I welcome the Minister of State, on whom I call to make a presentation on the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council.
GAERC Meeting: Discussion with Minister of State.
The Minister cannot be here in person as he has other duties. He will be at the Council meeting next week. I am his very poor substitute.
We appreciate the substitute and have no doubt that the Minister of State will do very well in that capacity, as often in the past.
And with due humility. As always I welcome the opportunity to meet the Chairman and members of the committee and to review next Monday's General Affairs and External Relations Council, which takes in Luxembourg. I extend a special welcome to the new Deputies who are joining the committee to support the vital work of the sub-committee on Ireland's future in the European Union. Later today I will address the Seanad on the motion.
The issues on the current EU agenda have huge implications for the future direction of this country and for the lives of all our citizens. The manner in which the Union handles the current financial crisis affecting the financial sector across Europe, the issues of climate change and, of course, the Lisbon treaty will be of considerable importance to us all. It is rare that a European Council has had to deal with a set of topics of such profound significance, all of which are of prime interest to this country and to the Union as a whole. It serves to bring home the centrality of the Union in dealing with the major challenges which are beyond the capacity of any single country to manage. If there was ever an indication of how important it is for a small open economy to be at the heart of Europe, these affairs illustrate that fact.
The Minister, Deputy Martin, will attend the Council next Monday. At this stage I accept that preparation for the European Council will dominate the general affairs discussions, while relations with a number of eastern European neighbours will be the focus on external relations matters. The general affairs segment of the Council will begin with preparations for next week's European Council. In a departure from previous practice, the Presidency has said that it intends to keep the European Council conclusions sharp and focused, which is very welcome. It wishes to depart from the practice of having the summit adopt already agreed political statements and endorse decisions by the Council of Ministers in various formations. The Presidency's intention is that the main focus of the conclusions will be the Union's response to the global economic and financial crisis. The Union is one of the anchors of the world economy and it is vital that we give a lead in these very dificult times when financial instability is affecting so many countries and having a negative impact on economic prospects.
Obviously I do not need to go into detail about the essential steps we took last week to ensure the stability of the Irish banking sector, but I stress that we are working closely with the Commission to ensure that our arrangements conform with EU obligations. It has been my contention from the outset that they do. We have also been reassuring our European partners of our commitment to upholding the Union's vital competition rules. Finance Ministers are meeting in Luxembourg today and will be able to attend the session of the European Council that will deal with the financial crisis. We are committed to working closely with our European partners in dealing with a crisis that is without parallel in the Union's history. There is a clear need for us to work together in developing a coherent response to the enormous problems affecting the vital banking and investment sectors. The aim must be to promote restoration of confidence in global financial markets.
While the draft conclusions have not yet been made available, it is expected that energy security and climate change, the pact on asylum and immigration and the Lisbon treaty will also feature. The situation in Georgia and relations with Russia are the only external items on which conclusions are expected.
In respect of the Lisbon treaty, the Taoiseach plans to provide a thorough analysis of developments since June. We will not be in a position to set out a basis for a solution as our domestic process of reflection will not have been completed. The Taoiseach will brief his colleagues on the independent research work the Government commissioned and on the work of the new Oireachtas sub-committee on Ireland's future in the European Union. I am very pleased that, last Thursday, the Dáil approved the motion establishing the sub-committee. The sub-committee's terms of reference are appropriately forward-looking. There is no point in re-running the referendum campaign but we must chart the way ahead.
The priority at this stage must be to chart a way forward for Ireland, for Europe and, most importantly, for Ireland in Europe. This will involve reconciling the concerns of the Irish people with the wishes of our partners, 12 of whom have fully ratified the treaty since we held our referendum. This brings to 20 the number of member states that have fully ratified the treaty while a further four have already completed their parliamentary processes. Sweden will complete its process next month and the parliamentary process has been completed in Poland, though the President has yet to make his decision. The Czech Republic is waiting for a reply from the constitutional court, which will probably come later this month. By the end of the year, it is likely that all 26 member states other than Ireland will have ratified the Lisbon treaty.
Isolation is not an advantageous position from Ireland's point of view. This imposes a responsibility on us to strive for a solution that will enable all 27 member states to move forward together. It has always been our firm wish to remain part of the European mainstream and most members around this table will accept that the last thing Ireland needs, at this time, is to be isolated or left behind. The European mainstream is where we belong. It is where our interests are best served and where our future lies. In the months ahead, we will be engaged in a determined effort to find a solution that fully respects the wishes of the Irish people — because that is where we must start — and protects our position within the Union.
