. Ordinary citizens have lost trust in the political institutions of the European Union. They were already sceptical about the European project, as it was constituted. The Minister should not misunderstand me in that respect. People draw a sharp distinction between the ideals of European solidarity and co-operation and the reality, which is nothing more than political manoeuvring by large powers and big multinational corporations and corporate interests that have essentially captured and taken hostage the institutions of the European Union to further their own interests at the expense of democracy and the economic and social interests of ordinary citizens, both in this country and elsewhere. I will oppose the Bill.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill. This legislation is only one element in a larger debate that we must have. One of the problems with debates about the European Union is that anybody who queries the current arrangements and their weaknesses or points to developments that may not be in the interests of Europe, Ireland or citizens is immediately labelled a eurosceptic.

Europe is much different from the United States where most people identify with America, mobility is much greater and easier and there are no language differences. People on the west coast, for example, who were born in the east do not feel they have left their home patch. If one examines the pattern of migration from this country, one finds that the largest number of migrants move to our nearest neighbour, with the majority of the remainder emigrating to Canada, Australia and, when it is open, the United States. The different character of Europe and America means the construction of Europe must be different from the construction of the federal state that makes up the United States. Similarly, Germany is a federal state in which the regional states or Länder enjoy significant powers and citizens share a common language and culture.

There will always be a debate about the power exercised by EU member states through the Council of Ministers versus the power of the European Parliament. I note the presence of Deputy Creighton who has experience of attending Council meetings. In my limited experience of taking part in Council meetings as the Minister of State with responsibility for rural development and, subsequently, the Minister for Social Protection, it was rare for Ministers to vote. Irrespective of whether they represented a large or small country, Ministers' views were generally taken on board and they were largely treated equally. While this is possible when 28 people are sitting around a table, it is difficult to envisage how 11 Members of the European Parliament - 14 in total from this island - who belong to four different groups will be able to influence decisions as powers transfer from the Council to the Parliament. We do not have a sufficient number of members to ensure Ireland is represented on all parliamentary committees. Many MEPs specialise in certain areas, for example, agriculture, consumer affairs or the environment, in a way that Members of the Oireachtas do not. By narrowing their interest base in the European Parliament, they seek to have an input and make an impression.

As the European Union grows, the issue of the balance between the Council of Ministers and Parliament will come to the fore. I have never been convinced that transferring powers from the former to the latter has been in the interests of European citizens because many member states have only a small number of representatives in Parliament. I understand a rule was introduced prescribing that the minimum number of MEPs for each member state will be six. This means very small states such as Malta have a high number of representatives in the European Parliament on a per capita basis. Other small states, including Ireland, should also have been allocated a bonus, as it were, in terms of numbers in Parliament. The most recent cut in the number of MEPs from 12 to 11 is a significant reduction. It is interesting that this issue was not discussed in the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Why did such a discussion not take place? When decisions were being taken on this matter last June, why did the Taoiseach not insist that countries of the size of Ireland retain greater weight in respect of MEP numbers?

The future of the European Union is based entirely on member states and their citizens believing that their voice and concerns will be heard. This will be difficult to achieve when their representation is being consistently reduced. During the first elections to the European Parliament political dialogue and discourse reflected a view that MEPs were important and influential. They were able to serve their constituencies in a reasonably thorough manner, were known individually by those whom they represented and were able to visit the various parts of their constituencies.

When we had a three-seat Connaught-Ulster constituency there was a feeling of attachment to and knowledge of MEPs that has not been so apparent in recent times. We are now to have three new constituencies, Dublin and what I define as Leath Cuinn and Leath Moga. Long before Ireland was divided into provinces it was divided by Leath Cuinn and Leath Moga, which is effectively, what is being done now again. It is funny how history repeats itself.

In terms of the divisions, it is hard to see how anybody, having spent five days in Brussels, could physically service the Cooley Peninsula to Belmullet and from South Kildare to Mizen Head or retain any reasonable contact with the people he or she represents. This is becoming a big issue and will become an even bigger issue into the future. In regard to the question of who is the queue for membership of the European Union, I understand there are many countries who want to join. With the Parliament now fixed in terms of membership, as the Union grows the number of seats will decrease. As such, this is not necessarily the final cut in seat numbers.

