Good morning and thanks to everybody for attending yet again. We are now in public session. I propose to suspend for two minutes until the witnesses arrive.
Ireland’s Influence in the EU: Discussion.
Sitting suspended at 9.35 a.m. and resumed at 9.37 a.m.
I thank Mr. Seán Whelan and Mr. Jamie Smyth for attending to discuss a number of issues with the sub-committee. This sub-committee has been set up to examine Ireland's future in Europe. In order to do that we have divided our work into a number of different modules. The module on which we would appreciate their input is the impact on Ireland's influence within the European Union in light of the Lisbon referendum result. Up to now we have organised our meetings to focus more on discussion rather than listening to presentations from people who then leave. I propose to give each witness five minutes or so to give an overview of where matters currently stand and then open up the discussion to the sub-committee to have as much discussion as we can on points raised and to give members the opportunity to put questions.
Before we begin I draw attention to the fact that members of the sub-committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Mr. Seán Whelan
Thank you, Chairman. I thank the sub-committee for inviting us. We hope we can add something to the sub-committee's deliberations. We are not entirely sure what that might be as it is in the nature of our work to rush into print if we find out anything that might be of interest to the public. If there is anything we can do to help the sub-committee's work, we are more than happy to do that.
We have been asked to look at areas such as influence and Ireland's standing within the European Union in the wake of the "No" vote. That is necessarily impressionistic reporting. It is hard to put a finger on these matters. It is like trying to pin down mercury. We will do our best for the sub-committee.
There are as many interpretations outside of Ireland as to why Ireland voted "No" as there were "No" voters in the referendum here. Everybody has different theories, different opinions, different ideas as to why Ireland voted "No". The consequences of that are real but intangible. That is the best way of expressing it that I can think of. To say there are consequences is not to make a value judgment. It is more in the realm of Newtonian physics, simply observing that for every action there is a reaction. For a vote in a referendum there is a consequence down the line, and that consequence and series of consequences are playing out. In many ways it is still quite early to make a definitive judgment or assessment as to what those consequences may be. I think it is surely the case that consequences are being played out here.
The key issue for all of us and for politicians in particular is the issue of influence. Like the proverbial elephant, influence is difficult to describe but you know it when you see it and you also know it when you do not see it. In this area of impressionistic reporting, there is certainly a perception that Ireland has less influence now; that its influence is beginning to diminish. Whether that is a temporary or a permanent phenomenon it is too early to say. It can be perceived; it can be felt and tasted in all those myriad ways in which politicians, such as the members of the sub-committee, would certainly sense these things better than us journalists. There is definitely a perception of shrinkage in terms of Irish influence.
The related area is credibility and Ireland's credibility in internal European politics. We are still at an early stage here; the definitive judgment will be played out over time. There is lack of credibility or a reduction in Ireland's credibility in the wake of that vote. Many people have remarked to us about the poor job done in presenting the arguments for the Lisbon treaty, particularly in the wake of the first Nice referendum result and all the promises and commitments that were made to do a better job of communicating to the Irish public. There is certainly a view that this was not well done in Ireland and this reflects poorly on the political establishment in the country.
The two issues of influence and credibility then feed into effectiveness and the consideration of how effective Ireland Inc. is in playing its role in the European Union and in trying to achieve things for Ireland. There is no diminution in our entitlements under the European treaties. We get the legal minima and possibly a bit more of what we are entitled to. As practising politicians the members of the sub-committee will well know that everybody gets their legal minima but it is through politics that the extras are achieved and the jam is brought home to constituents. Procuring those extras by way of politics depends on one's influence, credibility and standing.
The other factor I highlight and which should not be underestimated, is the morale factor among the Irish people working in the Brussels system, in particular the civil servants working in the permanent representation in Brussels. There was a huge amount of wind taken out of their sails. The people who work in the representation really felt beaten down and kicked and this manifested itself in physical ways. They looked shrunken and aged. That may be just the heightened perception of these things but they really looked and spoke like beaten people. Commission staff had initial worries but they seemed to have calmed down a bit as they are safer in the system. Irish members of Council staff, because they represent Ireland rather than an institution, were a little bit more under pressure. With regard to MEPs and their assistants, the Parliament is much more forthright in expressing views and anger would be one of the more discernible traits. If anger is being expressed anywhere it is in the Parliament, particularly as people are facing into elections next June and are not entirely certain which electoral base they will operate from.
Not to be forgotten are the lobby groups and civil society groups who are operating in the European system. One lobbyist I met who represents an industrial lobby said they had a meeting of all their European federations in Belgium last week and just in the course of turning over the diary and looking forward to next year, issues were coming up and remarks were made that such and such a measure could have been taken under co-decision but because of the Irish "No" vote it will be stuck now with unanimity and it is unlikely to get through. The lobbyist said nobody pointed the finger or glared at him but he just felt not exactly deliberate pressure and he believed it fed into his credibility and influence and effectiveness in trying to work through what are essentially political mechanisms.
The principal reactions we have received run through incomprehension, incredulity, anger and cynicism. We can deal with those later in the questions and answers session.
Mr. Jamie Smyth
Good morning. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the committee. Much of what Seán says rings true and I have experienced very similar sentiments in Brussels. One of the main things that struck me after the referendum result was the shock among our EU partners. The EU diplomats and politicians that we mix with every day cannot understand why we rejected the Lisbon Treaty. They are somewhat bemused at to the reasons for the "No" vote, which seem to have focused on issues that are not directly in the treaty, such as abortion, taxation and conscription.
We voted against the Nice treaty in 2001, which created problems with enlargement. It is more serious this time, maybe because politicians in Brussels knew that the Nice treaty was quite a messy treaty and would probably have to be reformed, whereas they have spent seven years working on the Lisbon treaty. They have poured their heart and soul into it. They are angry and it will be difficult for them to give it up. I spoke to a couple of diplomats from other member states before coming in here. One of the things they said was that Ireland broke it so Ireland has to fix it. That sums up the way they feel about our "No" vote.
Our reputation is somewhat damaged after this vote. We were seen as a role model for many of the new member states that joined the Union in 2004. The decision to open our borders to workers from central Europe while others erected barriers gave us strong friends in that part of Europe. The "No" vote has damaged this reputation to a certain degree. We are not the role model that we once were. This may have political and economic repercussions. As Sean Whelan said, it is difficult to pin down particular issues on which we will lose out, because the whole thing is a bit intangible. We have lost some influence and some authority.
Looking at Ireland in Europe over the past three decades, we have been very successful at placing key Irish people in top EU posts. Ms Catherine Day was here yesterday. Mr. David O'Sullivan is another director general for trade, while Mr. John Bruton is the EU ambassador to Washington. We have three heads of cabinet within the Commission in the internal markets, competition and consumer affairs portfolios, all of which carry a great deal of weight. We have done pretty well and the fear is that in the future, things may not run for us. For example, a future group on Europe was announced last week at the EU summit. When this group was first discussed at EU level, the Government stated that it would support Mr. Pat Cox to be a member. However, there was no mention of Pat Cox at the summit last week and he did not make the group. Perhaps this is one example of where we might lose influence. It might be more difficult for the Government to push our people on to these key committees.
Being good Europeans can bring domestic rewards. We have seen that over the years. One tangible example is the fact that the Irish language became the 23rd official language of the Union in 2005. We did not apply for this when we joined the EEC in 1973, so a decision by our EU partners was needed to allow this to happen. It costs up to €10 million from the EU budget in the years since it was implemented. Why did we get that? During Ireland's Presidency in 2004, Deputy Bertie Ahern managed to get a compromise on the EU constitution and this created much goodwill for Ireland. This goodwill is the sort of thing that can help us when we want something. We wanted the Irish language to get official status. The other member states were happy to do it and it created a lot of jobs in certain areas of Ireland.