Ireland strongly supports the EU's goals in the field of energy security and climate change. This is an example of where the EU is giving leadership on a global stage in a way no individual member state could. However, we have issues with the Commission’s economic analysis, which has underestimated the cost of meeting this target. There will be need for flexibility if the proposed 2020 target is to be met in an economically viable manner. The unique position of agriculture must be adequately recognised and we have debated the issue in this very room. Ireland’s position on carbon emissions is adversely affected because of the unique role of agriculture in our overall economy. If agriculture is not fully recognised, there will be carbon leakage to other parts of the world and an increase in global emissions.
The problem created by the limited technological scope for achieving reduced emissions in agriculture needs to be faced and addressed. The Union's food security needs must be reconciled with its climate change needs. A few months ago it would have been impossible to say this and one would have been attacked for so doing. All the competing needs, including food security, have to be brought into congruence. I have said as much time and time again and did so when I was Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
We look forward to the debate on the EU's energy security policies, which will follow the publication of the strategic energy review. Ireland will support a broadly-based policy framework based on a comprehensive assessment of the EU's energy needs and capacities and the possible risks facing us all in the years ahead.
The Justice and Home Affairs Council, which met on 26 September held final discussions on the text of a European pact on immigration and asylum and subsequently endorsed the pact for adoption by the European Council. This is likely to be an item for discussion next Monday. The pact is an initiative of the French Presidency and it marks an important step in the implementation of the final stage of the 2004 Hague programme which aimed to create a common European asylum system by 2010. The proposed pact contains three important strategies, namely, managing legal immigration, measures to combat illegal immigration and a common approach to asylum issues. The European Commission is expected to bring forward proposals for common action on these issues in late 2008 and in 2009.
On external relations, the Presidency has produced a short and focused agenda which largely deals with relations with a number of the Union's eastern partners. The first relates to the situation in Georgia. It is hoped the Russians will have left the buffer zone by 10 October but the situation is fluid. Following last August's conflict it continues to be a major preoccupation for the Union and will be discussed by Ministers on Monday. Complementary to this discussion will be an evaluation of the current state of the Union's relations with Russia, in light of developments since the European Council of 1 September, when it was made clear there could be no business as usual with Russia until such time as Russian troops were withdrawn from the buffer zones adjacent to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The French Presidency has been superb in this matter and President Sarkozy deserves huge personal credit. I commend his continuing energy and commitment in pursuing the implementation of the six-point plan which he brokered in August, and the subsequent agreement he reached on 8 September with President Medvedev. Had there not been such a vigorous intervention on the part of the French Presidency, things would not have been brought to their current state, which is better than it was. In order to prevent a recurrence of violence in Georgia, it is necessary that all parties live up to the commitments they freely entered into in those agreements. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, made these points when he met with Foreign Minister Lavrov on the occasion of his visit to Dublin on 22 September.
It is encouraging to note, in this regard, that the Russians now appear to be taking steps to comply with the obligation to withdraw from the buffer zones by 10 October. However, I am very concerned by the killing of eight Russian soldiers and three civilians in a car bomb in South Ossetia on Friday last, an attack which the Government condemns without reservation. That incident highlights the crucial importance of the role of the EU monitoring mission in Georgia, which has now deployed and whose task is, first and foremost, to help bring about stability and security in the country. Ireland is contributing four personnel to the ESDP mission.
Of course, the humanitarian situation arising from the displacement of as many as 50,000 people in the August conflict is of acute concern as winter approaches. It is important that their right of return to their homes is respected and facilitated as soon as possible. Ireland has contributed in a small way to efforts to assist on the humanitarian front. The Irish ambassador to Georgia, who is based in Sofia, has travelled this week to meet with officials in the Georgian Foreign Ministry and to assess the situation on the ground. The Government looks forward to receiving the ambassador's report when he returns from visiting Georgia and Armenia.
With a view to the longer term, we look to the talks starting in Geneva next week as a process for resolving what is a complex and volatile situation in the south Caucasus. The EU special representative for the crisis in Georgia, Pierre Morel, has been active in his contacts in both Moscow and Tbilisi and we must hope that participants in the talks will engage constructively in an effort to reach an eventual resolution.
Belarus will also feature. The Council is due to discuss the situation in Belarus following the recent parliamentary elections which were held on 28 September. Conclusions are likely to be adopted which will note the disappointing outcome of the elections, which clearly fell short of international standards despite improvements relative to previous elections. However, the Council is also likely to agree to the EU continuing efforts to further its dialogue with Belarus and will extend an invitation to the Belarus foreign minister to meet the EU troika on the margin of the Council meeting. Consideration is also being given to lifting sanctions for six months on visas for Belarusian leaders, with the exception of both those implicated in the disappearance and killing of several opposition political figures in the 1999 — 2000 period and the head of the central electoral commission.
While very disappointed by the outcome of the election on 28 September, Ireland supports maintaining and improving contacts with Belarus. It is better to have contact and dialogue than isolation. Bilateral discussions continue between Ireland and Belarus and we are achieving good progress towards resolving all difficulties that might impede the ability of children affected by the Chernobyl disaster in Belarus to travel to Ireland for recuperative purposes.
