JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union) debate -
Wednesday, 29 Oct 2008

The Role of the European Parliament: Discussion.

Chairman

Good morning everybody. I thank the delegates for attending. As they are aware, the role of the sub-committee is to examine Ireland's future in Europe. We have broken our terms of reference into a number of work modules. Today we are examining the role of national parliaments and the relationship they have with the European Parliament. We are interested to see what can be done to strengthen and improve the role of national parliaments in order to understand what is taking place within the European Union institutions and examine how the power of national parliaments can be improved to influence what is happening in order that parliaments can work within countries and communities. A broad spectrum of people have spoken to us on that topic ranging from members of national parliaments to academic experts, all of whom have made a helpful input to the debate.

We also wanted to get representatives from some of the institutions to provide their views on the issue and that is why we asked for the participation of the members of the European Parliament's committee on constitutional affairs. I believe Mr. Leinen will be the lead speaker on behalf of the committee. We are breaking every module into a number of different sections. We will allocate ten minutes to the delegates to respond to the committee and following that we will break up the discussion into a lead speaker system where each group represented will get ten minutes to respond to the points made and to put questions to the delegates. Following that, we will have an open session in which members of the committee will have an opportunity to put questions to the delegates and to raise any point they wish.

Before we commence I draw delegates' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. I remind my colleagues of the parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Leinen to commence his presentation. He has ten minutes and then the rest of the committee will have an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Jo Leinen, MEP

I thank the Chairman and members of the sub-committee for inviting us to Dublin for this meeting. Many of us come from warmer parts of Europe and it is pretty cold in Dublin. As Oscar Wilde said, "Wisdom comes with winters." We very much hope to get a clearer idea of the committee's view on the future of Europe and Ireland in the European Union. The committee might hear from us about how we see different things that are on the table. There was a huge interest in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to meet the sub-committee. We have a high profile delegation, which I will introduce.

I present the following: Mr. Richard Corbett, MEP, the spokesperson of the Party of European Socialists from Great Britain; Ms Monica Frassoni, MEP, the Co-President of the Green Party in the European Parliament; Mr. Elmar Brok, MEP, a representative of the Parliament in various intergovernmental conferences from the Treaty of Amsterdam via the Nice treaty to the Lisbon treaty; Mr. Enrique Barón Crespo, MEP, the former President of the European Parliament from Spain; and our dear colleagues from Ireland, Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP, representing the Europe of the Nations group; Mr. Colm Burke, MEP, from the European People's Party; Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, from the Party of European Socialists; and not to forget Mr. György Schöpflin, MEP, from Hungary, a very important voice from one of the 12 new member states.

The constitutional affairs committee has worked. It is about a new treaty for the larger EU of 27 member states, with probably more to come. On the morning of the summit in Nice, everybody agreed that the Treaty of Nice was not enough for good governance, transparency, democracy and efficiency in the EU of the future. Since 2001 the world has changed dramatically. More than ever there is a need for better functioning of the EU. Our citizens expect that the EU can do the job and meet the main challenges to be faced in the years ahead. We have more challenges than we want, starting with 9/11 and the terrorist threats to our countries. There is migration from Africa, Asia and eastern Europe, and we must have a common system in place to deal with legal and even illegal migration. There is the enormous issue of our dependency on energy imports. We in Europe are very vulnerable and know we can only deal with this by speaking with one voice to Russia and other areas of the world that supply us with gas and oil.

The climate change package is on the table. We know for certain that no country can deal with this problem on its own. Then there is peace building and peacekeeping, where the United Nations is asking European countries and especially the European Union to play an increasing role, not only in our immediate neighbourhood, the Balkans, where we are already active, but in Chad. Individual European countries, along with the African Union, are helping Chad significantly to rebuild its capacity. In addition, the UN is asking the EU to help immediately with a peacekeeping force in Chad. We have lost a good deal of time dealing with our internal problems in the EU. Now, more than ever, we need a better basis for stronger policies and institutions in the EU to find solutions to our challenges.

The European Parliament has expressed itself on various occasions on the reform treaty. I want to refer to article 1 of the resolution tabled by Richard Corbett, MEP, and Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, MEP, on 20 February 2008 that received overwhelming majority support. Some 540 MEPs voted in favour of the proposal, only the anti-Europeans voted against, as they always do when it is a question on the future of Europe. The article said the Parliament had concluded that the Treaty of Lisbon was a substantial improvement on the existing treaties, which would bring more democratic accountability to the Union and enhance its decision making, strengthening the roles of the European Parliament and the national parliaments.

Mr. Elmar Brok, MEP, is our rapporteur on the role of the national parliaments under the new treaty and might speak on this point later. We continue to enhance the rights of the European citizens with the Charter of Fundamental rights — the most modern catalogue of rights and freedoms enjoyed by people around the world — and improve the effective functioning of the Union's institutions. We have, therefore, been very positive as regards the package deal for the reform treaty.

I use the term "package deal" because when one has 27 member states, making compromises becomes necessary. Everybody has wishes he or she wants fulfilled and even the European Parliament wanted other issues included and certain points improved in the reform treaty. However, the treaty is what is possible at this time and it is the deal done between 27 member states.

Most recently, on 22 October 2008, more than 500 MEPs meeting in plenary session voted for a resolution on the October summit. On the Lisbon treaty the resolution states that Parliament "reiterates its respect for the result of the Irish referendum and for the results of the ratification procedures of the other Member States, and considers that it is possible to meet the concerns that have been expressed by the Irish people in order to secure a solution acceptable to all before the European elections". An important point, which members may wish to discuss, was the statement that Parliament "stands ready to offer the Irish government and parliament any assistance they may require in order to present a set of proposals which will forge a broader, more informed consensus in Irish public opinion about Ireland's future within a reformed and strengthened European Union and which will be acceptable to Ireland's EU partners". We are here to listen to members, answer any questions they may have and help to get a broader and deeper debate about the main messages and objectives of the reform treaty and our common future in the European Union.

In 2009, the European Union will experience important moments. We have elections to the new European Parliament, the citizens' chamber of 500 million people, as well as the election of the President of the European Commission and college of commissioners. We are often asked under what rules the elections to the Parliament will be held and the composition of the new Commission will be done. Will the provisions of the Nice treaty apply or will the rules of the Lisbon treaty, which are better for both procedures, apply?

We have been invited to attend a meeting of the joint committee on 29 October, which is a good moment. We know the committee will finish its very welcome work by the end of November. Let us, therefore, use the two hours available to us to exchange questions and have a productive meeting.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Leinen for his contribution. Before I hand over to my colleagues, does Mr. Leinen have any proposals or observations on how to improve the effectiveness of national parliaments in their dealings with the European Parliament? I would be pleased to hear any comments the delegation wishes to make on this issue, which is of particular interest to me.

Mr. Jo Leinen, MEP

My report on the new role of the European Parliament is available on the Internet. My colleague, Mr. Elmar Brok, MEP, is preparing a report on the new role of national parliaments and co-operation with the European Parliament. I will give Mr. Brok the floor to address a few of these issues.

Mr. Elmar Brok, MEP

The difference between Mr. Leinen and me is that I am more down to earth because I look after national parliaments. Having taken part in every intergovernmental conference since the Amsterdam treaty, I am in a position to compare the different treaties, in particular, the Lisbon and Nice treaties. The real progress achieved in the Lisbon treaty when compared with all other treaties was the strengthening of the European Parliament and national parliaments. This is important.

It is important to be aware that national parliaments have rights under this treaty to use a yellow and orange card system. These give the right to any national parliament acting alone to stop a change being made in the treaties in the simplified procedure. Any national parliament can stop any measure in judicial, corporation and civil law and each national parliament has the right to go to court to stop the violation of the principle of subsidiarity. This demonstrates important progress has been made.

Article 12 proposes that all national parliaments must be involved in the work of the European Union. For example, the European Parliament and national parliaments must work together to control Europol. In addition, any future treaty changes must be done by way of convention, with national parliaments always in control. It is important that the issue of seats in such a convention are prescribed as part of the procedure of the Parliament. There are also many new rights for national parliaments in the area of information.