The balance of power issue within the European Union needs to be debated, without slogans and bricks being thrown at people who question issues in regard to Europe. I believe that if we had been more questioning, not about the concept of international co-operation which nobody can argue with, but about the construction of various elements of change in the European Union we might have saved ourselves many problems. When people ask me about the origins of the collapse in the economy, I point to the decision to enter the euro, which had unanimous support across the political spectrum in this country. Nobody thought about what would happen if the centre was in recession, the periphery was in growth, cheap money was available and all barriers to the movement of money were removed resulting in it being available at low interest rates. Truth be told what happened was akin to a child being given a giant tub of ice-cream and left alone. As everybody knows the child would eat too much and get a tummy ache. There is nothing wrong with ice cream or the fair movement of money. However, success without control and a lack of consideration of what might happen results in the types of issues that have arisen, which Europe with its banking union, etc., is now trying to resolve. Europe will not admit the mistake, it will only seek to resolve it. The next time change is proposed we need to look at the unintended consequences more carefully.

I am a big fan of Europe. What I love about it is its variety. However, I am no fan of the European Union because I believe it is setting about crushing what is different throughout Europe and trying to create one bland flavour that at the end of the day is good for nobody.

When Ireland joined the European Community it was a community. A community is supposed to care for people in the good and bad times. However, when things went bad for us in terms of the banking crisis the European Union did not take care of us, rather it saddled us with €70 billion worth of debt. That is not something a community does to people it respects. I know many people who in 1973, at which time I was only a year old, campaigned for Ireland to join the European Community and would now campaign at the drop of a hat for it to leave the EU.

The fact that the number of Irish MEPs is being reduced from 12 to 11 makes this situation even worse. It means that we will now have even less influence. Every time something done in the European Union requires to be transposed into Irish law the Irish Government tries to impose it on us by saying it is being forced by Europe to do it. It is then a little baffled when it comes to a referendum as to the reason people are not fans of Europe. One of the reasons for this is successive governments, rather than introducing policies that will protect our water, environment and so on, telling the people they are being forced to do certain things with the result that the people never get a chance to consider whether what is being proposed is a good idea or not. All they are told is that it is a diktat.

Listening to some people one would think we would be living in caves if we had not joined the European Community in 1973. What these people point to in support of their argument is the equipment being used on farms at that time and how we have progressed. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland did not join this Frankenstein creation and they have progressed well since 1973. They also have not been saddled with €70 billion worth of banking debt. The European Union in imposing this cut on the people of Ireland and in socialising bank debt around parts of Europe has created the very problem it was supposed to prevent, namely, the rise of the extreme right. It is a simple fact that if one puts two friendly rats into a cage and does not feed them they will eventually try to eat each other. The EU is creating the conditions whereby people are turning on each other. People are becoming desperate because the money that should be in their pockets is now in the hands of the elite. We will see a rise of the right, about which I have heard the Minister, Deputy Shatter, express concern. If he is so concerned why then does he not do something about it? People are rightly sick and tired of socialism for the rich.

We only get one view on Europe in this country. Last year, Deputy Creighton led a European propaganda campaign which was funded by the taxpayer and which involved her travelling around the country explaining to everybody how wonderful Europe is. However, there was no funding for anybody to travel around the country explaining the downsides of Europe, such as the loss of our sugar beet industry, the losses of turf cutters and the loss of our sovereignty. In a couple of years Ireland will celebrate the centenary of 1916. What is the point in celebrating the fact that almost 100 years ago we got our sovereignty only to give it away again? It is crazy.

If the Irish people had the opportunity to debate this issue - these issues are never properly debated - they would come to the conclusion that Europe must go into reverse gear. When we entered into the Act of Union with Britain in 1801, Lord Byron was quoted as saying that there is only union of a small country and a big country, that is the union between a boa constrictor and its prey.

I am one of many people in this country who might be described as eurosceptic, who loves Europe but who does not like the project that is going on now. It is time we started debating that. If we want to get sovereignty back in this country, the first thing we must do is get sovereignty of the mind or the sovereignty to think for ourselves. We should consider the fact that this country can feed ten times its population. The country has many assets, such as young educated people - those who are left. Why have we the hands out with the begging bowl when we have all these assets? The reason is because our experiment as a province of this massive country has failed. We need to think again.