Uzbekistan and the issue of sanctions against it will also feature at the meeting as an "A" point. The Council will also address and adopt conclusions on the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, which has been a major theme in the EU's relationship with that country over the past 3 years. The Council is likely to recognise that some positive steps have been taken by the Uzbek Government in the past year. In response, the existing EU visa ban list, which is currently suspended, will not be renewed. However, the Council is also likely to note and spell out human rights issues where the EU expects further actions from Uzbekistan and it will also indicate that the existing arms embargo will continue in force until such time as the Uzbek authorities demonstrate they are adhering to international standards on human rights, rule of law and fundamental freedoms.
A final European item before the Council will be Moldova where the Council is due to adopt, as an "A" point, draft conclusions intended to demonstrate the EU's continued support for that country. The draft conclusions look forward to an EU-Moldova enhanced agreement, incorporating a free trade agreement which will lead to a gradual increase in relations with that country; stress that the pace of further reforms in Moldova, especially on human rights and democracy for the upcoming spring parliamentary elections, will influence the development of relations; emphasise the need for a settlement to the Transnistria conflict to be found within the international five plus two negotiating format. Ireland fully supports the build-up of the EU's relations with Moldova in the context of the EU's European neighbourhood policy.
The issue of Zimbabwe will also be discussed. Sadly the situation there has not improved. More than three weeks after the power-sharing agreement was signed on 15 September, it is very disappointing that there has still been no agreement on forming a Government. We are disappointed at this ongoing stalemate, at a time when the economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe urgently demands the attention of a responsible leadership. Every day, the already staggering estimates of the rate of inflation in Zimbabwe are revised upwards and every day the misery heaped on the unfortunate citizens of that country increases.
It will be very important that any agreement eventually reached on formation of a power-sharing Government is one which represents the will of the Zimbabwean people, as expressed in the relatively free election of 29 March. Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC party will wish to ensure that it has real power to effect the change the Zimbabwean people will expect. It cannot be expected to agree to a division of ministries that would leave it to make up the numbers while real power remains elsewhere.
Working closely with African partners continues to be important in view of the leverage at their disposal. We wish to see greater involvement by SADCC and the African Union both in the mediation process, and in ongoing monitoring of how this power-sharing agreement is implemented.
For the present, Ireland believes the EU restrictive measures on Mr. Mugabe and his clique should remain unchanged. We will be prepared to review the situation once an agreed new government is formed and has demonstrated genuine progress towards political and economic reform and alleviating the suffering of the Zimbabwean people.
That concludes the GAERC agenda for next Monday. As always, I will be pleased to respond to any questions or comments members may have.
Before we proceed I am informed that mobile phone interference is causing havoc with the broadcasting system. We are obliged to switch off mobile phones.
I am concerned about the establishment of the sub-committee on European affairs. Senator O'Toole raised this issue in the Seanad half an hour ago. He believes the correct procedure is not being adhered to and therefore this committee may be acting ultra vires. I wholeheartedly support the setting up of the committee but I want to make sure what we are doing is correct.
I understand from Senator O'Toole's presentation that a sub-committee can only be formed by the committee itself and cannot be formed by the Oireachtas. Therefore, when the Oireachtas establishes a committee such as we have here, and if we are to have a sub-committee, under Standing Orders that sub-committee can only be formed by the committee.
We must find a solution to the Lisbon vote and the way we are going about it is the correct way to attempt to find that solution but I would not like to find, having gone to all that trouble, that we are acting ultra vires. Somebody may be able to confirm if that is correct but I understand that the correct procedure is that this committee must establish the sub-committee. Perhaps it is only a technical matter. We can do it much more quickly without having to go before the Houses of the Oireachtas, as I understand the Minister is due to speak to the Seanad this afternoon.
I anticipated that problem and I believe it is only a formality. If it is required that the committee should act it will do so at short notice. In that regard, all the committee members would be called together in a meeting. The terms of reference for the sub-committee have been set out, as they were for the scrutiny committee and this committee. This being the parent committee, it may be that we will have to do something but there will not be a problem in that regard. I anticipated that and the secretariat were made aware of it also. We might await our advice on that matter and then proceed on the basis of it. Does the Minister of State want to respond?
I appreciate the point made. If some technicality arises it is one that can be addressed with the good will of this committee. Senator Quinn's point is that we are now coming to 26:1 in terms of ratification. We are in a difficult place and we must first and foremost respect the wishes of the Irish people but the people have not expressed a wish to withdraw from the Union or to be in some secondary role. We must examine those issues and the committee will do valuable work on that. The Senator is right. If there is a technicality that needs to be addressed, it will be addressed. The reason we were anxious to come into the Dáil and the Seanad on this issue is to illustrate the importance we, as a Government, attach to the views of all sides in both Houses, including those Members who take a view different to mine. It is critically important that everybody, not just those who advocated a "Yes" vote but also those who advocated a "No" vote, play a role in solving this problem. I am grateful to Senator Quinn and to Senator O'Toole for raising the issue and as the Chairman said, any technical issue that needs addressing will be addressed.