The most important point is that every national parliament is now informed, eight weeks before the European Parliament and the Council, of any legislative measure the Commission proposes. This is not just important because of subsidiarity rights or the yellow and orange card system, or because of providing a way to take an issue to court. It is important because it gives national parliaments and committees, particularly European affairs committees, detailed information from the beginning. This will mean they are in a much better situation to oversee the national government as a member of the Council and to follow up what the national government does in Council, because they are now informed directly and do not rely just on the information they get from the national government. This will strengthen both their role on the question of subsidiarity at the European level and the overseeing of the whole legislative process in the relationship with the national parliament as a member of the Council.

In this regard we should try to find closer co-operation between national parliaments and the European Parliament. The national parliaments and the European Parliament are not competitors. We must work together so that we have more information and are better able to control our respective executive branches. Therefore, we would like to develop a way that, step-by-step, the relevant committees of the national parliaments will have a closer relationship with the committees of the European Parliament.

We should find ways to do this even at an early stage, for example, a rapporteur involved in the European Parliament for a piece of legislation has a mechanism to meet and correspond with the people responsible in the national parliament committee concerned. Therefore, at that level the European Parliament is involved and knows about the opinions of national parliaments. This also strengthens the role of national parliaments, not just with regard to the relationship of the government in the Council but also with regard to the Member of the European Parliament. It is very important to have such pre-legislative and post-legislative dialogue at committee level as well as with the Members of the European Parliament concerned. This is also important with respect to putting a European directive into national law. In my experience of this in Germany, it is helpful to note for the European Parliament the motive we had for legislation, rather than rely on the information provided just by the government. It is important to consider these issues.

With regard to this committee's discussion, I heard, for example, how co-operation works better between Europe, committees and the German and Danish Parliaments than in Ireland. For example, I am a member of the European affairs committee of my national parliament and I have a right as a member of the European Parliament to speak in all working groups of my parliamentary group of the national parliament, even in the plenary session. They can also ask me what to do so we have interaction at that level. There is also a closer relationship between party political groups in the parliament, not just to the parliament itself.

These are some of the more important questions on which we can work together. They must be clarified because of Ireland's debate on them.

Chairman

I must now allow members of the committee to address Mr. Brok.

Mr. Elmar Brok, MEP

I have one more sentence.

Chairman

One sentence.

Mr. Elmar Brok, MEP

On the issue of foreign and security policy, defence policy is the responsibility of the national parliaments, not the European Parliament, because of structural co-operation. This is very important in my country. The European Union has no right to send soldiers of a member state to war against the will of that member state's national parliament. It would be very much against it if it occurred. There are rules for deploying armies and in respect of how they are set up, be it through conscription or otherwise. At this stage of development, I would be very much against this area being dictated by EU law. It is a question of state and national law.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Brok. I will call on the members in the order in which they signalled to me. I call first Deputy Costello.

Deputy Joe Costello

I welcome the delegation and its presentation. Perhaps it will be possible to receive a copy of the delegation's notes for the benefit of the sub-committee because some of the remarks made were certainly very interesting and will prove useful.

Will the delegates outline how the European Parliament operates as an institution, its input into the work programme of the European Commission and how it operates in respect of legislation and co-decision making? Will the delegates outline whether there could be a linkage with national parliaments in the operations of the European Parliament?

Mr. Leinen has stated the European Parliament respects the result of the referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon treaty. He has also stated he would like to be able to meet Ireland's concerns in so far as this is possible. Will he comment on some of the key areas involved? Mr. Brok made very interesting comments on the military area.

Will Mr. Leinen elaborate on the possibility of there being a commissioner for every member state and on the fact that there are now more areas subject to qualified majority voting than there are in which a veto applies? To what extent is it perceived abroad that qualified majority voting is reducing the strength of member states in key areas?

The European Parliament is involved in co-decision making with the Council of Ministers. How does Mr. Leinen regard the member states in terms of the accountability of Ministers to national parliaments and how they fulfil their mandate?

What mechanism of scrutiny do the delegates regard as best? Is it the one in place in Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany or Ireland? Are certain mechanisms of scrutiny more valuable than others? Denmark is semi-detached from the European Union, given its opt-out clauses. What are Mr. Leinen's views on how Denmark operates in respect of its opt-out clauses regarding the euro, military activity, justice and home affairs?

What is the delegates' opinion on the value of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, how it came into being and its implications? It was the subject of considerable discussion in the debate on the Lisbon treaty.

Mr. Jo Leinen, MEP

I thank the Deputy for those important questions. We will split responsibility for answering them because my colleague, Mr. Richard Corbett, who has written a book on the functioning of the European Parliament, now in its seventh or eighth edition, will answer the questions that pertain to him.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights represents considerable progress in the understanding of the European Union as a union of citizens. We wanted the citizen and his or her rights and freedoms to be at the centre and the focus of what the Union was doing. Therefore, at the time, the mandate was to bring together and make visible those rights granted in the constitutions of member states, in the existing treaties ratified by all the member states and the international conventions as similarly ratified. The Charter of Fundamental Rights has had several additions because people want to see modern rights implemented. There was a significant agreement concerning the article against cloning which was——

Mr. Enrique Barón Crespo, MEP

Reproductive cloning.

Mr. Jo Leinen, MEP

The article on reproductive cloning was demanded by the churches which made the point that European values were such that reproductive cloning was something we should never do or allow. The article is new and modern and is not included in many national constitutions. Therefore, it represents progress.

I shall answer the question about opt-outs. Denmark decided for opt-outs but the Danes have since found this to be more negative than positive. Denmark is now asking the European Central Bank for a loan because the value of the Danish krone went down substantially and currently has half the value it had before the financial crisis. An opt-out might appear to be an advantage in the immediate term but in the medium and long term might decouple a country from developments in the European Union and would, therefore, be seen to be negative and counter-productive.

Perhaps Mr. Corbett will respond on the functioning of the European Parliament and what is modern best practice.

Mr. Richard Corbett, MEP

All proposals for European legislation must come before the European Parliament. In most but not all cases we have the right of co-decision with the Council of Ministers. Both bodies must agree on the same text for it to become law. With the Lisbon treaty, that would apply to virtually all legislation. There are significant gaps where the European Parliament can offer only an opinion and Ministers take a decision alone in the Council. Normally in a democracy we expect Ministers to have the approval of a parliament for a text to become law but that aspect is missing in the case of almost half the legislation introduced. That was one of the main reasons the European Parliament was so keen on the Lisbon treaty because it would improve not only the rights of national parliaments but also those of the European Parliament.

How do we do this? We look at texts in detail in our specialist parliamentary committees. Our political groups then look at them before they go before the House. Interestingly, if one considers the European Parliament and Council together, a Minister's job in the Council of Ministers is to look at a text from the perspective of national interest. In the European Parliament we sit as political groups and look at a text more from a perspective of policy. With proportional representation, we have the full range, from every country, of left to right and in between. In that way, the European Parliament and the Council do not duplicate each other's work but are complementary. In this way every European proposal is looked at from a variety of perspectives before it can become law. To become law it must pass the threshold of a qualified majority, more than two thirds of the votes in the Council, and must have the approval of the European Parliament. This requires a high level of scrutiny before any measure can be adopted and become law across the European Union.

The way we operate internally is very similar to the way a national parliament works, with committees, policital groups, etc. I will not go through this in detail because members are familiar with it, except to say we do not have a governing majority. We have a number of political groups with no overall majority. One has to argue one's case, persuade, convince and build on compromises issue by issue as they proceed through the Parliament. That is different from some national parliaments.

Senator Pearse Doherty

Cuirim fáilte roimh an toscaireacht anseo, An Coiste Gnóthaí Bunreachtúla de Pharlaimint na hEorpa. Tá fáilte romhaibh uilig.