At the moment as far as I can see from the candidates who have their names put forward in the European elections, almost everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet. They are terrified that we would not be able to stand on our own two feet. As I have said, we can feed ten times our population. Still, we do not seem to have anyone going forward in these elections who is willing to stand up and argue that there is a better way for Europe and for the ordinary people. That better way is to think again about Europe, to reverse gear and to do so quickly.

One of the most important things we have in this Republic is the opportunity to vote and participate in elections. The Minister has announced that the date for the European and local elections will be 23 May. One difficulty we have in Ireland is with the disconnect between the electoral system and the population and the fact that many people do not believe politics is working for them. One point I have made previously several times relates to the crucial responsibility we have in this House to re-engage with the populace and ordinary people and ensure people recognise the connectivity between their vote and the influence politics can have over their lives. Unfortunately, what happens generally in political systems is that those who have power are those who are richer and who utilise their vote more often. The political establishment, political system or the body politic tends to move around these circles.

I have done some research on the matter and spoken to people who are politically involved in Australia. What is interesting about the political system in Australia is they have had compulsory voting for a long time. The interesting thing about electioneering in Australia is that campaigning happens in the poorest of areas and the richest of areas, it happens with the youngest people and the oldest people. Politics does not generate itself around middle class people who are middle aged, simply because they seem to have all the voting power. It goes everywhere, everyone feels empowered by it, everyone connects with it and everyone feels as if the politician or the political class will listen to what they have to say. We do not have that in Ireland.

What we will have in four months' time is an election in which the majority of people will not participate. Average voting rates in general elections are higher, but in European and local elections the rate is rather low. Why is that? It is because people take the view either that politics is not working for them or they have no connectivity with what the European Union does for them. They do not necessarily have connectivity with what the local council does for them either. What we have now is an opportunity, perhaps, given that we are in such turmoil politically, socially and economically, with this election to highlight to the people the importance and power of their participation. Those who know the power of their vote use it and tend to have more power and those who do not know or do not appreciate the importance of the franchise tend to lose out. I know this from the areas I represent and where I have worked extensively over the years. Certain people lose out because they do not vote in the same numbers. If people do not vote in the same numbers, politicians realise it and they know it is worthwhile to spend more time in an area where people vote rather than an area where people do not, or they will spend more time with a group of people who vote rather than a group of people who do not. I have in mind members of the Traveller community and immigrants. Such groups are often easy prey for politicians to criticise because they do not have the same voting power bloc others may have.

How are we going to re-engage with the people? How do we put it to them that the European Union is important and that, whatever their view of it and what has unfolded in recent years, it certainly has a major influence over all our lives? Why do half the people in Ireland not bother to show up and vote on election day? We should have a proper conversation not only about our connectivity with the European Union but about what type of European Union we want. I hope we can have an ideologically driven debate because too often this becomes a referendum on the Government or it becomes about tribal politics. What is our vision for the European Union? What kind of value system do we believe it should espouse? More important, how can the electoral commission that will potentially emerge from the Constitutional Convention ensure we reconnect with people who are so disconnected that either they do not care or they simply do not want to know? Given these powerful forces that engage in these decisions which affect all our lives, why is it that people are so turned off by the European Union or by elections in general? It is our responsibility to step up to the mark and this is a chance for us to do so. This is the first election in this governmental term to ask these questions of ourselves and perhaps to provide some answers for the future.

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I consider this to be of great importance. It is important legislation because the European elections that will take place on 23 May are of major importance for Ireland and the European Union. Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin has alluded to how we often underestimate the importance of the European Parliament and the importance of taking these elections seriously. As citizens and voters, often we underestimate how important and heavily weighted our individual votes are.

I have heard a good deal of hand wringing and expressions of disappointment about the fact we are losing a seat in the European Parliament, and I share these to some extent. Obviously, numbers are important. Would that we had retained our 12 seats rather than reducing to 11. However, I do not accept this automatically means a loss of influence. It is up to us how influential we are in the European Parliament. I have no doubt Deputy Mathews will allude to the matter in a moment but, in fact, quality matters a good deal more than quantity.

I have some experience of the European Parliament. I spent one week of every month, at a minimum, there for the first six months of 2013, sitting in plenary sessions from 9 a.m. until midnight on occasion. I participated in committee meetings and I negotiated with the chief operators in the European Parliament on a range of files.