There are potentially bigger issues at stake in Europe at present. The Common Agricultural Policy is scheduled for review in 2009 and the EU climate change package is meant to be negotiated and decided on by December. This climate package could cost Ireland up to €1 billion every year between 2012 and 2020 and, as we all know, the Irish budget is under severe pressure. We will need all the influence and authority we can muster in these types of negotiations.
It is correct that our entitlements have not changed under the treaties. We are still entitled to €9 billion until 2013 under the CAP. However, our ability to try to get member states to massage deals and get compromises which might just help us will be affected. In the climate change package, for example, agriculture is a big issue. We are asking other member states to support us and recognise that it is very difficult to cut emissions in agriculture. If we had voted in favour of Lisbon, there is a chance they might have supported us more and been more willing to help us with this type of request.
We must also consider how the rejection of Lisbon has caused domestic problems for our partners. As politicians, members will know there is nothing worse than domestic problems that impact on themselves and, potentially, their vote. In Austria, following our vote, the Government collapsed when the Chancellor suggested all future EU treaties should be put to a vote — that was one issue although other issues were at play. In Poland, the treaty has become a factor in exacerbating a dispute between the Prime Minister and the President. Although it is a domestic problem, the fact we voted "No" has perhaps given the President more leeway to argue in that dispute. I recently met the Croatian Foreign Minister. There are fears in Croatia that our rejection of Lisbon will prevent it from joining the Union in 2010.
Our vote in Ireland does impact on other member states. It is a Union. A decision in one member state can impact on other areas, which must be taken into account in terms of their reaction to us and how they will be willing to help us in what we want.
One issue that occurred in August was Russia's invasion of Georgia and there is also the current financial crisis. These two issues have probably strengthened the resolve of EU member states, diplomats and politicians to try to get Lisbon ratified. They really want to have the permanent President of the European Council as they believe it would create a more stable and credible institutional structure. The desire to get Lisbon ratified is probably even stronger than it was before we voted "No".
Some dangers lie ahead for Ireland but also for Europe. Because we are members of the Union, it is important for us to have a strong Europe. Opponents of the treaty could probably justifiably argue that the EU did manage to put forward a credible response on the Georgia issue and the financial crisis. However, there are dangers ahead if we do not ratify Lisbon. I will give some examples. One of the big fears in Brussels is that the EU will begin concentrating on and spending much of its time and energy on institutional issues. It has spent seven years at this and it can tend to become a little obsessed with institutions, which is a problem. The last thing Europe needs is for more years to be spent on that rather than dealing with concrete issues.
One of the big problems is that if we do not get Lisbon ratified there is a potential that some member states that really want the Lisbon reforms might try to go ahead on their own. They might want to integrate on certain issues and might form core groups which would move ahead in certain areas. This would leave us in an awkward position. We are members of the eurozone, which is very important to us, but we might be excluded from other policy areas and it would end up as a two-tier Europe, with us on the outside.
In Britain, David Cameron of the Conservative Party has said he wants to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the European Union. There is a possibility that if we do not get Lisbon through, Britain will begin renegotiating its position with Europe and we may follow it in this. As the others move ahead, perhaps we will be left with Britain, which may not be in our best interests. We would probably be better served by being at the centre of Europe and having a real role in the decision-making process. Overall, if we do not get the Lisbon treaty through, it will damage our relationship with our EU partners. It might have some tangible consequences for the country.
I thank Mr. Whelan and Mr. Smyth for their presentations.
I welcome both speakers to the sub-committee and thank them for their insights into how the Irish "No" vote in the Lisbon treaty referendum is affecting our standing and influence within the European Union. While our terms of reference are broad, the sub-committee's purpose is to look at how we might respond as a country to that rejection in order to try to protect Ireland's interests within the Union.
Part of our remit is trying to understand the implications for Ireland, as well as how it was that the Irish people chose to reject the Lisbon treaty. The role of the media is important in considering that question. Our two guests are familiar faces and names in covering European issues. It seems, however, that there is poor coverage of such issues in the Irish media. When the sub-committee was first established, I talked to one or two members of the Irish media who laughed and said, "It will be very difficult to cover anything your sub-committee is doing because of the yawn factor." People are not interested. As soon as the European Union is mentioned, they switch off because it is seen as highly technical, complex and hard to relate to.
How difficult is it for members of the media based in Brussels to make European stories interesting? Is part of the difficulty the fact that European politics are sterile because of the lack of a human dimension? As regards national politics, the population at large knows its politicians and enjoys seeing the relationships between different politicians and parties. It seems the human dimension of European politics is lacking. If asked to name key politicians or officials in the European institutions, most people would not know who they are. They cannot relate to or identify politicians or officials at European level. Is that a difficulty and how might it be addressed through the media?
Are European issues covered in the basic training journalists receive? Is it a fact that journalists are as unfamiliar and uncomfortable with European issues and the whole European political system as ordinary members of the public and that is why they avoid covering them to the extent that it appears they should?
My last question is about jargon. The Secretary General of the European Commission spoke here yesterday about the new initiative on communications being launched by Commissioner Margot Wallström. The key to that initiative is simplification of much of the jargon used to describe what is happening at European level. How difficult is this? Is it a challenge in our guests' own work? How do they think politicians and the media might get around it?
Mr. Jamie Smyth
Yes, covering European issues can be difficult. I was not here during the referendum campaign. As I was reporting from Brussels, I do not know the ins and outs or the detail of the referendum campaign because I was not part of it in that respect.
From my experience of working in Brussels, it is a complicated place. There are 27 member states which have come together to form a union. That is one of the reasons the Lisbon treaty is a complicated document; it is a real compromise between 27 member states. In a certain way, there is not full trust between them. One has to write every single element in the treaties. Unfortunately, that is a fact of Brussels life. Brussels has to do more, particularly on jargon, for example, as the Senator mentioned. There are a lot of strange words which I came across when I first went there. I felt I was in a foreign place because it takes a long time to get to know them. The EU institutions and the politicians and civil servants who work in Ireland will have to get to grips with that and boil down such euro-jargon to terms that normal people on the street can understand. There is work to be done in Brussels in this area. I noticed from the Millward Brown survey that some of the literature handed out by the Referendum Commission used too much terminology and may have been placed at a level that was too high for ordinary people to understand. That needs to change.
How do I cover Brussels? Journalists should try to bring the story to the people rather than focusing just on the institutional aspect, such as the votes in Parliament. For example, let us imagine there is legislation on energy security going through. The way to do it is to go to a nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic, say, and write an interesting story. That is one thing we try to do at The Irish Times. I have travelled throughout Europe quite a lot. That is a good way to do it. We covered the Lisbon treaty campaign in Europe to a considerable extent. I had to write a 10,000-word series on the Lisbon treaty, consisting of ten articles, which was quite a challenge. From the point of view of my newspaper, the problem was not lack of effort or lack of coverage. However, politicians sometimes put too much emphasis on how much influence the media has. I am not sure that people vote in referendums or elections campaigns based only on the articles we write. If there is a second referendum, for example, it will be important for politicians to engage with people on the doorsteps. It is such personal engagement that might change people’s opinions.
Mr. Seán Whelan
My firm belief is that media follow politics, although I know some members may take the contrary view. Whatever goes on in politics will be picked up and reflected by the media. The most important place for disseminating messages in Ireland is the Dáil bar, followed closely by the Law Library and watering holes around that area. These two gossip factories are the places in which the media feed on the information presented to them. If politicians are not talking about Europe then the media are not talking about Europe. They will take their cue from those such as the members of this committee — the elected representatives. If there was more talk about Europe in the Dáil bar that would be reflected in the media coverage. It can only be viewed in the context in which it is taking place. The surge of coverage of the Lisbon treaty in the last three or four weeks before the vote was fine, as we could all justify the number of articles we published, but the context in which that coverage appeared was rather an arid wasteland of lack of context. Plonking down treaties in front of people and giving them huge articles and long-winded, worthy pieces on the radio about the ins and outs of the treaty is meaningless, frankly, if they do not have the context, and will not work.