If I am correct, and if Senator O'Toole is correct in this area, we could do it here this afternoon. It is in our power to do so, and it would save the Minister, Deputy Roche, having to go into——
It may be necessary to adjourn the meeting and restart it to comply with regulations, although I am not certain about that. I suggest we park the issue for the moment and when we get the relevant advice we will deal with it then, if needs be today. Members are available and if it must be done, it will be done. We anticipated that something like that might emerge and therefore it will not be a problem.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and his colleagues. I thank him for his presentation on the matters that will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. The omission from the Council agenda of the most obvious item — the current financial turmoil — is conspicuous. It is hard to imagine that the implications of the financial turmoil for all member states will not be discussed. I imagine it would be a relevant item for the agenda of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. I would have thought it would have been top of the agenda, even though it is essentially a matter for the Economic and Financial Affairs Council, especially as it seems that the European Commission has some concerns about the manner in which Ireland has conducted its business.
It is clear that not much will happen on the Lisbon treaty at the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting. There is no road map and no presentation of the way forward. It seems to me that there is nothing to report other than the establishment by the Oireachtas of a sub-committee. It must be borne in mind that the sub-committee has been established with a broad remit. Its terms of reference are not specifically geared towards resolving the dilemma created by this country's rejection of the Lisbon treaty. It does not appear that any new proposals will be made until December. Even then, it is unlikely that anything specific will be proposed. Would it not be appropriate to signal to the heads of state of the other EU member states that it is unlikely that a solution will be found in advance of next summer's European elections? Member states should begin to prepare for the possibility, or the likelihood, that the European elections will be dealt with in the context of the present dispensation under the Nice treaty. Preparations should be made in that context. I raise that issue to give the Minister of State an idea of how the matter will be addressed and what the other 26 member states are likely to say when Ireland makes its presentation.
It is proposed to discuss energy security and climate change issues at the upcoming meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. The Union does not need the Lisbon treaty to be ratified to make progress on the issues. The proposals made can be adopted notwithstanding the fact that the Lisbon treaty contains measures for dealing with energy security and climate change issues on a statutory basis. I imagine we will be able to proceed apace without any diminution of what the EU intended to do in that respect. These issues need to be brought to the fore if we are to move forward.
How does the Minister of State intend to present the discovery that Ireland's carbon emission levels are greater than we thought they were when the aspirational percentage reductions were originally drawn up? What impact will that knowledge have on how we intend to deal with those targets?
It is right that certain matters in the agricultural arena, such as security of food supply arrangements, are to be reconsidered. The current position is quite different from that envisaged when the original WTO negotiations took place. We are looking at a totally different liberalisation agenda, in the context of current issues which have a major bearing on our position, such as climate change, energy security and quality food supply. I welcome the inclusion of that item on the agenda.
I wish to speak about the European pact on immigration and asylum. I understand that a Common Position is to be agreed by 2009. How will that operate? Will Ireland participate in it? I presume that would have been an opt-out area in the context of the Lisbon treaty, and we have always jealously guarded our position on how we deal with immigration and asylum. There is concern that we would resort to the lowest common denominator abroad, and that certain protection, caveats and measures under international law might be watered down. Can we be assured that the Minister will uphold a fairly robust position in respecting the Geneva Conventions in this area?
I agree with the Minister of State that the French Presidency has been excellent in the Georgian crisis. There was urgency and sense of purpose in how this was done, with a six-point plan and good communication and negotiations with Moscow. The specific proposals that are now in effect deal with monitoring, the ceasefire and the Geneva talks. That is the way forward and is in favourable comparison with the manner in which the US responded, which was most unhelpful. It gave public sympathy and succour to Georgia and condemned Russia. The Georgian President should be condemned for the hasty manner in which he acted, as should the Russian Federation with its overreaction in reply. However, the best initiative was taken by President Sarkozy and by the European Union. This must be applauded.
I do not want to overlap with some of the questions asked by Deputy Costello, especially those on the Lisbon treaty. However, I would like to focus on the Georgian issue. I also commend President Sarkozy for his quick action on the conflict and his six-point plan. We need to know why the conflict happened and why Europe did not react, knowing that this was going to happen. The Russian 58th army crossed the border in a few days and had a huge build-up in the area. Why did the conflict occur in the first place? These are the questions we should ask. Since the Balkan crisis, we did not think two countries that are part of the OSCE and the Council of Europe would ever enter a conflict against each other.