The reality is that the European Parliament is a parliament which functions extraordinarily well. It is a far better functioning parliament then this dysfunctional Parliament, unfortunately, although fortunately for Europe, I suppose. It is a place where merit actually matters. Committee Chairs and rapporteurs on legislation and policy must know what they are doing. They will not get those jobs if they are not competent and capable of executing those tasks. As we know, that is not the case in these Houses, sadly. One example of this, dating back a decade or so, was the election of Mr. Pat Cox, who was part of one of the smaller groups in the European Parliament, the liberal group. He managed to rise through the ranks and on the basis of his ability and competence, he became President of the European Parliament. He was from a small country and a small political grouping. That would not happen in these Houses, clearly. Let us not underestimate the calibre and quality of individuals in the European Parliament.

I see this legislation and the decision made by the Minister in setting out the terms of reference for the European Parliament constituency committee last summer as a missed opportunity.

We had a chance here to shake up our system of electing representatives to the European Parliament and how we go about ensuring the best possible representation for this country. Like others, I made submissions to the constituency boundary committee setting out a range of options, including a national list system and a series of single-seat constituencies. A number of commentators suggested a combination of both systems, that is, several single-seat constituencies and a national list system, whereby people would be voting far more based on the national perspective and interest and less in accordance with local concerns and geographical interests. This legislation represents a missed opportunity. As with many issues in this country, we are great at talking about political reform and radical change, but when it comes to the crunch we tend to dodge it.

Some months ago, I shared a platform with a former Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Brendan Halligan, a person who is well known to many in this House, at a conference held in tribute to Dr. Garret FitzGerald. Mr. Halligan delivered a paper in which he analysed the role of small member states within the context of the European Union. He highlighted how Dr. FitzGerald, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, shaped Ireland's foreign policy, via its European Union policy, by advancing the common interest of smaller member states within the European Union. It was a fascinating lecture. One of the interesting insights Mr. Halligan provided was that in 1973, when we first faced the prospect of direct elections to the European Parliament, the Government led by Liam Cosgrave deliberated long and hard on the idea of moving away from the traditional multi-seat constituencies. That Government gave serious consideration to doing something radically different for elections to the European Parliament rather than simply aping the Dáil electoral system. Ultimately, however, the proposal to move away from multi-seat constituencies and instead use a national list system was not implemented. It is interesting to recall that these issues were being considered at that time. Here we are, 41 years later, wringing our hands and still talking about the need to change how we approach the engagement we have as voters with the European Parliament.

I noted Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív's interesting remarks. I very much appreciate that different people have different perspectives and concerns when it comes to the European Union. Nobody has a monopoly on all the wisdom on this issue. However, I disagree with the Deputy in terms of his fear of the European Parliament encroaching on the Council. The European Union has become much larger in recent years, with 28 member states and a range of aspirant member states in the Balkans and other parts of eastern Europe as well as northern Europe. The larger the Union becomes, the more unwieldy it will be if we do not have genuine democratic accountability within its institutions. One of the longest-standing criticisms of the European project, and an issue I have raised on various occasions in the past, is the deficit of accountability and transparency within the Union and the need to balance the interests of small and large member states. There is no simple solution in this regard, but one of the most important vehicles for genuine direct engagement between citizens and the European institutions is the Parliament. In fact, one could say it is the only fully and legitimately democratic institution within the Union.

The membership of the Commission consists merely of a series of political appointments. When we talk about quality, calibre and so on, it becomes clear that our appointment to the Commission is extremely important. It should not be a political quick fix as it has been in the past. Instead, we must ensure that we select the right person, with the right credentials and qualities and the capacity to deliver for Ireland at the European table. Every member state is represented equally on the Commission, which is good. On the other hand, the Commission is not accountable to the voting public across Europe. Nor is the Council directly accountable other than in the sense that it represents the Governments of each of the member states. The only directly accountable institution is the European Parliament. We cannot underestimate or understate just how important that is.

The European Parliament has become far more influential in decision making since the Lisbon treaty. This is a very welcome development. My experience showed that engaging with Members of the European Parliament, particularly those who have real expertise in certain areas, such as finance, economics or monetary policy, enhances the process at European level. Several of the solutions to the financial crisis that were mooted in recent years, such as the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism and the proposal for eurobonds - the latter has not yet been adopted but I remain hopeful it will be - came from the European Parliament, not the Council of Ministers or the Commission. Those ideas and concepts came organically from the Chamber and the committees of the European Parliament. The latter has proven itself to be representative, more in touch with citizens' concerns than the other institutions of the Union, and very analytical in terms of its approach to policy making and legislation. When I was Minister of State, I spent a great deal of time in the Chamber debating issues such as the regulation of ratings agencies - something that is critical in the context of the recent economic crisis - accountability for banks, and banker's bonuses. Some might say the latter is a populist issue but I consider it relevant and important in the context of accountability to our citizens. All of those proposals were enhanced, if not originated, in the European Parliament.