Mr. Leinen referred to the Corbett and Méndes de Vigo report of 20 February. My party, Sinn Féin, tabled an amendment to that report urging the European Parliament to respect the outcome of any referendum in Ireland but the amendment was defeated. Which way did each delegate present vote on that amendment?

Mr. Richard Corbett, MEP

I might be able to answer for the whole group because it was my report. I recommended to the groups to vote against that amendment because it referred only to Ireland. I said we had to respect the outcome of the ratification procedures in every member state. Had the amendment been worded slightly differently, there would have been no problem at all in supporting it.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I take it that the committee in its entirety voted against the amendment to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland.

Mr. Richard Corbett, MEP

Because it only referred to Ireland.

Mr. Jo Leinen, MEP

Article 20 of our most recent resolution reiterates its respect for the result of the Irish referendum and for the results of the ratification procedures in the other member states. There are 27 member states and we respect those who have ratified the treaty and those who have not.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I was not aware that Mr. Crowley voted——

Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP

Our voting record is a public document. If one goes on the website one can see the way everybody voted on every single issue. Whether the Parliament respects the results of a vote in a member state is of no consequence because treaty ratification is for each country to decide. Unless all countries agree to the ratification process, the Parliament's view has no bearing on that. This is merely a red herring put out once again by people to try to divert attention from an important issue.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I was trying to ascertain the views of the committee.

Chairman

Somebody has a mobile telephone on silent mode and the recording of the committee proceedings are being seriously disrupted. I ask everybody to make sure their mobile telephones are switched off, otherwise we will not be able to record the committee in the way which members wish.

Senator Pearse Doherty

It is important to ascertain the views of the delegates on whether they voted for an amendment to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland. I welcome the clarification that none of the delegation members voted in favour of it.

Mr. Jo Leinen, MEP

On the contrary, we voted by 540 to respect the result.

Chairman

Everyone will get an opportunity to speak. Senator Doherty should be allowed to finish his questions.

Senator Pearse Doherty

In advance of the Lisbon treaty referendum, Mr. Leinen circulated a document on behalf of his committee to the other committees of the European Parliament asking them to avoid sensitive issues that would impact on the Lisbon treaty. I have a copy of the document with me. Will he outline what are the sensitive issues that would scare the Irish electorate?

Mr. Jo Leinen, MEP

We have to respect the "No" result from the Irish referendum, as we have to respect the ratification procedures in other countries. At the time there was speculation in the media in many countries as to who would get the position of high representative and who would become the president of the European Council. We thought it would not be helpful to speculate on names and positions on which no decision had been taken. Therefore, we asked that the issue would be discussed calmly and objectively not by forcing debates that were not timely. One cannot decide who will get a position if the treaty has not been ratified.

Senator Pearse Doherty

Is it the role of the committee to decide who becomes President of the European Commission? As Mr. Leinen, MEP, says in his letter as regards matters the constitutional committee is dealing with, a degree of caution needs to be exercised, given the politically sensitive nature of some of the issues in hand. He talks about documents concerning the implementation of the Lisbon treaty. As we all know in Ireland, it is a legal text and we all need to find out about the impact of implementation. He says politically sensitive matters should be examined only when it is sufficiently clear that the treaty will become operational.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

On a point of order, this is all very interesting, but it is not the function of the sub-committee to cross-examine Members of the European Parliament as regards correspondence dated 12 months ago. It would be much more useful if the Senator talked about how we could get ourselves out of the current mess, rather than trying to refight the Lisbon treaty campaign. I would appreciate it if the Senator addressed some questions to us, or even offered some solutions.

Chairman

Before Senator Doherty responds, I am Chairman of the sub-committee and shall decide what the terms of reference include. Mr. De Rossa raised a point of order, as is everyone's right. I am determined to adhere to the approach adopted in the sub-committee up to this point, namely, that members have the opportunity to make whatever point they want, inside the allotted time. At report drafting stage, we shall decide what should be included in it. I shall allow Senator Doherty to finish his points.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I am sorry for the interruptions but will not take any lectures from the MEP. I can ask the questions. It is important to know whether there are politically sensitive issues concerning implementation of the Lisbon treaty. Obviously, the Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee has asked other committees not to discuss these until after the referendum result. It is important that the Irish people know this. It would be a wasted opportunity. However, I do not believe we shall get to the core of that matter today.

Chairman

I remind the Senator that I am protecting the rights of every member of the sub-committee to put questions and have them answered inside the time allotted. If there is a point or order——

Mr. Eoin Ryan, MEP

This is a point of order. Do I understand Sinn Féin will raise real issues relevant to the Lisbon treaty, as opposed to ones made up by it?

Chairman

That is not a point of order. We are letting every member of the sub-committee put his or her points. When it comes to consideration of the report, we shall decide what is relevant.

Senator Pearse Doherty

Perhaps I can ask a number of questions because it seems I will be interrupted if some difficult or uncomfortable issues are raised. Can the committee list the elements contained within the Lisbon treaty being advanced using the rules under the Nice treaty? Can the rules for ratifying EU treaties be explained? If we are really serious about respecting the result of the Irish vote, would it not be reasonable to expect ratification of the Lisbon treaty to be halted and the treaty to be renegotiated because Ireland has rejected it? What are the committee's views of what would happen should the Irish people reject the Lisbon treaty again?

Mr. Jo Leinen, MEP

I thank the Senator for these basic questions on which we should reflect. We hope to secure ratification in all 27 member states because we need the new provisions for the European Union to work more transparently and efficiently. I believe the large majority of Irish citizens want a stronger European Union. If I interpret correctly the Eurobarometer polls taken after the referendum, they were in the right direction. Some 60% of the people who voted "No" on 12 June believe the European Union must continue to do its job, become stronger and achieve all the objectives included in the new treaty, namely, greater efficiency and transparency and more democracy.

As a Union of 27 member states, we must, as the resolution of the European Parliament states, respect those countries which have problems with the Lisbon treaty, as well as those which have ratified it. This is not the first time we have done this exercise in the European Union. When we had a similar experience in Denmark regarding the Maastricht treaty, we found a solution. We also found a solution when a similar issue arose with the Nice treaty. We very much hope we will again find a solution which will satisfy citizens in Ireland but also those of the other member states. That is our job.

There are ideas in the treaty of Lisbon with which we could proceed, especially when it comes to transparency. The Council, for example, has decided to vote openly when it legislates. This is a provision in the new treaty which is already in operation. We welcome this progress.

Chairman

There is one minute left in the module if any of our guests wishes to respond to Senator Doherty.

Mr. Elmar Brok, MEP

I would like to give just one answer. Twenty-seven countries have signed the treaty and every government has made an obligation to ratify it. Therefore, all signatories have to try to proceed, even if one country has said "No". In signing the treaty, every government entered an obligation to progress the matter. They must, therefore, fulfil their duty by having a "Yes" or "No" answer. At the end of the process, we will see how many countries have ratified.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I asked a specific question on what our guests' views would be if the Lisbon treaty were to be rejected again by the Irish people.

Mr. Elmar Brok, MEP

We do not consider plan B before plan A has concluded.

Senator Pearse Doherty

What is plan A? Is it to rerun the referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

Mr. Elmar Brok, MEP

Plan A is to get as many countries as possible to ratify the treaty. After that we will see.

Senator Pearse Doherty

Mr. Brok refers to having as many countries as possible ratify the treaty. If it is not ratified by all member states, how can it proceed?

Chairman

Several members are signalling. I will allow the speaker to conclude before handing over to Deputy Creighton.

Mr. Enrique Barón Crespo, MEP

First and foremost, this entire process began in Dublin Castle. I was President of the European Parliament in March 1990 when the Maastricht treaty was negotiated under the Irish Presidency. The treaty provided for more democracy and greater efficiency and paved the way for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It would be interesting if the sub-committee were to remind people that we set out on the path which led us to the Lisbon treaty during an Irish Presidency.