How do we develop the context? How do we get to the point at which Members of the Houses and journalists in these precincts are gossiping about bits of European legislation in the Dáil bar? Members have seen through their own work the activities of other committee systems in Europe — particularly the Danish committee system, but also, to a certain extent, the British and German systems. Our experience in Brussels is that the best-informed journalists in terms of what is going on are the Danes, on a purely technical basis. They have the background and the information because their own parliamentary committee has produced the information in an authoritative and widely accepted way, as members heard from the testimony of the Danish Members of Parliament. We are starting to see this also with the Germans who, because of the reporting system now established in the Bundestag, have a good overview of what is going on, particularly in terms of reporting on who said what at the Council.
That is particularly interesting because one does not always get that from national delegations at the time. However, the Germans take it seriously. Last week at the summit I noted that the first thing Ms Angela Merkel did each morning was go into the Bundestag to brief the parliament before flying to Brussels, going to the EPP pre-meeting and attending the actual summit. The information was being diffused. That is not how we do things in Ireland. Until there is a systematic approach to processing information, digesting it internally within the political system and disseminating it through the normal political communication channels, the context will not be created. We can write all the articles we like but it will not get through to people. It is a long-term, slow-burn and very deep process. Much of the information will be disseminated through non-media communication, by politicians dealing with their own constituents and lobbying, industrial and civil society organisations and the constant political dialogue that continues for years. As the sub-committee has heard, the Danes have been doing this since 1973. Therefore, we are coming late into the game. That is the context in which media are operating here.
I thank the journalists for coming to the sub-committee. We appreciate the good work they are doing in Brussels on the Lisbon treaty and generally.
Mr. Whelan and Mr. Smyth presented a stark analysis of the mood in Brussels, among the Irish and others in the various institutions. Was the mood similar when the French and Dutch rejected the constitutional treaty in 2005? A considerable period of time was spent in the preparation of that treaty. What was the response at the time? Was the mood darker because the Irish, who are seen as the shiny good guys and the role model of the European Union, had done the unthinkable? Is there a change in the mood among those in the western and eastern world as to who might be engaging with the European Union? What is their perception of the progress of European integration and how the European Union stands after the defeat of the Lisbon treaty?
It has been notoriously difficult to raise public interest in the Lisbon treaty. No matter what we do, we are fighting a losing battle. There is a disconnect between the people and the European Union which is difficult to bridge. The reports from the Union are broadcast on television at an unearthly hour of the night. The politics programme might finish at midnight, after which Mr. Whelan's report might be broadcast. His programmes are excellent but broadcast at an unearthly hour. It is said "Oireachtas Report" is for insomniacs. The European report is for double insomniacs. Could our public broadcasting body present reports from the European Union at a more amenable hour?
In the context of the Lisbon treaty, how did the Coughlan, McKenna and Crotty judgments affect the balance of reporting in RTE? What sort of editorial control was imposed and how was that dealt with? In terms of The Irish Times, the quantity of reportage, much of it done by Mr. Jamie Smyth, was outstanding, but is it not interesting that no other paper has any standard coverage of European issues? They clearly reflect the interests of their readers. No matter what one does about Europe, there is very little interest in it, unless there is a row, which means one is not dealing with the substance of any issue. Does The Irish Times do it because of its particular readership? How difficult is it for The Irish Times to maintain that very high coverage of issues relating to Europe?
In terms of our work here, what is the perception of our work as a Parliament and as a committee? We have had discussions with different European parliaments and European affairs committees. Some of them seem to have much more authority and much more power in directing their Minister in Europe. What is the perception of Irish Ministers' involvement in European deliberations at the Council of Ministers? How does it compare with the input from other countries such as Denmark and Germany?
We do not have a permanent representative in Europe. Would it be worthwhile for us to have a lobby group there? The Irish pharmacists have permanent representation in Brussels that keeps them informed of developments taking place. Should we have somebody on the inside track keeping us informed of what is going on in Europe?
Is the system of mandating Government Ministers an effective mechanism? Does it ensure better results or does it simply tie up Ministers in an inflexible fashion?
Mr. Seán Whelan
For the French and the Dutch there was a similar perception of loss of influence and loss of credibility. The French in particular have had to work extremely hard to try to rebuild their image and their credibility in the European Union. The fruits of that can be seen in the current French Presidency. The French are making very big efforts to promote France as a "good European". They are going to many more than usual lengths to accommodate people's views and opinions, to be seen to be a player at the heart of Europe. They are very consciously trying to make up for what they perceive as a loss of influence within the European Union. To a large extent it had to await a political transition in that country before that could happen.
The Dutch have, in many ways, been able to slip in on the coat tails of the French. They were less exposed in terms of their own credibility; their "No" followed so closely on the French "No" that the focus of attention was not on them. I suspect there has been some loss of influence by the Dutch but not as great as that suffered by the French who, after all, are people who like to stand on their prestige in international affairs much more than other countries, notably the Dutch.
In terms of trying to get programming on air and so on, it is a tricky question. There are people in RTE who are paid much more than I am who can answer those questions. Scheduling is not my decision nor is editorial content. Jamie Smyth and I shovel in our material and it is up to other people to place it or not place it as they see fit. If the committee wishes to pursue those lines of questioning, those are the people who can provide the answers. We do what we have to do and others do what they have to do. With regard to the late night programming of the "Euro Report", there are many programmes all trying to fit into a small number of hours even with two channels. It is hoped that sort of scheduling will improve when the digital network and infrastructure is established and a parliamentary channel will be operational. This would provide more opportunities for cycling material through at different times. I am hopeful that the "Euro Report" programme and others will be given more of an outing.
On the questions about committees, permanent representatives and how the Parliament does its work, I am not sure if we need a permanent representative in Brussels as the Irish Civil Service permanent representative should supply politicians with information, as does the Commission which has taken upon itself to be more proactive in supplying politicians with material. I refer also to Irish MEPs who are allowed participate in Oireachtas committees. There are probably enough links already there, particularly in light of budgetary constraints.
In the context of the Lisbon treaty, the intention there was to reverse the order. At the moment the national parliaments are the last link in the chain of implementing legislation. Under the Lisbon arrangements, national parliaments would be the first link in the chain, the first port of call for any new legislative proposal from the Commission. This strikes me as a far better way of involving national parliaments directly and getting the process moving early. It is my experience that we have a discord, a temporal discord between when something comes on the agenda in Brussels and when it comes on to the national agenda. This is probably in the range of 18 months to two years. We are picking up issues in Brussels which we regard as fascinating and interesting but when one rings up an editor in Dublin, they do not regard it as important at the time but a year or two later they are ringing back and asking if I knew about it. I certainly did know two years ago. This mismatch in the scheduling could probably be ameliorated somehow if the Lisbon arrangement of bringing proposals to the national parliaments first was implemented. There is a mechanism for improving it and it feeds back into this context issue which I was talking about earlier. If the sequencing of the legislative proposals is wrong, if it does not fit with national legislatures and national media, then it will be very difficult to get issues on to the national media using the existing Brussels system.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Timmins.
I welcome both Mr. Whelan and Mr. Smyth and I apologise for arriving late and missing the beginning of their presentation. I have a few questions. I note that Mr. Smyth mentioned some of the disadvantages of potential European action on the international stage as a result of Ireland not ratifying the Lisbon treaty. He referred in particular to the permanent President of the Council, as did Ms Catherine Day in her presentation yesterday. Are there other elements that will disadvantage Ireland in the context of the financial crisis and in any situation similar to that in Georgia in the summer? External action and a co-ordinated response is hugely important for each individual member state. What other aspects of the Lisbon treaty are regarded as vital in this regard?
During the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign much was said about getting a better deal for Ireland. Has there been much talk in Brussels about this better deal? Have Irish voices been advocating a better deal? Has there been any response to that from our partners in the other 26 member states? Is it possible or is it desirable? What should be in the deal if it is possible?