The victims of war are always the refugees. I understand that about 70,000 people have been displaced as a result of the conflict in South Ossetia. I also understand, from people who were in the region last week, that there is still much looting going on and that villages are still burning one month after the war. The Russians are making moves to leave the conflict zone and the buffer zone, but much damage has been done to infrastructure in the area, especially in communications, while many villages have been destroyed. Besides the peacekeeping forces deployed there, what kind of funding will the EU provide to the areas that have been destroyed? The meeting in Geneva between Russia, Georgia, the OSCE and the EU will be very important. It is the road map forward for peace in the area. Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on that.
I would like to comment on Zimbabwe. There is no agreement to form a government in Zimbabwe. Does the Minister of State envisage a breakdown in the power sharing agreement now that President Mbeki has departed from the stage in South Africa? Is conflict in Zimbabwe a possibility? Is the attempt to form a power sharing government in Zimbabwe an important item on the agenda of next week's GAERC meeting?
I intended to call Senator Déirdre de Búrca but she is as láthair. I call Deputy Michael McGrath.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, for his detailed contribution on the issues to be raised at the GAERC meeting next week.
I will comment on some of the issues and the predominant issue at today's meeting of the EU Finance Ministers, the global financial crisis and the unprecedented period of instability in the financial markets. I agree fully with the Minister of State's sentiments that there is a need for the Union to develop a coherent response to the difficulties that persist. The current difficulties present the European Union with a golden opportunity to show the world how it can respond in a united fashion to a challenge of this nature. The Irish Government took a very decisive role and showed leadership last week in announcing the bank guarantee scheme, the terms and conditions of which will be brought before the Dáil this week. I have read the commentary and statements made by various European governments. The President of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, stated that the European states will not allow financial institutions of systemic significance to fail. There is already an implicit guarantee in place across the European Union that the major financial institutions will not be allowed to fold. The Irish position has been one of leadership and we will see other European countries following suit in the days and weeks to come. I ask the Minister of State to elaborate on the need for a coherent response in the European Union and I hope there will be progress at today's meeting of finance ministers and at next week's GAERC and European Council meetings. This is an urgent matter which presents an important opportunity for the Union to be seen to take a leadership role.
I look forward to contributing to the work of the sub-committee on Ireland's future role within the European Union. The work of the sub-committee is extremely important and I am confident it will assist the Government in framing a formal response to the rejection of the Lisbon treaty and the issues arising from that rejection and that it will assist the Government in the submission of a comprehensive report to the December meeting of the Council.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials and thank them for their work. I pay tribute to the Minister of State and the Government for the decisions taken on the financial side and for condemning the terrible atrocity last week in South Ossetia. We have sent four people to the mission there. There is no need for the Minister of State to name them but he might say whether they are civil or public servants, military people, civilians, former politicians or whatever. We wish the Union well and pay tribute to President Sarkozy as his role on behalf of the Union has been critical. It is important that the Union continues to act as an honest broker in this to ensure the other global elements adhere to the basic rule of law and that human rights prevail.
The GAERC meeting should give a strong message of confidence for the entire Union and its member states, particularly in view of the current global financial situation. I note the important meeting of finance ministers which is being held today and they will meet later with the Minister of State and their colleagues at GAERC. I hope the Union can use its political muscle and wisdom to ensure a stream of cash is available to all of the main banks in member states to make a credit line available for the business community and the retail, manufacturing and export sectors. All these areas need capital at the moment, yet there seems to be a problem with getting it. I have just been on the phone trying to assist somebody but it does not look as if there is much capital available. In the 1970s, the European Investment Bank played a major role in providing much capital at a subsidised rate for economic development at a time of great depression across Europe. There is a major opportunity now for the EIB, in co-operation with the European Central Bank, to make similar facilities available. We do not want a major add-on for this facility; the EIB should be able to lend such money at preferential rates nationally. We could route it through the National Treasury Management Agency, which could levy a handling charge for re-routing it into different banks. I hope something can be done in that respect. It is vital that we take account of where we are at this time to deal with the liquidity that is currently required. In that way, as we turn the corner into the new year, we should be able to lift the ship somewhat and proceed with confidence. I hope that such confidence will emanate from this meeting, which is vitally important for the future.
I call on Deputy Joanna Tuffy and welcome her to the committee.
Thank you. The Minister of State said our priority must be to chart a way forward for Ireland in Europe. He went on to say that this will involve reconciling the concerns of the Irish people with the wishes of our partners. He also mentioned how many countries have ratified the treaty. However, we need to stop being apologetic to EU leaders about the decision taken by our people. There are obviously issues around how the campaigns were run, but when the people made their decision on the Lisbon referendum earlier this year they had complicated reasons for doing so. They expressed complex thoughts on protecting our sovereignty and not ceding too much power to Europe. That is where the issue arose of not knowing enough about what the treaty involved. We could do the EU a service as regards how we engage our society in the debate about the future of the Union. It is not just about our citizens because the concerns expressed by our electorate are echoed in every member state. If a similar proposal was put to other EU states there is a strong possibility they might do the same as the Irish electorate. The issue there is the same as here — it concerns the democratic deficit at EU and possibly national level. The EU should welcome a genuinely reflective and sincere public debate about what we are going to do. People crave authenticity in politics so politicians must show good faith. We must have a genuine debate and not presume what the outcome of that debate might be.