We, in Spain, also have concerns. Last week I appeared before a mixed committee of the Spanish Parliament to explain the current situation. My fellow Members of the Spanish Parliament noted that they had voted in a referendum in favour of the proposed European constitution and had ratified the constitution and the Lisbon treaty. We are, they said, in a very difficult position, with a crisis in Georgia this year and a financial crisis which has left us in a mess. For this reason, we need a stronger European Union.

What can we do together? Ireland is a country very close to Spain. For example, we were together in the Marshall Plan with France. Members of the Spanish Parliament's committee said they did not appreciate the unilateral decision of Ireland on the question of bank deposits but they did appreciate that the eurozone group, of which Ireland is a member, had taken the lead and made a strong decision in responding to the financial crisis.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Crespo. I must hand over to Deputy Creighton.

Mr. Enrique Barón Crespo, MEP

May I conclude? My message is that we are not in a court but among fellow Members of Parliament.

Chairman

I will hand over to Deputy Creighton. For the benefit of a number of members who were not present during previous meetings of the sub-committee, I will explain the procedure. If anyone wishes to make a statement on how the meeting is being conducted, I will allow him or her to do so without interruption. I will then rule on how the sub-committee will address the point being made.

I intend to allow every lead speaker member of the sub-committee ten minutes to put his or her points. It is up to the speaker to decide how to use that time. However, when we come to draft the report, we will decide then what is included within our terms of reference. A number of people have signalled they wish to speak, but I will finish this section first by allowing Deputies Creighton and Byrne ask their questions.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I welcome the delegation and thank them for coming to visit this committee. We have an important task to complete over the next few weeks and it is heartening that the delegation has taken the time, at short notice, to join us. I thank its members for their contributions so far.

From our point of view, this is a constructive committee. We are trying to find a solution to the problems we face, both from the national perspective and the European perspective, because we are Europeans. I will not engage in any political opportunism, just constructive dialogue so that we can formulate a solution at the end of this process.

I have a number of questions to put to the delegation. Something that has become more of an issue here is the question of whether the European elections will be run on the basis of Lisbon or Nice. There is a significant sense of pressure to see some form of ratification of Lisbon here prior to the European elections next year and I have felt this pressure in my discussions with colleagues at European level. What views does the delegation have in this regard? I must be honest and admit that I do not believe it will be possible to ratify the Lisbon treaty in Ireland before June 2009. What does the delegation feel about that and does it believe it is feasible to proceed with the elections on the basis of Nice?

Some significant problems arose with regard to the European Commission during the course of the debate on the Lisbon treaty in Ireland. The delegation probably appreciates that we have a distinctive constitutional position on certain social and moral issues. There is growing concern here at the role of the European Commission in what is dubbed "competence creep", namely, the European Commission acting in areas that exceed the bounds of subsidiarity. People have consistently expressed concerns in that regard. There are fears, be they vague or not, with regard to issues such as abortion, but there are also real fears with regard to the Commission acting in areas such as family law, divorce and so on. What is the role of the European Parliament in keeping a check or providing balance to the Commission in those areas? Does the European Parliament have a function which enables it — perhaps this is even strengthened under the Lisbon treaty — to keep an eye on the Commission and its role in proposing legislation in those areas? I would like to hear the delegation's views on how the Lisbon treaty would strengthen the role of the European Parliament in that regard.

Will the delegation give its honest view on whether it believes Ireland's reputation at European level has been damaged by our "No" vote on the Lisbon treaty. How has that vote impacted on our performance at Council meetings and in the European Parliament? Does the delegation have a view on whether Ireland will be disadvantaged as a result of its "No" vote, perhaps through the CAP negotiations or the environmental package? Can it give any examples of how it may be disadvantaged?

With regard to the public perception of the European Parliament, I believe it suffers from the same problem our national parliament suffers from, namely, the lack of communication. I was very interested to hear Mr. Elmar Brok mention the role of the MEPs in committee work in the national parliament. He said German MEPs also have a role at plenary level. From the point of view of communicating the importance and value of Europe to Irish citizens, we should model ourselves on that example. It may be a subject this committee could discuss further internally. Is there a bigger, broader strategy on the part of the European Parliament to improve communications with the citizens of the Union?

I have a specific question on a matter that was distorted during our debate on the Lisbon treaty. Perhaps the delegates will shed some light on it. Some of them referred to the positive fact that, under the Lisbon treaty, we would be obliged to make the convention process the norm, rather than the exception, in formulating treaties. I was fortunate enough to be part of the Youth Convention on the Future of Europe some years ago during which time some of the delegates present were involved in the senior convention. This involved a very transparent process and represents a positive model for the future. However, the way it was presented during our referendum campaign was that the simple revision procedure would actually allow what is called "Europe" to bypass the normal ratification procedure in member states. It was argued that we in Ireland would never have a referendum again because the Union would bypass the procedure via the simple revision procedure. I would like to hear a response on this. I thank the delegates and look forward to their answers.

Mr. Jo Leinen, MEP

I thank Deputy Creighton for her very important questions. Article 48 of the treaty continues to be valid in that ratification is required in all member states for treaty changes. It is a new proposal that major treaty changes can be, and probably will be, prepared by convention. As the Deputy stated, this is an open method and involves all the national parliaments and the European Parliament. It allows for debate on the issues with civil society and the public.

The Deputy was correct that we must make more efforts to communicate the operations of the Union to the citizens. Just last week in Strasbourg, we signed an interinstitutional declaration entitled Communicating Europe in Partnership. For the first time, the Council, which comprises member states, agreed to have, together with the Commission and the European Parliament, a common communication policy. By and large, this did not exist before now.

We must get used to regarding the European Union as including all of us and not as an institution in Brussels. Without the national parliaments and governments, it will never be possible to be close to the citizens. Brussels is, by its nature, too far away. We need communication and partnership. I hope that last week's declaration will lead to progress — on the election campaign, for example, in respect of which we must explain matters to the citizens.

On the first question, of course it would be optimal to have the new treaty in operation before the elections to the European Parliament because 12 member states will be negatively affected otherwise. The composition of the Parliament is different under the Lisbon treaty than under the Nice treaty and the 12 countries will suffer from having the elections under the latter. There are sensitivities in Spain, which stands to lose four MEPs. Poland stands to lose MEPs, as do many other member states, including Hungary. My colleague, György Schöpflin, can present the view from the point of view of a new member state. We hope the window of opportunity still exists.

Mr. Elmar Brok, MEP

Only Germany will win.

Mr. Jo Leinen, MEP

That might be an incentive to many of the other countries to have the treaty in operation.

Ms Monica Frassoni, MEP

One of the problems associated with the campaigns, not only in Ireland but in other member states, is the fact that one must always put oneself in a defensive position. This is a problem for me. Europe is, or should be, about more rights, better policies and what we can do together rather than about defending itself from a body of some kind coming from Brussels and destroying everything we have. This misconception must be fought and cannot be accepted. I refer here to what members described as "fears" but the realities are different. There is no way the European Union, in the shape of the Commission, the Council or any other aspect, can oblige Ireland to change its stance on abortion. I might be in favour of this, or against it, but that is of no significance. The fact that it was possible to play with this fear during the campaign was a problem, not only for members but also for the rest of us. This is simply not the case.

There was a question about the competence of the Commission to go beyond its powers. This is something that we as European parliamentarians and the members here as national parliamentarians have the means to prevent. However, this was also considered to be a problem. In some cases, whether on the environment, the rights of citizens, migration or development policies, it was better for all of us that the European Union could say things because it was written in the text. In some cases it was not. As far as my group is concerned, we have some worries and some opposition towards the laws that are adopted in the European Parliament but because it is a normal democratic system of majority and minority we are able to express this. We are discussing issues of family law but in terms of raising and having more rights, rather than obliging member states to change their own rules. It is important to say this.