Coverage of the referendum campaign is restricted by a number of judgments, most notably the McKenna judgment. It is my view that this leads to a very undemocratic, biased and unbalanced situation. We must all work within that framework, but I think it is unjust and undemocratic that parties such as my own were effectively cut out of all media coverage on the treaty because it was mandatory that coverage be given to unelected people. In the context of a European referendum, that is just about tolerable, but if it were to happen in the children's referendum, it could become very explosive and divisive. I would like to hear the views of the witnesses on that and how they feel it affects their own work.
I agree with Seán Whelan about the type of discussions that need to occur from a political point of view and in a political context. The Law Library and the Dáil bar may well be the places for those discussions, but I wonder what we can do here. I am a big advocate of having more debate on European matters in the plenary session of the Dáil. All of what happens at committee level is pretty much ignored by those Deputies and Senators who are not members of those committees, which is a great problem.
I have a strong sense that MEPs feel disconnected from our Parliament. We sit on days when it does not suit them to be here. They cannot attend committee meetings more often than not, and I would like to hear the witnesses' views on that.
I thank both speakers. I watched the initial stage on the monitor and I compliment them on the work they do in this area. Unfortunately, they operate at the Hull City end of the market. I was going to say Meadowbank or Falkirk, but that may be a step too far.
It is good to hear Jamie Smyth articulate the view about the difficulties we have caused for other countries. We often think of our own internal difficulties, but we have created difficulties for Austria, Poland, Croatia and Denmark, which cancelled a referendum on the opt-outs based on our decision. We may also have assisted the Conservative Party in the UK. Who are the people who come up to Mr. Smyth in Brussels and tell him they are delighted with the vote? What type of representative does this and what kind of thinking do they represent? Mr. Whelan referred to the shrinking influence we have and he spoke about the Dáil bar and the Law Library. What is said to him in the Brussels equivalent about the Irish vote?
The print media, including The Irish Times, provided fantastic coverage leading into the Lisbon treaty, but I remember an editorial in that newspaper about the desire for clarity. There was an opinion piece inside by a Sinn Féin public representative that contained several factual inaccuracies. How does an editor reconcile that? Certain space must be given to opinion pieces, but we seek clarity and do not wish to see factual inaccuracies. We do not have a difficulty with differences of opinion, but I have a problem when factual information is misrepresented by design or otherwise. How would the witnesses classify their own knowledge of the Lisbon treaty and the knowledge of the media in general about the treaty? A journalist in the Irish Independent wrote an opinion that contained factual inaccuracies. If he was referred to the Press Ombudsman, I am sure that would be the case.
How would the witnesses view the knowledge of Irish politicians on the Lisbon treaty and its detail? I bear in mind that the issue was raised of how prepared Irish Ministers were at the Council of Ministers. The Danish representatives told us about being at meetings at which the Irish representative opened the envelope. Perhaps the representative had studied the information previously; I do not know.
The "Prime Time" specials in which Mr. Whelan might have been involved were very informative and probably the most influential in the whole campaign. In the last week several "Prime Time" specials were broadcast to outline what was contained in the Lisbon treaty and what was right and what was wrong. The public had begun to doubt politicians, with one saying, "It's a biscuit" and another saying, "It's a bar." As reporters, when they interview two people on European matters and one says X and the other says Y, but they know one is factually correct and that it is not a matter of opinion, do Mr. Smyth and Mr. Whelan find there is a difficulty in presenting the report? What struck me with regard to accuracy during the campaign was the continuous claim that our voting strength halved at the Council of Ministers under the qualified majority voting system, when the case could equally have been made that our voting strength doubled. Is this a difficulty?
Mr. Jamie Smyth
To deal with the parts of the Lisbon treaty which would help our external actions, the European Council President would help because it would have a single telephone number and there would be someone to call. The Americans traditionally have always wanted one telephone number to call to talk to the European Union. That would help.
Previous questions were related to Russia. Obviously, there are tense relations between the European Union and Russia following the Georgia issue. I attended a briefing recently with a Russian diplomat who praised the Irish for holding a referendum and criticised the rest of the European Union for not doing so. However, Russia is an example of a country that can tend to play member states off against each other. For example, it tends to have very difficult relations with Lithuania and Poland but much better relations with Germany. If we had one European Council President and a more stable Presidency and a high representative who would also sit on the European Commission, this would potentially go some way to ameliorating these problems. It would not radically change everything because member states would continue to have their own national interests, which is accepted. However, the institutional structure would make a certain difference in a positive manner.
Can we get a better deal for Ireland because we voted "No"? People in Brussels say to me the Commissioner issue, in particular, was one about which other member states were not happy. Ms Margot Wallström, Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communications Strategy, has said that what one gains in efficiency from having only 18 Commissioners as opposed to 27, one loses in democratic accountability. The Commissioner issue is one on which where we can potentially get change, although it will not be easy. One diplomat to whom I spoke yesterday said we should not think because we voted "No", we would suddenly be given everything we wanted. That is just not the way it is. Just because we are obstructionist does not mean we can completely rewrite everything. Unfortunately, the Lisbon treaty cannot be rewritten because that would require all of the other 26 member states to again ratify and they have clearly signalled that this is not possible.
I will leave the McKenna judgment to Mr. Whelan as he is the expert on broadcasting issues. I was asked how we could improve EU understanding. The Lisbon treaty and Brussels are complicated. Education has an important role to play. In school young people should be learning about how the European Union works. It is important for journalists and Members of Parliament to go to Brussels to get a feel for the place. I know journalists who have gone there to report at parliamentary sessions or during summits and they get a different feeling for how it works. It is the same for Deputies who go to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers to see how it is all done. This would improve their understanding and help them make the case for the European Union.
I think it would be a good idea if MEPs regularly appeared before this committee and told members what is happening in the European Parliament. Under the Lisbon treaty, the European Parliament was going to get a lot more powers and co-decision would have been extended to many more areas. It would be vital that the MEPs keep in contact with the committee and make an effort to tell its members what is going on there.
As regards who congratulates me on our "No" vote, I am very popular with the people in the United Kingdom Independence Party. They invite me for drinks and toast the Irish regularly. Jens-Peter Bonde, a Danish former-MEP, has also congratulated me on our "No" vote.
As regards The Irish Times giving space to the “No” campaign and factual inaccuracies, it is important that we do present both sides of the argument in the opinion pages of our newspaper. That is our role — we want to foster a good debate. The debate has to be won on either side, however, and it is up to both sides to make their case and get a victory. I do not know the article that was mentioned. If there are factual inaccuracies, we would usually correct them. We have a corrections column, which is the way we usually go about that. If there is a mistake made in the newspaper, we would usually correct it.
As regards my knowledge of the Lisbon treaty, I wrote a 10,000-word series on it. It was complicated and difficult to do, but it helped me a lot. I would not say I know every single thing in the Lisbon treaty because that is impossible. One would have to study it as a professor to know every single detail, but I know the general gist of it. I know what is important, which is what Deputies should get to know. They should get to know the really important factors, which are not complicated. The important things, such as the European Council president, the high representative, democratic accountability and getting parliaments more involved, are relatively simple to know. There are bits that are complicated, but one probably does not have to get to the nitty-gritty on those.
I will hand over to Deputy Dooley. If there are any points that Mr. Smyth and Mr. Whelan could not answer, I will give them an opportunity to do so in our session at the end.
Since quite a number of my questions have already been asked, I would like to share my time with Deputy Flynn. I thank both witnesses for their presentations and more particularly for their ongoing work in a difficult area. It is obviously an area in which it is difficult to get coverage at home. Mr. Whelan talked a lot about context and I must agree with him. We were talking about a reform treaty when many of the people we were dealing with did not know what we were reforming, so the context certainly was not there.
I would like to hear Mr. Whelan's views on how he might respond if asked to put forward some proposals to improve our understanding of what the vision of Europe is. In my view, much of the debate concentrated on laymen becoming legal practitioners as to how Article 42 might conflict with Article 48, and how that might play out in the European Court of Justice. Everybody became a legal expert, rather than standing back and identifying what the vision of Europe was.