We also need to spell out and clarify the issue of subsidiarity, which was mentioned for the first time in the Lisbon treaty. Who really knows what that means in practice, however? I do not and I wonder if any of us does? The public certainly would not know. As regards the sovereignty issue, we need to decide what decisions need to be taken domestically — both locally and nationally — and what decisions we are happy to have taken at EU level. I would welcome the Minister of State's comments on these points.
Like other speakers, I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. He has provided a comprehensive overview of the discussions and the position he intends to adopt at the forthcoming Council meeting. The greatest concentration should be on the financial crisis in which we find ourselves. If anything, in recent weeks, it has shown how fragmented the European project is in dealing with such an issue that has consequences for everyone. Clearly, we do not have the kind of co-ordinated or strategic approach we should have in such an eventuality. It should not have been beyond our capacity to consider this kind of difficulty. The issue has broken new ground in all member states. Notwithstanding that, our approach must be to identify and envisage problems that might arise and to have a strategy in place.
I regret the comments from our nearest neighbour, which seemed to suggest that we should have consulted it. They clearly failed to consult with us on a range of issues. They failed to join the euro and failed to consult with us on monetary union. Certainly, Ministers for Finance who were around at the time when our currency was linked to sterling did not get too much notice of when they sought to devalue. However, that all is history. The Government clearly took the right decision and it will be proven as other member states seem to see the benefits associated with the proposal put forward.
On external affairs, I note the concentration is on all the usual areas of conflict. Clearly, there is an external affairs dimension to the banking crisis, which is no longer a US-European issue but which in recent days is very much a global issue and will have global consequences. While it obviously gets discussed in other fora, it has relevance here too.
The Minister of State spoke of the issue of energy security and climate change. While I do not suggest our approach to climate change or the increase in oil prices is necessarily the root cause of our current economic crisis it is certainly a contributing factor. I wonder whether consideration has been given to it, or whether the Minister of State is happy that there is enough research being done on finding alternatives to fossil fuels and I ask him for ideas or feedback on that.
Like other speakers, I am pleased to be part of the sub-committee that will analyse and prepare a report on the reasons for our rejection of the Lisbon treaty. None of us, regardless of how we campaigned, is apologetic to anybody in Europe for the decision of the Irish people. However, we owe it to ourselves and to the people who have clearly shown strong support for the work of the European Union, to come together to analyse the views of the people who voted against this treaty and to bring forward some consensus that will allow us to remain at the centre of the European project. We have rightly benefited from the European Union and other member states have benefited from our presence there. I look forward to working with other members, and with the Minister of State, on the committee.
A variety of issues were raised, all of which concentrated on the hot spots that require discussion. Deputy Tuffy raised an interesting and important point on the aftermath of the referendum. I have studied the matter since the referendum. I do not know the Minister of State's view, but many of the issues raised by the "No" lobby in the course of the Lisbon treaty as reasons for rejection related to a period that has passed by, an earlier era approximately eight years ago when there was lack of transparency and accountability and lack of oversight from the national parliaments, and which, ironically, was largely addressed in the Lisbon treaty. It is important to reiterate that point.
The only point that has remained to the fore is the question of the rotating Commissioners. That can be resolved as well. It does not take rocket science to resolve that issue to the satisfaction of all and without reducing some member states to having a junior Commissioner. The Minister of State has considered that point already.
The other points, on the energy and economic areas, were well made. These need to be borne strongly in mind. The European Union, and Ireland as a member, must have due regard for the changing circumstances around us and be able to survive in very competitive economies.
Deputy Dooley suggested the sentiment in other European countries was that Ireland should have consulted with them before it made a change. In fact, if Ireland had not been in the situation in which it found itself it would not have been necessary to proceed. It is the old story. The fact remains that the European Union should be alert to movement long before it becomes necessary and all member states should move together, if possible. That will happen in any event.
I thank the Chairman and members for their contributions. The questions are much more interesting than the speech. I think we should dispense with making the speech but distribute it by hand to members and then answer their questions.
Deputy Costello among others touched on the meltdown in the financial markets. I was at a discussion earlier today where I made the following point, which I think is relevant. If there was anything that illustrates how important it is that Ireland is in the European Union, it is this crisis. How much sovereignty did we have when we had to wait for a call from the Treasury to tell us it had devalued in the past half hour? We found our economic feet in Europe and that is where our future lies. This is why it is so critically important.