Regarding when the decision to ratify the Lisbon treaty should be made, it is very important that the coming European elections are seen as an opportunity for people to decide on a better Europe. Of course we are convinced that it would be better with the Lisbon treaty and we do not want all the work that has been done in the past to be thrown away. We were very doubtful about the process itself and found it too secretive. We wanted to have more openness, more majority votes and all that was required to make a more powerful Parliament. However, this is what we have today. I understand the concerns of members. However, to go into a European election without even accepting the challenge of opening up a true discussion with the Irish people and the rest of the people of Europe is a problem, not only for us but also for you.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

Go raibh maith agat agus mo chéad fáilte roimh gach duine anseo inniu. I welcome everybody and welcome some of the clear statements that have been made by different members regarding the role of national parliaments, defence and the vote in the European Parliament. The last is a terrible red herring.

There was some discussion about issues that arise within the European institutions. Part of the problem we have is that the policies of parties or individuals within the institutions become confused with the institutions themselves. That is a real difficulty. If there is a problem concerning the budget, people do not blame the Dáil or the Seanad but blame the party in government which is responsible for it. That is a distinction that the public may not have made in respect of Europe. Have the witnesses experience of this in their own countries?

Co-decision is very important but the term "co-decision" never appeared in the referendum debate. Is there a reason for that? The European Parliament did not really feature in the debate, perhaps because the Lisbon treaty did not make too many changes in that respect. Perhaps people were happy with the number of MEPs allocated. Have the witnesses any views on this?

Many people express fears about the way policy is going at European level. Can the witnesses list any positive roles the Parliament has played in influencing legislation in order to respond to such concerns? I should refer to writing legislation. That might show my ignorance in this regard but we do not see in the press examples of how the European Parliament has changed laws. I do not have a mobile phone. We do not see the examples. We do not see in the press where the European Parliament has changed a law or has influence. Perhaps people are not interested. Some recent examples would be helpful.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome the delegates who have provided an insight into our deliberations. Do they think the focus of the Lisbon treaty debate has been on an over analysis of the legal text, in some cases to support the clandestine hypothesis that the European Union is trying to make member states more subservient? We have failed to look at the objectives of the European project. The debate appears to have almost slid into a discussion or analysis of the legal text. Every citizen seems to want to be a legal expert rather than looking at the overall agenda in advancing the European project. I invite delegates in their responses to refer specifically to the position in their own member states. What is their opinion on the possibility of renegotiation of the Lisbon treaty? There was much debate on the issue here and some on the "No" side expressed the belief we could get a better deal. They said it was incumbent on the Irish people to vote "No" to strengthen the hand of the Government to go back and renegotiate. Will the delegates comment on this, please?

I do not wish to get into a discussion of plan A or plan B but delegates did not clarify the issue. If 26 member states ratify the Lisbon treaty, do delegates believe a way will be found for them to move forward in whatever form? We are told from time to time that there is frustration and anger among member states. We take this with a grain of salt to some extent. What is the general feeling among citizens rather than parliamentarians on how we voted? It is not overly important in what we are doing here but it would give a sense of the context in which MEPs are working.

Mr. György Schöpflin, MEP

I have a couple of brief responses to the question about a concrete example of how the European Parliament has changed the law. I will not go into great detail but in Hungary we have a river that is being polluted by the Austrians. The European Parliament has now passed legislation which I hope will ensure this pollution will stop. It is a major issue in Hungary but probably not outside the country.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

What do the Austrians think?

Mr. György Schöpflin, MEP

The Austrians have their own problems.

The second question to which I wish to give a brief response concerns the impact of the Irish "No" elsewhere. I do not know to what extent Ireland is aware that it is a role model for Hungary and most of the small states of central Europe. It is a great success story. There were some little question marks in so far as Irish affairs are reported in the Hungarian press, which is not very often I am sorry to say, as to what was actually happening. We do not have an explanation. In Hungary we have other problems. It may be useful for the sub-committee to bear in mind in its discussions that Ireland is a stakeholder in the European Union and that the European Union is a stakeholder in Ireland. We are all in the same boat in that respect. I am not sure to what extent that has played a role in the discussions in Ireland.

Mr. Richard Corbett, MEP

We are in a situation where 26 countries are likely to say "Yes" and one has said "No" in a Union where to change the treaties all 27 have to agree. What can one do in that situation? The European Union always works on the basis that there is give and take in order to secure agreement. I submit that if there is just one "No" vote, it is neither unreasonable nor undemocratic to ask the one whether it is willing to reconsider. It is possible for Ireland to say "No", that the matter is finished but that is something that would damage the reputation of Ireland in other member states, if it were not willing to explore the possibility of reconsidering.

The counterpart to that is for the other member states to do whatever they can to help to address the concerns that were expressed by the "No" campaign. If Ireland were to come up with a list of desires and demands to, perhaps, clarify or interpret the treaty, or whatever, and if these issues could be debated, then Ireland would be shown to be trying to find a solution for all of us. We all need that solution. In my view the sooner it does that the better. Ireland has a reputation in Europe that is the envy of many countries. Certainly, compared with my country, it has a wonderful reputation and it would be sad to see that deteriorate in any shape or form.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I am seeking clarification on the use of the word "renegotiate". Perhaps Mr. Corbett might talk a little about that.

Mr. Richard Corbett, MEP

In one sentence, I do not know of any other member state that wishes to reopen negotiations on the text of the treaty. However, I believe there is a widespread willingness to do whatever can be done to clarify, interpret, reassure and do all the things that might, perhaps, be of assistance.

Chairman

I shall hand over to the rest of the committee now, as some three or four members are signalling they want to speak. Someone might like to make a brief response to what Deputy Dooley said before I hand over to the rest of the committee.

Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP

I have three very brief points to make and it will take me two minutes. As regards what Deputies Creighton and Byrne had to say, the problem of communication among the European parliaments is that individual governments tend to take the credit for all the good things coming from Europe, while Brussels gets the blame for all the bad things. That has been the case not just in Ireland, but in every member state. It is business as usual, and it is important that this is put in context.

Deputies Byrne and Dooley asked where Ireland stands today. I do not want to be provocative in saying this, but I believe there are four options. The first is to get clarification on certain issues within the Treaty of Lisbon so that the other 26 member states can know what Ireland's position is on abortion, defence or whatever, and that we may go back to the people on that basis. If Ireland says it cannot do this and that a new treaty is required, the other 26 countries will have to agree, and may not be willing to reopen new negotiations. Ireland might cite the Danish experience after Maastricht, when they opted to become half-members or semi-detached. Such a solution would not be good for Ireland, and neither is it good for Europe. Finally, Ireland might opt out of the European Union altogether. It is not scaremongering to suggest that these are the only options available to us.

We must decide in Ireland what is good and cute for us, how we are to advance and make our decisions.

Chairman

I have four more speakers signalling, and I shall take each in the order I have seen them. Senator Mullen is first, then Senator de Búrca, followed by Mr. Mitchell and Mr. De Rossa. I shall let Mr. Blok in first.

Mr. Elmar Blok

Are there not other questions?

Chairman

I am aware of that, and in the time we have left, I shall give everybody an opportunity to speak.

Senator Rónán Mullen

I welcome the MEPs, and it is great to have them here. We will not necessarily agree on everything, but we all recognise our common destiny as Europeans and want to co-operate with each other and pursue successful outcomes to the difficulties we face.

I take as a starting point the question raised by my colleague, Deputy Dooley, which was addressed in part by Mr. Crowley. That is the question of our options and specifically what renegotiation might mean. Mr. Crowley suggested opt outs would mean Ireland was a half-member or semi-detached. It seems to me this casts a cloak of negativity over the only possible solution that might find favour with the Irish people. I noticed Mr. Leinen also talked about opt outs in negative terms. In referring to reproductive cloning, he pointed out that it was specifically excluded by the charter. What is of concern to many Irish people is that the charter did not go as far as to exclude what is known as therapeutic cloning. This real issue is the danger of embryo destructive research, which many people in Ireland regard as a live issue.

The section of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which guarantees freedom of artistic and scientific research does not make reference to the laws of member states, as do other sections of the charter. This is exactly the type of issue which causes people in Ireland to worry that the European Union, whether the European Commission on European Court of Justice, will at some point present Ireland with decisions with which we will not want to live. By continuing to refer to opt-outs in negative terms, our guests remove the right of member states with distinctive laws and personalities to seek genuine subsidiarity.

