I thank the Chairman and members of the sub-committee for giving us the opportunity to share some thoughts with them. I would like to cover some ground in an introductory statement and then look forward to comments and questions from members.
I would like to start by going over again the reasons we need the Lisbon treaty. The Irish "No" vote has not changed any of the reasons the European Union needs the treaty. The key reasons for it are to bring greater efficiency to the decision making process of the European Union and improve democracy by more closely associating the European Parliament and national parliaments with the decision making process and to allow increased coherence in our policies outside the European Union. The idea behind these institutional changes is to equip the Union to better defend the interests of its own citizens on a day-to-day basis. Discussion of these issues has never been more relevant. I refer to two crises faced by Europe and the world in the last couple of months: first, over the summer, the crisis involving Georgia and Russia, in which there was clearly a need for a strong role for the European Union, and, second, the ongoing financial crisis. Both crises highlight the fact that the European Union can only achieve results when it acts in a concerted fashion and that where we have the capacity to act together decisively and coherently, we can achieve progress. That is why we need the Lisbon treaty which is designed to give us the institutional set-up to play the role the Union must play in the 21st century.
To give some examples, the Lisbon treaty would provide for a permanent president of the Council of Ministers. People will say we have managed to get by in recent months on the basis of the current treaty. That is true, largely thanks to the fact that one of the largest and most dynamic member states holds the Presidency of the Council, but that will not be the case from the end of this year. It is important to explain that our partners outside the European Union find our lack of continuity in external policy baffling. An example that the President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso, likes to give is that during the eight years when Mr. Putin was President of the Russian Federation he had to deal with two Presidents of the European Commission — not too bad — and 16 Presidents of the European Union. Every six months there is a new face and different personalities to deal with. There is no continuity. A permanent president of the Council is one of the measures we need in order for the European Union to play the important role it is called upon to play in the 21st century.
As I am here in the Oireachtas, it is important for me to underline the role of national parliaments. There is a real need for EU issues to be debated domestically. That is why the Lisbon treaty would give the right to national parliaments to be involved early in the process, when they can still influence decisions being debated in the institutional machinery in Brussels. The proposed watchdog role for national parliaments is very important in the context of one of the issues that comes up in the debate about why people voted "No" in the referendum. They felt there was too much interference from Brussels in the decision making process. This can be dealt with by giving a much more active role to national parliaments in deciding which issues they want to debate and which are close to the hearts of Irish citizens and influencing the outcomes of decisions on them by working closely with other parliaments. I know the committee has spoken to representatives from the German Parliament and other national parliaments about how they are gearing up to organise themselves on this matter.
The Lisbon treaty also gives us additional tools to fight international crime and deal much more effectively with migration. It also gives us a clearer basis for work on energy and climate change. There are many other issues I could mention but will not as we are short on time.
What are the implications of the current position on the Lisbon treaty? I mentioned the current financial crisis. It is obvious to everyone here that Ireland has benefited from the protection of the eurozone in recent weeks. One only has to compare the experience of Iceland which does not have the benefit of EU and eurozone membership. When the financial crisis first began to hit, the reaction in Ireland and other member states was, first and foremost, a national one, but that was clearly seen to be inadequate. It also led to concerns about the impact of one country's actions on another — concerns we were able to address because we have EU rules. The Irish bank rescue scheme was understood by the other member states as a necessary emergency measure. It was also heavily criticised by them because it was, initially, discriminatory. However, working with the Commission it was possible to adapt the scheme to be compatible with EU rules and the Commission was able to approve it. We need to work together on these challenges.
In recent weeks we have seen an instinctive national reaction which did not convince the financial markets because none of our member states, or even countries larger than them, is able to deal with a crisis of this magnitude on its own. Once we organised a united EU response and were able to bring the eurozone and sterling together, we were able to produce a united reaction which has turned the tide and enabled us to complete a first phase of tackling the crisis.
We must now move on to reshape the financial system, drawing on the lessons we have learned, while preserving the essentials of Europe's open markets. The fact that Europe has been able to get its act together and is seen to be capable of decisive action has also played an important role internationally. At last weekend's Camp David summit the European Union and the United States discussed how to shape an international response to the crisis for the future.