The second point that was very well illustrated in all the contributions is the nonsense about an excessive degree of regulation at European level. To return to the question on subsidiarity, it is true that Europe should regulate only in those areas where one cannot regulate as efficiently at national level. Clearly, there are areas where countries big and small coming together create significant synergy. If the 27 member states can come together and provide regulation for better governance in the financial services sector, every single man, woman and child, every business and everybody who is thinking of going into business will gain immeasurably. One of the most mendacious aspects of some of the arguments made in the recent past, is that somehow we could do it all and ignore all of this. We would be as a small cork on a very large and turbulent ocean if we were not part of the European Union.
The issues relating to the financial crisis being discussed in Luxembourg today will carry forward into the GAERC discussions next week and into the European Council meeting on 15 October. I hope that as a result of these discussions, Europe will have a new role to create better governance in the financial services sector. What is absolutely crystal clear and beyond any shadow of doubt is that individual national regulation is one thing but one needs to have a process to regulate this highly dynamic international market. The so-called toxic loans which were bundled together in the United States have had the effect of bringing banking as far afield as Iceland, the Far East and Europe to its knees. There is a need for an international approach and this illustrates why we must be part and parcel of the European Union.
Deputy Costello referred to the elections to the European Parliament. The Deputy knows — and I made this point to all the groups in the European Parliament last week — that the default position we find ourselves in at present is the Nice treaty and unless 27 members states ratify the Lisbon treaty before the late spring of next year, that will be the position. The downside is that 12 member states are affected by our recent decision and that countries that support us will lose out. Spain will be down four MEPs and Malta will lose out. Our position is that we will have 12 MEPs. If the Nice treaty is the default position at the time of the next European Parliament elections, Ireland will not win friends. I am not suggesting that we apologise but stating the simple fact.
The important issues of climate change and energy security were raised by several different speakers. The carbon target is an initiative of the Presidency but members suggested, and I agree with them, that it should be cast in reality. I remember when I was the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government some people who have become friends now eviscerated me for stating the need for special recognition of agriculture. Agriculture is not just important in terms of the Irish rural economy but is of critical importance to the European Union. EU citizens need to know (a) where their food is coming from, (b) that it is not coming from the far side of the world, (c) that we have a strategic control of the way food is produced, its quality, production and, (d) that the process of producing food is not inimical to the climate. It seems to me that the free for all that seemed to be all the vogue has violated all of the general principles. Carbon emissions will relate to the period beyond 2012, but what needs to be reflected is a sense of realism and what we must take into account is the strategic importance of food to Europe as a whole. The whole point of the Common Agricultural Policy was not to fund farmers but to ensure that Europe had food security. We are vulnerable in several areas, including, energy, gas, oil.
Members raised the issue of immigration and asylum. The Europe Union must come to grips with the issue of asylum and emigration. An initiative of the French Presidency is a proposed pact dealing with specific points, managing legal and illegal immigration and a common approach to asylum. I am very pleased members recognise that the French Presidency has been extraordinarily innovative and a good success. There was some ill-focused commentary on the French Presidency in some parts of our media, borrowed from eurosceptic British media.
The Chairman mentioned a variety of issues. I will respond to a point made by Deputy Tuffy. Nobody is apologising to anybody. The Irish people, a sovereign people, made a decision on the Lisbon treaty. If people do not like that, they will have to learn to live with it but, as the Deputy stated, we were not saying "No" to Europe. The vast majority of Irish people, 70% plus, see that Europe is critical to our future. If one surveyed people now after the past week, Europe would be seen as more critical to our future. We must make the point to our colleagues in Europe that it will take time to work through this issue. Our first responsibility is to understand and to drill into the Irish people's decision and see how we can make decisions in the future that reflect the concerns. That is not in any sense apologetic and there is also the realisation that if other member states had to hold a referendum they could find themselves in the same position.
Three speakers referred to this issue of communications by Europe. This committee probably knows better than most this is a real hobby horse of mine. Europe has to learn to speak to people's hearts as well as to their pockets. Europe does not have dialogue with its citizens in a people-friendly way. That is one of its biggest problems.
It was very easy to say to people that one could not read the Lisbon treaty and then say one cannot trust what is in it. The reality was that there were elements of the treaty that were very easy to read. Unfortunately that did not happen. We want to stay in Europe and must find a way to do this. All of Europe has been challenged to wake up and communicate in a better way with its citizens and this is a service the Irish referendum has done.
Subsidiarity was mentioned in the debate and the real irony was that a clear statement of what it would mean in the future could be found in the Lisbon treaty. It is a great treaty because it contains a definition of subsidiarity that shows what should be done at European level and what should be done at national level. Incidentally, it is interesting that this debate should take place in Ireland because if ever a country needed to sort out the issues around subsidiarity this is it. We have a centralist approach to governance and that influences our thinking on Europe. There is not a great deal of subsidiarity in the Irish administrative and political system; there is far more openness and subsidiarity in the European system.