In the United States, where some matters are dealt with at federal level while others are for states to deal with, the Roe v. Wade case showed how a divisive policy caused problems in individual states for decades. The matter is complicated further in the European Union because it is in some respects linguistically and culturally more diverse than the constituent states of the US. Are our guests willing to contemplate that it may be necessary to seek a flexible opt-out system in which Ireland would be able to choose to go its way on certain issues, even if other member states were to take a unified approach on them? Are they also willing to contemplate discussing this option in positive rather than negative terms?

Let us take as an example the UN review of the Fourth World Conference on Women where diplomats from the European Union opposed an amendment tabled by the United States that would have clarified that the 1995 conference platform did not include a right to abortion. This is an example of a position taken by the EU in international fora which conflicts directly with Irish constitutional and legal values. While the delegation may argue that it is a matter for the Irish Government to step forward and state the EU does not speak for us in such cases, the fact that the Irish Government does not speak on each such occasion contributes to a sense among certain Irish people that the European Union is taking decisions without regard to its constitutional and legal values. Does the delegation consider that a flexible system of opt-outs could allow Ireland to secure the subsidiarity needed to enable people to stop resenting the EU for its competence creep in various areas?

Chairman

Senator Mullen confined his comments to approximately three minutes. I ask other speakers to do likewise and remind members that we will have two further sessions this afternoon. We aim to conclude this session by 1 p.m. to allow for a pause before proceeding. I am conscious that our guests may wish to respond to a number of questions from the floor.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I welcome members of the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee and thank them for their contributions. Ireland's position on the Lisbon treaty is a major concern and focus of attention. While this is understandable, is it possible that the concentration by the institutions of the European Union on the ratification of the Lisbon treaty may lead them to overlook the serious disengagement of citizens from the Union?

I agree with some of the comments made on the democratic provisions of the Lisbon treaty. While the European Union will clearly operate in a more democratic fashion if the treaty comes into effect, I do not believe it will operate in such a way as to reverse the disconnection between European citizens and the institutions of the European Union which has developed over years. In tandem with focusing on the Lisbon treaty, are the institutions considering other options such as introducing an EU-wide initiative for democracy and greater citizen engagement? Unless this issue is addressed in a serious and comprehensive manner across the institutions, the problem of disconnection will remain. Even if the Lisbon treaty is ratified, the fear of holding referendums and asking citizens for their views on issues will persist. We will still have the same legitimacy problem, which has developed over the years in the European Union.

The European Green Party put forward a positive initiative in the European Parliament, namely, the European Democracy Act. That Act proposed that if it was not possible to ratify the Lisbon treaty now, it might be possible to take its most democratic aspects and put them together in a democracy Act and put it to the citizens of the European Union in an EU-wide referendum or plebiscite. This would break the barrier that exists to the idea of putting something to an EU-wide referendum or plebiscite. I know there are real concerns about doing this, but the advantage of packaging the democratic elements of the Lisbon treaty together in an Act and putting it to the citizens is that it is bound to be attractive to them, particularly elements such as the idea of supporting something like the citizens' initiative, the role for national parliaments, co-decision for the European Parliament and the Charter for Fundamental Rights. If anything is to mobilise the support of citizens, it is such provisions, which will democratise the European Union to a greater extent. Does the delegation feel this type of initiative is important, whether or not the Lisbon treaty is ratified?

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

There is a democratic deficit, but not in the European Parliament. It exists in these Houses. As an MEP, I worked on a report on the European Central Bank and am currently working on one on the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Council, the banks and the Commission must negotiate with me on behalf of the European Parliament. I am writing a report on the emergency food regulation for which I will be the rapporteur for the European Parliament. All MEPs have a similar role. I was a rapporteur for 16 regulations merged into one, which is now the basic law for development aid from the European Union. The Council had to negotiate with me on that, but for two years I said "No" on behalf of the European Parliament. Members of the Irish Parliament do not have such a role.

The democratic deficit exists here because Deputies and Senators have become "call-forers", people who call for this and that. They have been shirking rather than taking responsibility. The Irish Parliament gives the responsibility to commissions, referenda commissions, Dáil commissions, fora and tribunals, to anywhere but the House. It is time the democratic deficit was solved. It can only be solved by restoring to the House the responsibility and authority that should go with Members of the Oireachtas. Members must take back that responsibility and take it seriously. As things are, Deputies and Senators are left only with responsibility. They are responsible for everything that goes wrong, but have no authority over anything. That must stop because that is where the real problem lies.

I am a legislator. Mr. Brian Crowley is wrong in what he said. The record does not hold what all MEPs have done in the European Parliament. It only holds the record of those of us who turn up in the Parliament to act out our roles as legislators. I will return to that point if provoked.

I want to ask a question. We are all parliamentarians and should be open with each other. It is lovely to suggest a referendum across Europe and to talk about democracy, but what will be the result? If 51% of people say "Yes", will it be carried or will we be back to the same problem where we have a 20 million majority from 26 member states, but a minority of 10,000 in Malta and therefore the decision will be that the people of Europe say "No". That is nonsense. It is a cop-out. It is all words. Is it not time we put the interest of Ireland first, before our own interest? We are heading for Niagara Falls and our legislators are behaving like "call-forers", coming up with issues and ideas that are simply not true. They are making statements that do not stand up.

I have a question for my colleagues. If Lisbon is not voted for by the Irish people, it cannot go ahead. All 27 member states must vote "Yes". However, I want my colleagues to tell us the truth. What will be the consequences of that for Ireland? We need to know that. The people said "No" to Lisbon, but they have also empowered the Oireachtas to put to the people any Bill the Oireachtas so chooses. Therefore, it is in the hands of the Oireachtas. If the Oireachtas wishes to return to the people, they have given it that power. The people voted "No" to Lisbon, but they voted "Yes" to Bunreacht na hÉireann and that power lies in the hands of the Legislature here.

For the Oireachtas to put a question to the people, the people must know the implications. We must know the assets and liabilities if we are to have a picture of the balance sheet. It is very clear that, if the Lisbon treaty is not ratified, the European Union can still proceed and we know in our hearts that it will. Ireland will be left with the sceptics outside the Schengen common travel area. Part of Ireland is already outside the eurozone. Will the delegates spell out the consequences in order that the people will know them? They should not be afraid to say what they believe will happen if we do not ratify the treaty. Will the European Union move on or not?

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I welcome my colleagues. As an MEP, I have a right to attend as an observer and to speak but do not have the right to vote. I appreciate the rights I have because they recognise the importance of the interaction between the European Parliament and the national Parliament. I have stated constantly that there is a need to co-ordinate better the way in which the Dáil addresses EU issues and allows MEPs to attend and participate. Clearly, MEPs have something to contribute based on their experience in the European Parliament.

The European Parliament and national parliaments are not competitors; they do specific jobs. The European Parliament holds the European Commission and the Council to account, while national parliaments hold their governments to account, which governments act on their behalf at the Council. There is a coincidence of interest and having greater interaction will ensure each institution will hold its executive to account in a much more effective and efficient way. I hope knowledge of this will help rebut to the notion that Brussels is in some way a foreign body which makes decisions without our involvement.

The world we are in is riven by global crises. There is the climate crisis, an energy crisis, a population crisis, a poverty crisis and a financial crisis. It is a no-brainer that Ireland, as a small state with 4 million people, needs to be part of the European Union to cope with them. The Union serves as a shelter and helps us to develop. The protection we have as a result of signing up to the euro, from which Senator Doherty's party wants us to resile, seems——

Senator Pearse Doherty

That is a false allegation.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

——to be evidence——

Chairman

Senator Doherty should note that I let everybody speak and Mr. De Rossa should be allowed to continue.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

——that it is extremely important that Ireland be at the heart of the European Union. Iceland being outside the Union and eurozone proves this.

On Senator Doherty's denial, he should check Ms Mary Lou McDonald's speech to the European Parliament just one month ago in which she stated she was declaring Ireland's economic sovereignty. What does "economic sovereignty" mean other than withdrawing from the euro?