For many years, many of our citizens have seen Europe as a cash cow. When that changed, they did not see the benefits of closer co-operation, a common market, and the capacity to attract foreign direct investment to Ireland because we had access to those markets. All that flows from a much more integrated Union, while obviously protecting our sovereignty. From his journalistic perspective, Mr. Whelan might assist us in addressing that deficit of knowledge. I take his point about the articles, which are fantastic. They are associated with the political discourse at a particular time. There is a lack of context which probably needs to be addressed.
What are other EU journalists saying? Can Mr. Whelan give us some insight into the inability of the institutions to communicate with journalists effectively? His audience is somewhat different. It seems to me that no effort is made to communicate with the tabloid sector of the media, which, as we all know, is very influential. There is a requirement to get the institutions to communicate.
He has also indicated people do not necessarily take heed of what they read in newspapers. If it is packaged and presented in a certain way, as in the tabloids, there is clearly a capacity to misguide — I will not say misinform — people on occasion in terms of the underlying approach.
I welcome Mr. Whelan and Mr. Smyth and thank them for their presentations. I would like to start with Mr. Smyth's last comment, which I found fascinating. After working in Brussels for many years, he said it was impossible to know every detail of the treaty, but he knew the important things. This was an important aspect of the Lisbon treaty campaign. Some said they had not read the treaty, while others said people should not bother to read it as it was too tedious. Even for someone who is working night and day in Brussels, it is impossible to know every detail. The danger for those trying to fight the campaign is that when someone picks out what they consider negative aspects of the treaty, unless one knows every detail, one cannot reply properly. Those of us on the "Yes" side spent too much time answering these few criticisms and not enough on the positive side, which is what the representatives spoke about for ten minutes in plain English, without any eurospeak, when they started their presentation. How can they assist us — if there were to be a rerun of the campaign, which there may not be — in tackling the way in which the campaign is conducted? Mr. Whelan mentioned the reduction of our credibility and poor presentation of the arguments; he is correct in this respect.
The representatives also mentioned the downside of the "No" vote. Apart from the issue of the Commissioner, are there any benefits to the fact that Ireland voted "No" to the Lisbon treaty? Deputy Timmins asked who were Mr. Smyth's and Mr. Whelan's new friends in Brussels and to what parties they were invited. More importantly, who is not inviting them? Is there any circle in which they are no longer welcome as a result of the referendum?
There is one issue I would like to see developed and it was mentioned by Mr. Smyth. Since we joined the European Union in 1973, we have spent a long time creating our own identity as a country. We do not exactly know how it will work out, but if a two-tier European Union does develop in which Ireland may end up linked with the United Kingdom, it is important we recognise the pitfalls and that the Irish people understand this may happen rather than our remaining at the centre of the European Union. I do not think it was anyone's intention to tie our boat to that of Britain once again, certainly not if the Millward Brown poll results, in which 70% of respondents had a positive attitude to Ireland's being at the heart of the Union, are anything to go by.
Mr. Seán Whelan
I have always found that the best source of stories on the European Union — even in Ireland — is elected representatives or their assistants or spin doctors. These are the people who are pushing out stories all the time. The European Parliament functions very much as this Parliament does. It is a gossip and an information factory. Things are happening there and there is a buzz. There is no shortage of ideas being pushed out. I do not think it is up to the institutions. The Council does not bother. The Commission makes an effort, but what have we learned from this? Most people are under the impression that the Commission is the most important institution in the European Union and that it runs everything and makes all the decisions, which plainly it does not. It is essentially an administrative body, not a decisive body. The power in the European system is held by elected representatives in the European Parliament, but especially by the Council. It is from Ministers going to the Council and Members of the European Parliament that we get the most story ideas, which is as it should be. That is the correct flow of political communication. I do not know that there is much the Commission can do. There is a Commissioner for communications, but frankly they are always scrambling for portfolios to employ the ever increasing number of Commissioners. There is probably not a full-time job in doing that work.
With regard to knowledge of the Lisbon treaty, it is difficult to get a grip on it. The Taoiseach was criticised for saying he had not read every comma and full stop of the treaty. I followed him around as Minister for Foreign Affairs during the intergovernmental consultations and I know he was involved in all the key negotiations, spent many long hours and was extremely well informed about all the arguments going into shaping the treaty. However, he was publicly caned for making an honest statement of fact, that perhaps he had not read all of the Danish declarations, the position of the Faroe Islands or whatever. As far as the substance of the treaty was concerned, I have no doubt he was extremely well informed on it.
I suspect that many frontline Ministers have internalised the European Union process to such an extent that they did not feel they had to do a sales job on it. The European Union exists; they go to it and conduct their business so they wonder why they have to go out every time and explain what they are doing. However, that constant repetition must enter into political discourse and Ministers need to spend the first 30 seconds of every answer selling what they are doing, why they are doing it and why it is being done at European rather than at national or local level. They must make a subsidiarity argument in favour of doing things at European level. Politicians must explain what they are doing to the journalists who are listening to them and to the wider public.
I have heard the fear of a two-tier Europe linked to the UK expressed, principally by Irish politicians in Brussels. They fear that after the next British election a Conservative Government will withdraw the instruments of ratification from Rome and hold a referendum urging a "No" vote. The Irish would then be bracketed with the British for having facilitated the British Conservative Party in its stated intention. We do not know if the Irish Government wants to do such a thing, presumably not. Nevertheless, people are talking about that. Some people have questioned whether the Irish Government really wants to have the treaty ratified. It is being said that the Irish Government is relieved that people voted "No" to the treaty because it did not want to ratify it in the first place.
Is that the thinking in Europe?
Mr. Seán Whelan
That is the thinking in certain circles in Europe. Members have asked what people are saying to us in the European Parliament bar and the coffee houses in Brussels. These are the kind of things that are thrashed out when we are sitting around waiting for Ministers to do their business. We do not know what is going on in the Council chamber because that meets behind closed doors but in the gossip factories, this is one of the ideas that is kicked around.
Another idea coming from some of the neo-conservative think tanks operating in the United States, such as the Heritage Foundation and one of its subsets, the Margaret Thatcher Institute for Freedom, was that the Irish people plainly agree with the Iron Lady that this madness of a European super-state must be stopped, and "well done the Irish". The Germans, in particular, have been paying attention to the American dimension of commentaries on the referendum in Ireland and how, over the past five years, the focus has been on those countries which would hold referendums as places where American conservatives were urged to contact their friends and influence the debate. In some of these commentaries, the treaty was seen as being in opposition to US national security interests.
We will now proceed to the open discussion. Any points which have not been raised can be dealt with now.
Lest the meeting finish before we return, would it be possible to get a written answer to any questions we have asked to which it has not been possible to respond today?
I do not think it is fair to ask the speakers to cast their minds back to all the questions. If there are questions that were not answered, could the Deputy send them in writing to the clerk and we will send them on?
If the witnesses would be good enough to send a reply we would be very grateful.
I will, perhaps, ask the questions in public session.
Is it the case that the accession of the new member states opened a window of opportunity in regard to the granting of Irish language rights? Were Irish language rights granted because, with the increase in the number of languages in the EU, it would have been difficult to refuse Ireland additional language rights that were not gained when the late Dr. Patrick Hillery signed up to our accession to Europe?
In regard to the rejection of the constitution by the French, the Dutch and the Irish, has there been a greater degree of retribution or bullying of Ireland as a result of the "No" vote? Has that happened because Ireland is a small country, or is there is a perception that the Irish have an inferiority complex and are being seen to be apologising for having the courage of their convictions in voting "No"? Is it the case that those countries who wish to push the treaties through see an opportunity to continue to harangue Ireland?
It has been mentioned that in Brussels in particular the view is that those who welcomed the vote are mainly on the right. Has there been a reaction among other organisations throughout Europe? Is there a demand for a renegotiation from trade union movements, anti-war groups, trade action groups, anti-poverty groups and other networks outside Brussels? That might not be a fair question because both witnesses are based primarily in Brussels.