When I walked through the European Parliament last week there were people handing out flyers, groups of people were walking around and there were stalls with people putting forward different issues and this indicated just how extraordinarily open Europe is. Deputy Noel Treacy, who has been around the Houses for longer than most of us, knows that Europe is an amazing place because it is so open. Ironically, Ireland could have made Europe even more open by ratifying the Lisbon treaty because we would have had television broadcasts from council meetings. Not many cabinets in the rest of Europe will choose to have their meetings streamed live and broadcast on television. The Deputy is correct that we must communicate with people.
In response to Deputy Costello, the financial crisis will be discussed at the Economic and Financial Affairs Council, ECOFIN, today. Deputy Timmy Dooley pointed out that a co-ordinated EU response to the challenge has not yet been developed and this is needed. There must be more focus on alternative energy sources and the Government is committed to promoting them. I dealt with energy security and carbon emissions earlier in my response.
Deputy Breen mentioned the violence in Georgia and rather with apportion blame we should get on with addressing the matter. It is clear that fundamental errors were made there. Deputy Breen and several others have commended President Sarkozy and asked what the EU has done to try to resolve the crisis. The intervention and the six-point plan is Europe's contribution. Deputy Breen made a relevant point about the humanitarian downside to the conflict. Tiny geographical areas are in question, South Ossetia, for example, is very small, but roughly 190,000 people have been displaced. Around 35,000 people have gone to North Ossetia, 30,000 are displaced within South Ossetia and 120,000 are displaced elsewhere in Georgia. These figures are staggeringly big, particularly in a part of the world with a very hostile winter. Europe is interested in this. To answer the Deputy's specific question, the Union will provide €500 million for reconstruction needs in the area and on 22 October there will be a further donor conference to help move things forward.
The question of Zimbabwe was raised. EU pressure on the Mugabe regime is primarily aimed at bringing about change and then normality. It is clear that the EU will have to work more closely with the African states — this is an African problem and the African states will have to be more vigorous than they have been in the past. However, it is not always easy to resolve problems next door.
Deputy McGrath also raised the need for a coherent EU response to the current crisis. This is an opportunity for Europe. Through the years, Europe has been remarkably successful at responding to crises. Every time there has been a crisis Europe has produced a good solution that has tended to win support from the people. Europe has done something remarkable in creating the euro currency. I agree with Deputy McGrath that there is now an opportunity for the EU to rebuff the notion that Europe does not have a role to play in the matter.
Deputy Noel Treacy mentioned the four people who have joined the European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP, group; two are former military officers and two are civilians from an academic background. He mentioned that the old European Investment Bank, EIB, played a role in the past. I felt his idea on a resurrected role for the EIB is a very interesting idea, particularly if the credit crisis continues, and I will pass it on to my colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan.
The Minister of State can mention it at the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, meeting.
I will not be at the GAERC meeting; the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, will be there.
Deputy Dooley made a final point on the financial crisis, pointing out the need for a co-ordinated approach, and I agree with him. I agree with Deputy Dooley that curmudgeonly neighbours are criticising Ireland for making decisions while failing to contact us when intervening in the likes of Northern Rock regarding the knock-on effects that may occur. This nation looked into the abyss last Sunday and Monday and decisions were made. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I compliment all parties across the House because it was a good moment for Irish politics. The Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach made a challenging decision and the Oireachtas answered well. Imagine we had not made this decision and there had been a run on an Irish bank. Where would we be today? Undoubtedly people acted against our banks and drove the cost down. Where would we be today if we had not taken this opportunity?
Deputy Tuffy is right in saying there is need for a reflective, sincere and respectful debate on the Lisbon treaty. Last Friday a person said extraordinary things on a television programme. I did not see the programme because I would rather have had my teeth extracted without the supervision of a dentist. It seems that every time the debate is addressed by one side of the argument it is in terms that are disrespectful. The same person said that we should look into the past of the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Hans-Gert Pöttering, a man of exemplary character, as if there is something sinister in his past. Mr. Pöttering has Christian principles and his only sin seems to have been that he was democratically elected. There must be a reflective, sincere, honest and open debate that is respectful of all sides. Those of us on the "Yes" side do not have all of the solutions and those on the "No" side seem to have all of the solutions. If the "Yes" side and the "No" side came together the Irish people would benefit from the combined wisdom but if we stand on either side of the fence and hurl abuse at each other we will go nowhere.
That is an interesting comment because in the past six months this committee invited certain people on the "No" side to address and do exactly what the Minister of State suggested but they did not respond. We will wait and see.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending the meeting and we wish the GAERC process every success.