Senator Pearse Doherty

Mr. De Rossa is reading into the statement. It was about the right of Ireland to decide its rate of corporation tax. I will not accept allegations——

Chairman

Senator Doherty——

Senator Pearse Doherty

Mr. De Rossa is talking absolute nonsense.

Chairman

I will give everybody an opportunity to make his or her point in so far as it is practical to do so. Mr. De Rossa has 30 seconds or so remaining in which to make his point and I will allow him to do so.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

All one need do is check the record.

We have been asked for examples of how the European Union can assist and be of benefit. A directive on discrimination is wending its way through the European Parliament. Since the Lisbon treaty is not in operation, the European Parliament is only consulted on the directive. Had we got the Lisbon treaty we would have been able to insist on amendments to that directive on behalf of the people who elect us to the European Parliament. There are many such examples.

Chairman

I must hand over to Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Eoin Ryan, MEP

I am a member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in the European Parliament, as is Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP. At present we are facing unprecedented changes and are almost at Armageddon. If Europe does not come together and row together and try to find regulation that we can spread across the globe, we do not know where we are going and all of us, not only in Ireland but in every country in the world, might be in for an unbelievable depression. The only way we can beat that is by pulling together. A small country like Ireland that exports 85% of what it produces is very exposed to this danger and we can only fight it if we are at the centre of Europe.

With all due respect to my colleague, Senator Doherty, the fact is that his party told the people to vote against every European treaty. If the people had followed this advice we would not now be in the eurozone and if we were not there we would now be like Iceland or Pakistan, where the IMF is moving in, or we would have the same problems as Hungary. We would be in dire straits and those are the facts, whether Senator Doherty likes them or not. His party told the people not to vote for treaties but thanks be to God the people did not listen and therefore we are within a European Union that has given us a lot of security and strength. That is where we must look in the future, to make sure where our best interests lie. They lie within the European Union with 27 member states working together to try to resolve many of the considerable global problems we now face, as mentioned by other members.

As a member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I can tell this committee we must be in the centre of Europe and be seen to be there. One of the driving forces behind this economy has been inward investment. Without our full involvement in Europe that will disappear because investors will say we are not really in Europe anymore but are only halfway there. I have spoken with American multi-national personnel who have told me so, and if Senator Doherty takes the time to go and talk to such people he will find that is exactly what they are saying. Our best interests lie within Europe and we must find a satisfactory solution for Ireland and Europe concerning this issue because it is vital.

Mr. Colm Burke, MEP

I welcome my colleagues from the European Parliament.

People talked about the objectives of the EU. I recently attended a meeting in the United Nations with my colleague, Mr. Jo Leinen, on partnership between the UN and Europe. The two significant issues that arose during the referendum campaign concerned European security and defence and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If one takes the area of partnership between the EU and the UN, in the past 12 months we jointly assisted 35 million people by way of food aid. These are the positive things that happen when we work together. The same occurred in Chad. When the UN could not come up with the troops, the European Union did so in order to provide protection for 500,000 refugees. I was in that country earlier this year to see this in place. We are playing an important role here but with regard to security and defence issues in the Lisbon treaty campaign, 33% of the Irish population believed that there would be conscription, such was the misinformation out there. When positive things were happening they did not surface in the debate.

The situation was similar in respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In my own city a leaflet was issued which stated that if one voted "Yes" for Lisbon the European Union would introduce a new law that would restrict the number of children a family could have. That leaflet was distributed to every house in the city.

I have a question concerning the way forward for Ireland. I have set out my own position where I believe that a number of options should be given to the electorate. I am entirely in favour of Ireland staying within the present structure. I have a question for the delegates concerning what is set out in the Lisbon treaty about splitting the proposal in respect of the European security and defence policy. Denmark opted out from that under the Edinburgh agreement. Neither Poland nor the United Kingdom signed up to the aspect of the Lisbon treaty dealing with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am totally in favour of Ireland opting into the charter and the European security and defence policy. However, if Ireland opted out, do the delegates think the other 26 member states would agree to Ireland going forward with an amended Lisbon treaty relating to Ireland only in the same way as Denmark, the United Kingdom and Poland have opted out?

Mr. Richard Corbett, MEP

It is not a United Kingdom opt out. It is a clarification.

Mr. Colm Burke, MEP

My understanding is that the United Kingdom has not accepted fully the enshrinement of the charter into UK law.

Chairman

I will let everybody have a turn to speak. I am aware that members wish to clarify matters. I need to run the meeting as efficiently and fairly as I can. I will allow Deputy Costello and Senator Doherty to make their points and then I will allow delegates to respond for ten minutes on the issues that have been raised.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank the Chairman. I would not like to contemplate a possible opt out on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is fundamental to the treaty. Replies were not given to a couple of points that were made. One relates to what input the European Parliament has into the annual work programme of the Commission and whether there is a role for national parliaments to have an input before any draft decisions are made rather than an input in terms of subsequent scrutiny.

Regarding Senator Mullen's question on competence creep, the European Parliament has the role of keeping a check on the decisions of the Commission. If the Commission goes beyond its competence, surely the Parliament keeps a check on it. Will delegates refer to that in their reply?

We have a large amount of co-decision making between the Council and the Parliament. If the Lisbon treaty is agreed there will be almost total co-decision making. Do the existing mechanisms of member states to mandate Ministers allow flexibility for co-decision making to be made on a consensus basis? I understand that there is currently much consensus on the way decisions are made between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers?

My final point was not referred to and it should have been, namely, workers' rights. It was a major issue in terms of the Laval case and other such issues. Is there any way to address that issue?

Senator Pearse Doherty

First, I wish to clarify the accusations that have been made by Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, that Sinn Féin wants Ireland to withdraw from the eurozone. That is absolute nonsense and I cannot tolerate him peddling lies and mistruths to the committee. That is not our position.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

It is true. It is in Sinn Féin's documents.

Chairman

Hold on everybody. I wish to make a point. I will not tolerate any reference to "lies". I have allowed everybody time to make their points. I ask Senator Doherty to withdraw the word "lies".

Senator Pearse Doherty

I will not withdraw it.

Chairman

I must ask the Senator to comply as that kind of language is unparliamentary. He can use other language but not that word.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I withdraw the reference to "lies" but Mr. De Rossa is peddling mistruths to the committee. Sinn Féin's policy can speak for itself.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

It is in black and white.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I draw his attention to something of which he may not be aware. The committee requested legal advice from counsel on Article 48 and whether it would remove the right of the Irish people to a referendum in the case of changing the voting mechanism on corporation tax. Our legal advice shows, as is clear in paragraph 4, that our right to hold a referendum would be forgone if the Lisbon treaty were to come into effect and Article 48 were to be applied. When we talk about defending Irish rights in economic issues, we argue in the context of Article 48 throughout the campaign. My party has a different vision of the European Union from that of many of the representatives here. Some favour a federal approach, but we have a different view. It is not right to insist that those who have a different view of the European Union are anti-European, as we heard from a speaker, in voting against the Corbett report. People have a different view. The Irish people, regardless of what Sinn Féin might advocate in a referendum, have spoken. We need to understand they have a right to express their views, whether it is in support of Sinn Féin's view or that of any other political party. We talk about the democratic deficit — to think an MEP is arguing that there is no such thing in this House. I ask the sub-committee to inform us how many items of legislation an MEP was able to propose and bring into effect.

I have heard that opt-outs are not on; neither is renegotiation of the Lisbon treaty. What options are left?

Chairman

Before anyone responds, I stress that my role as Chairman is to allow all viewpoints to be heard. I do so in the manner agreed by the sub-committee in private session. I will be relentless and impartial in implementing that decision because that is my job. I shall ask our guests to respond to the points made. They have about ten minutes to do so. This part of our day's work will then have been completed.

Mr. Jo Leinen, MEP

I propose that everyone speak for two minutes. I shall respond to Senator Doherty.