Let us not underestimate how valuable the Parliament is. We should not see it as a threat but rather as a very important vehicle of legitimacy and democracy for the European Union. I regret that the Minister has not been bold enough to change radically how we elect our MEPs. The quality and calibre of those Members is vital for this State and all member states of the European Union. We have some fine MEPs and some not so fine MEPs. I hope we will see an improvement in the overall performance and quality of our representatives in the European Parliament after the forthcoming election.

This is very important legislation. At the end of May voters will be asked to fill Ireland's allocation of 11 seats in the European Parliament. This is one fewer MEP than before, or a reduction of 8% in our representation. That reduction is unfortunate given that the job facing this country is so extensive. When we have something as important as the elections to the European Parliament taking place on the same day as the local elections, there is undoubtedly an element of distraction. Voters will be buried under a blizzard of material from local government candidates. The reality is that it is the European election that will really count for this country and for every household in mortgage arrears or about to go into mortgage arrears, for every household where retired parents are paying out to prevent other loans going into arrears. Only this morning Ivan Yates was talking on his radio show about the non-mortgage debt which is crippling people but which we hear very little about.

Last week, Ken Rogoff said at the gathering in Davos of the richest and most powerful non-elected people in the world: "A debt write-down for Ireland would the right thing for Europe to do." Anybody who has studied Ireland's current position, how we got here and the financial destruction that has occurred knows this is the case and that the two remaining banks do not have enough capital to do the job they need to do, namely, restructuring and writing down their loan books. If they did have sufficient capital, they would be doing it already. It is up to us to elect people to the European Parliament who have done their homework, are articulate advocates for this country and will use those 11 seats wisely.

It is ironic that three and a half years ago, Deputy Joe Higgins, who was then an MEP, briefed the European Parliament perfectly accurately and articulately on the reality of the situation.

The President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso, actually lost his temper when he heard the truth, namely, that €70 billion in private banking sector loan losses was being socialised and converted - directly and indirectly - into Government debt or debt held by banks owned by the Government. Deputy Higgins pointed out at the time that this was wrong and he was right to do so. We need 11 individuals who possess the same clarity of mind and ability to articulate and advocate as that displayed by Deputy Higgins to fill our seats in Europe. If we do not elect 11 such people, we will not be able to drain the debt swamp that exists in this country.

On 7 May 2013, an EMU banking conference took place at the Charlemagne Building in Brussels. It was attended by approximately 500 MEPs and MPs from the various European Union and eurozone countries and it facilitated a useful debate in ordinary English. Mr. Barroso commenced proceedings in the multi-syllable, foggy language of aspiration. However, following the first formal presentation delivered by Commissioner Olli Rehn, the President of the Eurogroup at the European Commission and Dutch Finance Minister, Mr. Jeroen Dijsselbloem, and the Portuguese Finance Minister, Mr. Vitor Gaspar, the discussion was opened up to everyone. Deputy Donnelly and I were in attendance and, luckily, I was selected to make the first contribution during the question-and-answer session which followed that presentation. I invite the Minister, his colleagues in the Government and everyone else in the House to view the YouTube clip of my contribution. I felt I owed it to the Irish people to make a robust presentation of the facts in the context of where Ireland stands financially and of the scale of the debt write-down that is required.

Ms Sharon Bowles, MEP, the chairperson of the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, ECON, agreed with the assertions Deputy Donnelly and I made at EMU banking conference. Ms Bowles is due to retire from her position as chairperson of the committee but that has not stopped her from pressing the case in this regard. Why are we allowing others to do this on our behalf? I would have thought that the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, would have made the point at last week's annual meeting of the World Economic Forum's in Davos that writing down Ireland's debt is the correct thing for Europe to do. I am amazed that our case is being pressed by people such as Ken Rogoff, Carmen Rheinhart, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. These individuals have studied what has happened in the international markets and examined how the financial systems in western capitalist markets have hijacked real economies. The latter is the reason 22 million people in Europe are out of work and why 25% of people in Ireland under the age of 25 are unemployed.