Deputy Timmins raised the issue of inaccuracies. Our material was checked to make sure it was legally accurate, but is it fair to say that it is possible to interpret the treaty and present it in various ways, that it is the job of politicians to interpret and present it, and that others can then respond?
Finally, will my drinks be bought for me if I start going to the Dáil bar?
I welcome Mr. Smyth and Mr. Whelan. I apologise for my absence during the earlier part of their presentation. I listened with interest to what was said and have read their written submissions.
Allow me to start with the concept of bemusement and the assertion that many diplomats and politicians do not understand why Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty. Has that led to any sense among people the witnesses encounter at official level within the EU that the Irish Government lost touch with the concerns of its voters? Has it led to any sense that there is a need for the EU to reflect on how people perceive their own national identities within the multilingual, multicultural context that is the EU?
Has there been any considered attempt to move away from what might be described as an elitist view that Ireland has caused problems, whether for us at EU level or other member states, to perhaps a more reflective approach acknowledging that the pain caused by the Irish people is a symptom of a problem that might be encountered in a number of member states and that might fester later? Does anybody in the great scheme of things in Europe see there might be a therapeutic dimension to what the Irish did last June?
On the question of Ireland creating difficulties, it has been mentioned that Austria was calling for the matter to be put to a popular vote in referenda in different countries. Also, with regard to the dispute between the Prime Minister and the President in Poland, does anyone reflect on the question of whether it is really Ireland's fault that the Prime Minister and the President of Poland cannot get on with each other and that perhaps because we might take decisions which are in our power to take, we cannot necessarily be blamed because others might use this as the context or backdrop to struggles in which they intend to engage anyway?
The delegates referred to the fact that measuring influence or authority was not an exact science. There seems to be a peer pressure dimension from what they are saying goes on in the European Union, that how we are seen can matter more than what is in the text of what we say or do. In that regard, on the bemusement when we talk about politicians and EU diplomats not understanding why we rejected the Lisbon treaty or that we had reasons that they would see as not being directly affected by the treaty such as abortion or taxation, any lawyer will say there can always be a legitimate speculation about what legal provisions might entail now or in the future. It is surely not beyond people at EU level to see that something like the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights might well be interpreted in ways that people cannot predict. One should consider the way in which various rights or treaties such as the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties have been unpacked over time to facilitate initiatives by EU institutions or decisions by the European Court of Justice that people would not have discussed at the time of a referendum. Is there any understanding of the rational underpinning of people's sense of concern about the direction things to which they are signing might take them? Obviously, I speak as a person who has spoken about sensitive social issues in a particular way. I have made various points about the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights and the fact that the section that guarantees freedom of artistic and scientific research does not even nod towards the laws of member states and that this might be unpacked over time in a way that might not harmonise with Ireland's constitutional and legal values. Is there any sense that the people concerned might have a point?
I also come from a journalistic background. Most people in journalism seek to be as objective as they can within the context in which they operate. Mr. Whelan and Mr. Smyth would undoubtedly do this every day as they report on disputes between different factions of the Parliament and so on. I will ask a question which others have asked me. Is there sometimes the possibility that journalists operating at EU level can operate within a Euro bubble, that because they live and breathe in these institutions which are so good in many ways and they can see the benefits, it perhaps becomes a little harder for them to be objective about concerns that might be felt at a more peripheral level? I do not ask that question in an accusatory way but as an open, rather than a closed question.
I have one last question and apologise for being lengthy in my questioning. The question of a two-tier European Union troubles me. In the United States some matters are federal, while others are matters for individual states. Given the multilingual and multicultural context of the European Union, is something a little more sophisticated not required, in other words, that there may be certain issues on which some member states will be in agreement, while other member states will choose to deal with them at national level? This is to be seen in the opt-outs. Have the Danes been seen as the outside pariahs because they have had very strong opt-outs for a number of years? If that is the case, is there need to re-imagine what a two-tier Europe might mean? Countries can be completely integrated in some ways and everybody would recognise that they are at the heart of things, while at the same time they may chose to reserve certain areas exclusively to national competences, even though other EU member states might go together on those things. Is there any developing sense that the concept of two tiers has to be recast from being something negative to something that respects diversity and has the potential to include the differing cultural personalities that now form part of the EU?
Do the journalists think there has been a traditional underestimation of the challenge of communicating what the EU is all about? We have a Commissioner for communication, but the recent initiative to try to develop an interinstitutional approach seems to be a far more adequate response to that challenge. There is a task to explain a very complex political system and decision making processes, as well as a challenge to simplify terminology. If the provisions of the Lisbon treaty come into effect, there will be new flows of information and communication necessary to integrate the role of national parliaments. If the citizen's initiative comes into effect, there are many communication implications to that. Do the speakers have any suggestions as to how the communications challenge might be improved?
The Libertas campaign was very sophisticated. In a short period, it appears that much communications expertise was used to communicate a particular message very effectively. Has the EU used the resources that might be available to it as effectively as possible? If it has not done so, how could it do so in the future?
A previous speaker raised the issue about the possibility of Ireland negotiating a new deal. The journalists made it clear here that renegotiating the treaty is not on the cards as far as the other member states are concerned. What is their opinion of the attitude of other member states to accommodate and respond to Irish concerns? It seems to me that other member states have indicated they are prepared to accommodate Irish concerns as fully as they can, notwithstanding the fact that it is not possible to negotiate the treaty without creating all kinds of other difficulties. This means the responsibility is on the Government to present those issues clearly to the other member states, along with proposals for how they might be addressed. Would the witnesses share that view?
I have two points to put. Both journalists have referred to issues facing the country and that our ability to deal with them could be affected by the outcome of the referendum. In particular, Mr. Smyth mentioned the CAP negotiations and the climate change programme. Could he outline the mood in Brussels about that work and our status to protect our national interest, given where things currently stand? Is it possible to imagine a Europe that has different speeds but still allows all members to be at the centre of it?
Mr. Jamie Smyth
On the question on communication, there was an inter-institutional agreement recently signed, but one of the problems has been that member states have not been willing to engage with the Commission and come to such agreements. They see that as a domestic function. They do not want to give the Commission jurisdiction over this area, as they feel it is quite sensitive. That came through to some extent during our referendum campaign. For example, I asked the Council of Ministers whether they would create one single text of the Lisbon treaty. They finally did it four weeks before the referendum, which was a little late. They could have done more. The experts in the Commission and the Council of Ministers could probably have done more to give advice on what exactly the treaty meant with regard to some of the issues that arose in our campaign, for example, whether we would lose our veto as regards the WTO, although they did correct this after perhaps three to five days. The European Union must respond more in the area of communication and member states must increasingly team up with it to consider a more coherent approach in this respect.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to the Irish language and asked whether the ten new member states had created an opportunity in this regard. They probably did to some extent. What we must acknowledge is that member states were also joining in the past three decades and Ireland never made the request. The way the Irish Presidency was handled in 2004 created much goodwill towards us and probably helped to loosen the purse strings.
The Deputy also referred to the French and Dutch votes. Chirac was a lame duck after the French referendum was lost. Ireland is one country that has voted "No" to the Lisbon treaty and it is probable the other 26 will go ahead. This creates a slightly different dynamic than the French and Dutch "No" votes. It may not be seen as fair but it is two countries as opposed to one. Also, France is a very big country whereas Ireland is small. In a sense, there will be more of an emphasis on us to try to solve the problem. It is probably similar to the situation when the Danes voted "No" to the Maastricht treaty in 1992. When only one country is involved, the onus is on it to try to solve the problem.