I detect some ambivalence among the Eurosceptics or anti-Europeans. They ask for more democracy and greater transparency; yet when there is a step forward, they always refuse to accept it. There are many such examples in the European Parliament. People moan about the lack of transparency and democracy. The Lisbon treaty is a big step forward; nevertheless, they are against it. They would be against any solution we proposed because another game is being played.

Deputy Costello raised the question of workers' rights. In one phrase, the Lisbon treaty is the most progressive treaty we have had in 50 years, but I do not want to go into the details.

In response to Senator Mullen, we have a multi-level system of governance that is far removed from anything resembling a super state which nobody wants. We are a long way from it. The Lisbon treaty stipulates only four exclusive competencies for the European Union, among them the monetary question and external trade. The rest involve shared competencies. Most of the items mentioned by the Senator involved national competencies. Stem cell research is accepted in Britain but forbidden in Germany, for example. As regards this being seen as an EU competency, the fact is that member states follow their national laws and traditions.

I want to tell Senator de Búrca that we are against cherry-picking because the treaty is a package deal. Under EU democratic rules, there has to be agreement among the 27 member states. Poland and the Balkan states are interested in energy security and would not agree on a separate Act. They require it to be included in the treaty to the effect that the European Union has a common energy policy. Procedures are related to policies; therefore, one has to take everything or lose everything.

Mr. Richard Corbett, MEP

As regards size, under the Nice treaty, as of next year we must have a smaller Commission, with every country not having a Commissioner. The Lisbon treaty would postpone this change for five years. Even after five years the European Council could decide whether it wished to maintain one Commissioner per country.

As regards vetoes and qualified majority voting, QMV, more issues would be subject to QMV, for which there is a high threshold. In my country we often believe a veto protects us. However, the problem with having a veto is that 26 other countries also have one and can block matters they do not like. The veto is, therefore, a double-edge sword.

What have we done in the treaty? We have provided for more qualified majority voting in normal decision making, while giving all member states a veto on vital issues such as treaty changes and taxation, security and foreign policies. That is a reasonable compromise.

I do not believe there is competence creep. The European Union cannot act, except on the basis of what is in the treaty and even then the Commission does not decide. The Commission makes proposals for which it needs to secure the support of the Council, that is, national Ministers who are accountable to national parliaments and, in most cases, the European Parliament. These safeguards mean we do not have a major problem of competence creep.

Ms Monica Frassoni, MEP

Senator Mullen should note that one does not need opt-outs to achieve the results he seeks. It is already the case that Ireland does not have stem cell research or abortion. If one wants to prevent the whole of the European Union or all member states from permitting abortion or carrying out research, one must win a majority in each member state or the European Parliament. That is not a realistic objective at this stage.

The question of opt-outs is not in itself positive — I slightly disagree with the Senator on this — because it always requires having a negative vision of what we can do together. It also strengthens the idea that Ireland or any other country has to defend itself from the European Union, which is not the case. What we want to do is make this place better. As my friend indicated, the confusion between institutions and what they do is a result of the wrong policies being pursued by certain institutions. The point we are making is that positive policies will emerge if one has more democracy and greater scope for national parliaments, the European Parliament and citizens to intervene in the decision making process. We have to use a form of inverse logic to conquer the majority, not only of Irish people but also of European Union citizens. Sometimes there is confusion about wrong policies coming from the European Union or member states or what the institutions do.

Mr. Elmar Brok, MEP

The Treaty of Lisbon is the fourth attempt, the first three having failed, to make the most recent enlargement round work. When one considers the circumstances in the member states, it becomes clear there will not be a fifth attempt because it will not be possible to have another ratification process. The choice, therefore, is one of this treaty or no treaty. This is especially true when one considers the situation in Britain. If there is no treaty, we will at some point have debates on core Europe, as proposed by the former Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt. A core Europe would result in a division of the European Union into first and second class member states. I do not like that prospect because I believe all 27 countries should be on the same level and enjoy equal rights.

On the question of holding an EU-wide referendum on all the democratic and positive aspects of the treaty, this would require nation states to give up their veto on treaty changes. It would mean that the views of people in Ireland, Germany or any other member state could be overruled. I cannot imagine that this is what people want.

The Lisbon treaty is part of the answer to the disengagement of citizens because it provides more rights for the European Parliament and national parliaments and introduces a citizens' initiative. We must compare it to the Treaty of Nice rather than the type of European Union we would like to have. If we do not get the Treaty of Lisbon, we have the Treaty of Nice. If the issue of therapeutic cloning is not included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the other type of cloning is included in the charter. Without the Treaty of Lisbon, we will not have the Charter of Fundamental Rights or social rights because the Treaty of Nice will remain in force. National parliaments and citizens will have less influence, the moral and social rights contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not apply and competences will not be clarified. For the first time in a treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon states every competence which is not referred to as a European competence remains a national competence.

Mr. Enrique Barón Crespo, MEP

I have noted the statement of Mr. Eoin Ryan, MEP. I agree totally that Ireland did not propose any opting out of Europe. We want to strengthen the economic and monetary union. To speak about opting out is like speaking of constructive divorce; it is an oxymoron.

My message is short. We have come here and listened to what the committee had to say and it has listened to us. We want to keep Ireland at the heart of Europe, but it is up to Ireland to make its proposals as soon as possible. We need to strengthen Europe in order to survive the turbulence in the world.

Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP

It has been an experience for me to be at this committee and I thank the Chairman for his willingness to allow this engagement take place.

Chairman

It has been an experience for me too and I am glad to share it.

Mr. Eoin Ryan, MEP

The whole of Europe is watching.

Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP

I did not have the benefit of the legal advice mentioned by Senator Doherty with regard to Article 48 of the Lisbon treaty. I do not dispute the advice the committee has received, but my understanding and legal opinion with regard to that is that it is possible to move issues from unanimity to qualified majority using Article 48, but only on condition that all 27 countries agree. Second, if it requires an alteration with regard to what was agreed under the ratification process of the treaty originally, it would have to go back to the national parliament, which would then have to determine whether a referendum would be required to do that. Third, and most important, it cannot cover tax, defence, foreign policy or future treaties. These are specifically excluded.

Senator Pearse Doherty

It can cover tax.

Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP

No, it cannot cover tax. I have two final points to make. The Charter of Fundamental Rights deals with an important issue, particularly as we enter a difficult economic time. Workers realise that through the charter their rights are recognised and protected. However, this is sometimes overplayed. The Charter of Fundamental Rights only relates to European Union law and how it is interpreted. It does not interfere with existing national laws and protections. Deputy Costello mentioned the Laval case in Sweden. That case could not happen in Ireland. The reason it happened in Sweden was because the Swedish Government failed to implement European directives for the protection of workers' rights.

The final point I wish to make has been touched on by all my colleagues. Europe only has the power given to it by the member states. There are no creeping competences or powers brought forward. The only powers Europe has are those conferred on it by the member states through the treaties.

Chairman

I thank the delegates for their comments. A number of people have signalled they want to speak, but I cannot allow that or we will not be able to complete our day's work. If people have questions they want our colleagues to answer, they should send them to the committee clerk and they will be forwarded to our guests. When we get the responses to those questions, they will be circulated to the committee.

I thank all the delegates for attending. They can see the scale of work to be done by the committee. We are grateful for their expertise and time and for responding to the points raised by the sub-committee.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

On a point of order, I have been accused of telling lies. I wish to indicate to the Chair that I will send him a copy of the statement I made in order to establish that what I have said is true.

Chairman

I want to point out that Senator Doherty withdrew that word on my request.

Senator Pearse Doherty

I then used the word "mistruths".

Chairman

We must adjudicate on what language is acceptable within the committee. That is my job. The remark was withdrawn.

Senator Pearse Doherty

The word "lies" was withdrawn, but I said that he had peddled mistruths. The record will show what I said.

Chairman

This meeting is finished. The record does show us.

Sitting suspended at 1.20 p.m. The sub-committee resumed in private session at 2 p.m and went into public session at 3.30 p.m.