My son is in Australia and last night he sent me an e-mail in respect of EirGrid and the 35,000 submissions that have been made in respect of its Grid Link project. He works for a firm in Australia which deals with public utilities and which is responsible for the laying of cables, etc. I will forward his e-mail to the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, because it provides a useful insight into how matters of this nature should be dealt with.

Ireland has not been served well by the efforts made in respect of the issue to which I refer. Those efforts have been limp in nature and have fallen short. How can I say this? I can do so because nothing has happened. The validity, etc., of Ireland's position has been illustrated but there is a timidity when it comes to putting our case across, which is shocking. There will be 11 seats up for grabs in May and I suggest that we clear out the fog and focus our efforts. Those who win Ireland's 11 seats at the European Parliament must be well-equipped and well-briefed. They should form a unified phalanx and pledge that the exclusive priority will be to successfully negotiate a debt write-down. That is what is needed.

In May 2011 the President of the European Council, Mr. Herman Van Rompuy, was not aware that the €70 billion loan losses of the six Irish banks had been refinanced by means of exceptional liquidity assistance from the euro system. Nor was he aware that these losses were socialised and converted into both national debt and indirect debt in banks owned by the State. When I informed him of the position, he asked whether a paper had been written on the subject. I replied that the evidence was available in the balance sheets of the banks - in both aggregated and consolidated form - and was easy to see. The loan losses to which I refer are not actually in the region of €60 billion to €70 billion, rather they are approximately €100 billion. This has not yet been acknowledged and it is the reason the two big banks are stuck in a shadow world in which it is stated that the insolvency legislation will solve everything. It will not do so. Legislation never solves financial problems. What is required is negotiation in order that debt can be restructured and written down, which is entirely reasonable. If this path is not followed, then the very life is sucked out of businesses and people.

I am not a revolutionary and I am not aggressive. I am persistent and, like Ms Sharon Bowles, MEP, I speak ordinary English. I again plead with Members to view the YouTube clip to which I referred earlier. I am not seeking to advertise myself but the quickest way of doing so is to go to my website, www.petermathews.ie, and follow the link to the six-minute YouTube clip for 7 May 2013. As stated, 500 people attended the EMU banking conference. However, Irish journalists did not arrive until the middle of the day when the free lunch was being served. As a result, they missed seeing what had happened live and were merely presented with press releases. The latter are what I usually refer to as lever arch file précis containing multi-syllable words that mean nothing. Those in the auditorium in the Charlemagne Building on 7 May last greeted my six-minute contribution with strong applause. That was the only time that day when someone was applauded.

If those in Government do as I suggest, they will receive applause. That applause will be converted into agreement which, in turn, will be converted into action in terms of the write-down of the loan losses to which I referred earlier. I am confident that this will happen. It is terrible to be obliged to keep going on about something. However, sometimes that is what it takes. A sculpture cannot be completed with just one blow of the hammer against the chisel. Many such blows are required. Even battering rams do not breach the gates of citadels with the first impact. Persistence, patience, good humour and ordinary English are required in order to ensure that things change.

Ireland will have 8% fewer seats in the European Parliament after May. Let us insist that the candidates for Europe should agree a pre-election pledge to the effect that those of them who are successful in obtaining seats will do as I have suggested. What we are seeking is a write-down of €53 billion, some €28 billion of which will take the form of the cancellation of long-term bonds. The latter would replace the promissory notes, which have always been odious, unjustified and lacking in both credibility and validity. The banks will then need approximately €25 billion in order that they can really get on with the job. The €53 billion to which I refer is just over half of the total losses of €100 billion.

I have outlined what is needed in ordinary English. Ireland has an opportunity to create a team of 11 people who can operated in an effective manner in order to win something for the country.

I thank Deputies for their contributions. I wish to clarify that the allocation of seats in the Parliament for each member state was set down in the European Council decision of 28 June 2013. What we are doing in this Bill is implementing the contents of that decision in the form of a boundary commission report, which was presented to the Ceann Comhairle last September. Many issues were raised in the context of the electoral system and with regard to the matters that are going to inform what will be a very keenly contested campaign. I look forward to these issues being elucidated further during the course of that campaign, which will take place in the run-up to the elections that are due to take place on 23 May next.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share