With regard to the CAP talks and the climate change agenda, I was asked whether we had weakened our influence. Perhaps this is the case with regard to the CAP. One thing I know is that there is not a lot of goodwill in Brussels towards the Irish Farmers Association and its role in the referendum has been criticised by several diplomats I have met in Brussels. The IFA might find it more difficult to assert its claims. It has been a very strong lobby group in the European Union and, when I first came to Brussels, I regularly met IFA members in the Commission lobby on their way to see their Commissioner — it seemed as they were going to see their Commissioner almost every week. It will be interesting to see whether they have the same level of access they once had.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh asked whether the "No" vote had created a ripple effect throughout Europe. It probably strengthened campaigners against the Lisbon treaty in countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands. It raised tricky issues for the Dutch Government which did not hold a referendum on the treaty. Some politicians would have been very critical of that decision and the "No" vote here has bolstered their position.
The Deputy referred to bemusement and asked whether the Brussels politicians and other member states thought the Irish Government had lost touch with voters. There has been criticism of the Government for the campaign on the Lisbon treaty which I have heard from many sources. They consider that the political class in Ireland did not do a very good job in explaining the treaty. Also, there is a recognition in some quarters that if a referendum was held in other member states, there might also be a "No" vote.
People across Europe are generally disconnected from the institutions of the European Union. It is not the first thing they think of and they do not know much about it. The EU institutions and member states must address this issue, not just because of the outcome of our referendum but also because in a democracy one needs to try to get the people to understand how decisions are taken.
The European Union is very important. One third of all our laws come from it. It is important for every man and woman in Ireland to know that one third of our laws may be generated from the European Parliament. That is one reason The Irish Times covers European issues; it is a really important story. It decides on billions of euro in funding for Ireland; that is why we are reporting on it.
Mr. Seán Whelan
I will use an oxymoron in dealing with the issue of bullying attitudes to Ireland, in saying people are only human. I will explain what I mean by this. I remember being in Nice when the treaty was signed at 4 a.m. They all ran out and said, "We have finished it, thank God, but actually we need another treaty to fix the bits on which we could not." Therefore, it has been ongoing for seven or eight years and, frankly, they are sick and tired of it. They are like anybody who has been at something for years, they just want to finish it. They say, "Please, can we not just finish this thing and get it out of the way? If we have to do something else, let us think about doing something else." That is the point they are at. It is not that they are trying to bully the Irish or get angry or become exasperated. These are human reactions. It is just that when one thinks one is at the finishing line, something else happens and it is, "Oh". That is the sense they have.
There is political and cultural understanding and sensitivity. As Mr. Smyth said, there is this notion of "There but for the grace of God go I. It could have happened in my country." Ireland is the focal point because there were 11 referenda during the European constitutional ratification process cycle. The Lisbon treaty was recast in order that countries would not have to have ratification by referenda. Ireland did. As we were the only people voting in a referendum, all the political risk in the ratification process was going to be concentrated on Ireland. That is why the attention was on us and stays on us. For whatever reason, it is all about us. We are now in the period between the vote and the decision on what happens next.
It is up to the Government to decide whether it will go again or say, "That's it lads. Game over." We are in the period where all kinds of things can happen and are being discussed. I agree with Mr. Smyth that the actual room for renegotiation of the treaty is minuscule. In fact, it is non-existent. The Danes did not secure renegotiation of the treaty when they voted "No" to the Maastricht treaty. Because we are so close to the finishing line, they will try to put together some package to see if it would be more acceptable in another referendum in Ireland. Whether it is, is a political judgment. It is not for me to make that call, it is in the politicians' court. If they were to say, "No, we can't go on with this, we have to start from scratch," one would get the sense that we were only that far away and now we would have to start from scratch again. People are only human. Therefore, there would be a range of reactions and scenarios with which we, as a country, would have to deal. However, if they were to start from scratch again, where would they go? They would go back over an awful lot of the ground over which they have gone for eight years at the convention. All those debates, unlike the American constitutional convention, were held in public and the proceedings are available for people to see.
The important issues Senator Mullen raised such as cultural, linguistic and societal differences frequently receive an airing, almost on a daily basis. The raison d’être of the European Parliament is to try to provide a forum to increase understanding between these viewpoints. Therefore, these issues are very much considered, even issues such as religion. The biggest party group in the European Parliament is known as the Christian Democrats and there is a view of religion informing political action among a large section of that chamber. These elements are informing the normal, everyday cut and thrust of politics and the shaping of policy, although I do not know whether they should be seen as the key determinants in the rule-making or constitution-building process. On a daily basis it is probably better off done within the framework of a broad constitutional arrangement, rather than being prescriptive or specific about it. We would run into too many difficulties. This is where the whole area of variable geometry, as it is known in the jargon, becomes extremely difficult. If one is trying to create more spaces in which countries can occupy some parts of the policy agenda and not others, withdrawing from certain things they do not like but still considering themselves part of the core Europe, it becomes much more structurally difficult to build a legal framework in which countries can operate. If members think the Lisbon treaty is complicated they should try making a constitution that would accommodate all these differences. As we have expanded the European Union in terms of the number of countries, the variability of that geometry has increased exponentially. It becomes harder and harder to accommodate the differences. That is why politicians try to make a package deal in these constitutional treaties. I recall our own politicians talking about this during the negotiations — of trying to squash the sides together and get them to shake hands on a deal there and then because if they did not, it would drift off in another direction. There is always a moving target. Every so often one must seize the beast by the throat, throttle it, stuff it, mount it and say “Now we have it”. Then, if necessary, one moves on to another one.
The process will continue to evolve, but if we design it in such a way that it becomes more and more complicated, it will be harder to sell to people. The process of political communication itself will become more difficult. The simpler one keeps things, the better it is. If it is easier to communicate the idea of what we are doing it will be easier to gain acceptance among the public and easier for the system to operate. There would be a small fixed idea and then a broader political space in which elements would ebb and flow in the normal cut and thrust of politics. Such things are certainly being discussed. There is no shortage of material being produced by think tanks from within the European institutions and Governments. There is a vast acreage of material. Much of the best expertise on this in our own system is locked away within the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of the Taoiseach in the form of civil servants who, due to the nature of their jobs, do not go out front with such things. Certainly these things are being considered throughout all of the countries.
All countries have their own interests, their own cultural background, their own sensitivities. These things are at the heart of the system. We are not being in any way victimised because we have a certain viewpoint. Everybody has a viewpoint and everybody tries to accommodate everybody else's viewpoint. Still, however, the other countries want to get some business done, and because they are so close, after eight years, there is a certain amount of exasperation there. That, as I said, is a human reaction.
I will allow one more round, as people are still signalling they wish to speak, but I would appreciate if members could keep their questions to the point.
I thank the witnesses for their comprehensive responses. I will focus on the issue of bargaining power. Perhaps I represent a particularly rural type of bargaining approach, but much of what I have heard suggests to me that the more one is liked the more one will get. That is what it amounts to. However, sometimes there is another way of bargaining, which is to be awkward. If it is the case that people are really weary and have been working very hard — good people who have been negotiating late into the night — and they are very close to getting a deal, and there is one small country that has a problem but can identify a certain amount of items it wants out of the negotiations, does that not put that small country in a good position? We may not call it renegotiation, but we could get what we want nonetheless because nobody else wants to reopen the discussion. In other words, the other countries might agree that the country causing the problem is small and they can get over this hump. Nobody likes awkward people, but it is possible to imagine a scenario in which because we are awkward we might just get what we want. I like the excellent phrase "variable geometry". I must ask Mr. Whelan about it later to make sure I am using it correctly because I intend to use it myself in the future.
The German constitutional court has taken a different view from our legal order. There is an area which is undefined at present whereby the German constitutional court says that some things are so fundamental that it will decide for Germany. Other legal orders, perhaps Poland and Italy, take a similar approach. Our Supreme Court has not spoken on this. Might Ireland resolve some of our difficulties by going in the same direction and saying that the final say in certain areas, perhaps that of fundamental rights, will be reserved to the Irish Constitution? We incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights at a subconstitutional level in Ireland. For example, if one is found to have one's rights breached under the European Convention on Human Rights, one can get a declaration from the Irish Supreme Court that while one's convention rights could not be satisfied that does not have implications for the Irish constitutional architecture, which is supreme. Is there any debate about whether that might be the resolution to some of our problems in the area of fundamental rights?