The European Union's economic and social agenda is designed to promote sustainable growth and jobs. It goes under the heading of the Lisbon Agenda, just to cause confusion between the treaty and the agenda. Everyone knows the EU model is based on open markets and high levels of social protection, but with rules for both. Having agreed rules is important. They are a protection for all member states, of whatever size, and a guarantee that bargains made will be honoured. Regulation is not, and should not be, an ideological issue in the EU. It is a matter of ensuring high standards of protection with a light touch and minimum bureaucracy, cost and interference in the lives of our citizens.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, we are working on new economic plans and looking at where our existing policies need to be adjusted. It is important that Ireland be fully involved in shaping and influencing those plans as they emerge. The success of the Irish financial services sector, for example, has been built up thanks to the single European financial market. Ireland needs to be actively involved in the discussions on the emerging new regulation for financial services because it will have an immediate and direct effect here.
I note that the sub-committee had a meeting yesterday with Mr. Paul Rellis, managing director of Microsoft Ireland. I agree with the points he made about the importance for foreign investment in Ireland and of Ireland being seen to be a fully committed and proactive member of the European Union at the heart of the Union. There are other member states who are willing to take up mobile international investment. They also have lower wage rates and low tax rates as Ireland does. At the same time, it is important to stress that Ireland's tax policy is fully protected by the fact that unanimity is guaranteed in the treaty and that this is not changed by the Lisbon treaty.
Mr. Chairman, you also asked me to say a word about Ireland's influence in the EU. I believe all countries, whether big or small, have a greater influence because of their EU membership. There is no longer such a thing as a big country in the EU. Even our largest member states are medium sized in international terms. Whatever influence one of our larger member states might have, it is obvious in today's complex world that smaller countries have an influence inside the Union which they would never have outside it. Our understanding of how the world works in the era of globalisation must move on.
Ireland has preserved all of its key national interests intact, as a member of the EU club. In the recent debates surrounding the referendum very few new issues were raised. Many familiar issues were raised regarding fears of what the EU might be about to impose on Ireland. These fears were never realised because they were unfounded.
We live in a very complex democracy, but it is a democracy with all of the necessary checks and balances and with governance structures that run from the local through the regional, the national, up to the European level and beyond. What we are trying to do through this treaty is to make those governance structures more efficient and effective, not for their own sake but because they will help us to deliver better outcomes for our own people in Europe and further afield.
The European institutions recognise that people have concerns. Some of these are part of the reality of belonging to a club. One can never get 100% of one's own agenda. One must compromise. The question is whether the compromise is, overall, worth the effort involved. The answer is a resounding "Yes". It is also a fact that some concerns people have are based on misunderstanding or on ungrounded fears about what might happen in the future. All of these must be heard and addressed.
I will give my very honest assessment of what has happened. Ireland's image in the European Union and beyond has been tarnished by the "No" vote. I can see every day that it has reduced our ability to shape and influence events in the European Union. Other European states tend to view us now only through the prism of the Lisbon treaty. Whenever Ireland raises its flag at a meeting one can see all the other member states remembering what happened in regard to the Lisbon treaty and wondering what the Irish members will say. It has had an effect. I do not believe Ireland's image has been tarnished irrevocably. We can put the situation to rights provided we are able to ratify the treaty in a reasonable time. Between now and the December European Council there is an opportunity and a need to find a genuine and sustainable way forward to resolve this situation, working together with other member states as partners.
The mood in the other member states is that they want to get on with the real agenda and put an end to the institutional debate. We in Ireland should share that aspiration. The Lisbon treaty gives us the tools we need to face the challenges that lie ahead. Looking at the situation today, in the middle of October, faced with both international challenges and the financial crisis, we need more than ever the tools to give us efficient and accountable ways of making decisions in the future.
I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the discussions of this committee and I look forward very much to the questions and comments members would like to put to me. Not only today but to the end of the committee's work I assure members that I and many people in Brussels and elsewhere in the European Union will follow the work of this committee with enormous interest.