I am also interested in that issue. Perhaps we should seek more information on the German constitutional position, how Germany operates separately from some of the other countries and how that might tie up with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which I regard as a pillar of the Lisbon treaty.
Mr. Whelan referred to the view that there was little room for negotiation and that after eight years people are sick of this issue and simply want a package to be put together. Would such a package consist of opt-outs, declarations or protocols? Has Mr. Whelan observed a global impact of what has happened? Has there been an effect on direct foreign investment and do other countries see Ireland as no longer central to the European Union? How is Mr. Declan Ganley, his funding, electoral prospects and connection with eurosceptics, viewed in Brussels? Has any country developed an effective formula for communicating the European Union to its public?
How can we deal with the deficit of information so as to improve the context within which we deal with ongoing European matters? Could this be done through public service broadcasting? Should someone create a magazine-type programme to engage people with the vision for Europe? Is Europe targeting the tabloid market to get the message across?
Mr. Jamie Smyth
The question of bargaining power was raised. On the one hand the more one is liked the more one will get, but on the other, toughness and saying "No" can improve one's bargaining power. For a short and specific period of time there is a willingness to get one over a problem. One of our problems may be that we are not sure what exactly we want or how we want to change this treaty to address the fears the public expressed. Quite a number of issues came through, but none really centrally. If we drive a tough bargain, if we say we want to keep our commissioner even after 2014, there is a chance that if our representatives go to Brussels they might be able to win that battle. We can get opt-outs from the treaty. We could potentially opt out of security and defence policy. However, that would raise questions for our Defence Forces. Would they become irrelevant if they could not go on EU peace-keeping missions? We could opt out of the European Defence Agency which is an agency that tries to improve spending on military equipment and make it more efficient. The question is whether that is a good idea. We can also get as many declarations added to the treaty as we want and, because they are not legally binding, the treaty would not have to be re-ratified anywhere. We can write in that the treaty will not affect anything to do with abortion or affect social rights in any way, but if the legal standing is not secure, one would have to ask what difference does it make. For a short specific time we might improve our bargaining power, but after that we might lose it dramatically.
On the constitutional courts, the German constitutional court and the constitutional court of the Czech Republic will make a decision on what the Lisbon treaty would mean for them. The constitutional court of the Czech Republic is the one people feel could raise barriers and cause problems for the ratification process. One would need to ask a legal expert what we could manage to do in terms of writing in specific opt-outs or what the Supreme Court could do. It is not really my area. On the global impact on foreign direct investment, I understand the chief executive of Microsoft who was here the other day suggested Ireland's decision could create confusion among the international community as to whether Ireland is really committed to Europe. I would defer to him on that issue.
In regard to how Mr. Declan Ganley is viewed in Brussels, there is a great deal of fear among the strongly pro-Europe Deputies in the European Parliament. They are scared he might tap into some sort of anti-European feeling across Europe, run a pan-European programme and boost the number of eurosceptic Deputies in the European Parliament. I am aware that the Standards in Public Office Commission is investigating the funding aspect of this. I believe, and I wrote this before in an article, that the real debate with Declan Ganley should be about what his vision is for Europe, what he is offering. In a referendum campaign it is easy to pick out negative aspects and to campaign against something. After that, however, one must ask what relationship one wants Ireland to have with Europe. That is where people could engage Mr. Ganley further.
On the question of whether tabloid newspapers were engaged enough during the referendum campaign, I have heard rumours in Brussels that perhaps the EU institutions did not advertise as much in those papers. Maybe that is something they should consider because tabloids are very well read in Ireland and are a potential forum where one can engage people. That is something I would recommend the EU institutions and, perhaps, the Government to look at.
On communicating Europe more generally, the Danes and the Dutch have been mentioned as good models in terms of their parliamentary committees. I am aware that in regard to one of these committees there is power to mandate Ministers. The Minister must come before the committee before he or she goes to Brussels and get a mandate to take a certain decision. That would certainly provide more scrutiny of what our Ministers are doing in Brussels and maybe that is a good idea and something that should definitely be looked at.
Mr. Seán Whelan
In terms of the bargaining power, one can make a nuisance of oneself and get things if there is a window of opportunity and as Mr. Smyth says, if one knows precisely what one wants and one has a good read on what is politically obtainable and also what is technically feasible in terms of this treaty. We are now at 24 ratifications and the Swedes are supposed to vote next month. We are not sure about the Czechs and there is a question mark over the German constitutional court, but on their previous form all these treaties have been referred to them. Nobody knows about the Czechs because it is their first time.
On the question of what is technically feasible at this stage and what can actually be changed in terms of the substance of the treaty, frankly nothing can be changed in terms of the substance but there could be change with regard to the commissioner. It was identified months ago that the germ of a switchback is already contained within the Lisbon treaty so that they can continue on with one commissioner per country but they cannot make that decision without either enacting the Lisbon treaty or incorporating the Lisbon agreement under the existing Nice treaty arrangements of deciding by unanimity what way they carry on with the size and composition of the Commission. If we come to them with a short, realistic list of things, I am sure the political will is there to obtain these things because they want to close off this treaty and they want to finish it.
There is a willingness to do things but how far it can be done in terms of the technical reality and how far it can be pushed on the political scale is something that both technical and political experts will need to determine because we cannot make those determinations and it is within the bailiwick of politicians. I would caution members of the sub-committee that many people have expressed the view to me that having a referendum at all is tantamount to blackmail, that it effectively puts a gun to the head of the other countries and says, "You lost it in the negotiations and now you are putting a gun to our head and saying give us what we want or we will vote No". They find this attitude disgusting and reprehensible. These are passionately-held views and it shows how some people interpret referendums, particularly from those countries that do not have a tradition of holding referenda.
When we are talking about cultural differences and trying to accommodate understandings between different nations and different linguistic groups, we should be aware that our own tradition is perceived in a very different way and so we need to be sensitive to that in terms of how we negotiate from here. I agree there is a window of opportunity and that understanding and an opening exists but it is a small enough opening, both on a technical and a politically-feasible scale. If we know what we want and we think it is realistically achievable, then there is some slack in the system.
On the question as to whether a second referendum would be acceptable, I have no idea. The members of the sub-committee live in this country; they knock on doors for a living so they are the only ones who can make that judgment.
Members of the Upper House do not have to knock on doors.
I have knocked on doors.
I thank Mr. Smyth and Mr. Whelan for their presentation which was excellent and which will be very helpful to our work. I thank them in particular for coming to meet us at such short notice, which is much appreciated.
I wish to notify members of two items for next week. The first matter is the need for and role of a Vice Chairman. I wish to bring this matter to the sub-committee next week for discussion. As much as I enjoy being Chairman, the sheer practicality of being present every day all day is not something I can do. We need to make a decision on that matter next week.
The second point is about the drafting process for our reports. In parallel to all these meetings, we have been working on how to obtain the capacity to do the drafting and how to manage that with the committee. As we begin to make progress on each module and if I think we have achieved a critical mass on a module, I will bring a single sheet of paper before the sub-committee with the key points in the particular section of the report that corresponds to the module that we have done. Based on the discussions that follow, we will begin the work of fleshing out that report. It is my intention next week to bring the headings of a report based on the discussions that we have had on the first module, which is about how we enhance the effectiveness of the Oireachtas. We will get the input of committee members on that, and we will then draft the section of the report that corresponds to the module.
In the draft agenda that has been circulated, we can see that the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association is due here next Wednesday.
The Chairman would be familiar with that association.
I noticed a few committee members pausing to think who they were as well.
Are we in private session?
No, but we can go into private session now.
The sub-committee went into private session at 11.33 a.m. and adjourned at 11.45 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 October 2008.