JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union) debate -
Thursday, 20 Nov 2008

Discussion with European Movement Ireland.

Chairman

I welcome our guests from the European Movement Ireland, Mr. Shane Molloy and Ms Andrea Pappin, and I thank them for coming here this afternoon to help us in our work. This sub-committee was set up after the result of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty to look at Ireland's future in the European Union. We have four terms of reference, each of which has been turned into a work module. This week, we are looking at the module that deals with the understanding our people have of the European Union and the measures that can be taken to bring to the people more information about what is going on in Europe and our interactions with Europe. That is why we have invited people like yourselves to make a contribution to our work on this.

We organise our business by making ten minutes available to our guests when they come in. My colleagues then have ten minutes to make any points they wish to raise. Everything the witnesses say will go on record and will be used to frame the report we hope to complete next week. I must draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to the witnesses.

Mr. Shane Molloy

I thank the Chairman and the members of the sub-committee for the opportunity to contribute to this critical discussion on Ireland's future in the European Union. I am joined by Ms Andrea Pappin, executive director of our organisation, who has been in this role since June.

The European Movement Ireland is an independent, voluntary organisation set up in the 1950s to campaign for Irish membership of the then European Economic Community and founded on the belief that Ireland's place was at the heart of Europe. The original objective of the EMI was to promote the ideal of a united Europe that fosters peace, solidarity and the economic well-being of its citizens while cherishing the culture and diverse identities of all its people. We believe this statement is still relevant and it remains the main guiding force behind the EMI and its activities.

In today's environment, our aim is to provide clear-cut and simple information about the EU. To use some of the sub-committee's own words, the EMI is working to improve public understanding of the European project and to persuade people of its fundamental importance for Ireland's future. EMI strategy is driven by our conviction that it is not possible to stop the world and let Ireland off. The success of our country depends on it being at the centre of Europe, shaping policies on economic recovery, energy, climate change and crime — issues where Ireland can achieve little on its own.

Since the first Nice treaty, academic and professional research has shown that the commitment to the European cause in Ireland has begun to weaken. This has been reflected clearly in the loss of two referendums within ten years, which begs the question — why? We believe the answer is not just about making EU structures more transparent or communicating more clearly what Brussels does and the benefits to Ireland of the EU, important as these elements are. There is a much more profound challenge. We suggest that, increasingly, the Irish people have been calling into question what Europe does for them while also lacking confidence and trust in what Europe may deliver in the future.

As a consequence, pro-Europeans need to address and answer three questions. What is the purpose of the EU? What can Europe deliver uniquely to voters? Why should greater integration be supported? In other words, the key task now is not just about the mechanisms of communicating better, but developing a new definition and vision of Europe in the 21st century. We need to explain in plain English why the EU is about change, the changes needed to tackle the major problems of today — crime, energy and climate change — and most recently the economic crisis. These are challenges Ireland simply cannot solve on its own, but require us to work in collaboration with our EU partners.

Pro-European leadership needs to begin telling the public what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. How we at European Movement Ireland are making that case is by taking a new approach to where we talk about Europe, when we talk about Europe and how we talk about Europe. First, our new approach to where we talk about Europe — the channels of communication. Quite simply, we are going local, directing our activities at specific audiences who can be difficult to connect with through traditional means. Since our new team started in June, we have interviewed and surveyed farmers at the National Ploughing Championships about their attitudes to Europe, held our latest "Tea and Europe" event at the "Off the Rails" fashion show and, taking inspiration from Starz Bunnies, we are experimenting with performance art to bring the fundamentals of the EU within 20 minutes to Irish audiences, starting with students. We have also begun a series of conversations on Europe, the first of which featured Commissioner Margot Wallström last week, to put a human face on the EU and Brussels. In short, we are going to people, rather than expecting people to come to us.

We are also working on who talks about Europe — finding new voices. There are many people in Ireland who deal with Europe on a daily basis, are willing to share their understanding and knowledge and can talk about Europe practically and positively. It is encouraging that post-Lisbon we are attracting new members, both young and old.

Second, it is also about when we talk about Europe. The EU is a day-to-day business and, therefore, should be of our part of our daily debate. We welcome the work of this sub-committee, the Committee on European Affairs and the Committee on European Scrutiny. Yet we all know of elected members who take little interest in EU issues outside referendums. This is why we at EMI are beginning to offer ourselves as a resource for Oireachtas members so they can refresh themselves on the basics of the EU and talk about how it works now, not just at treaty time.

Finally, it is about how we talk of Europe — language. We must simplify the facts and the story of the European Union and communicate in viewer, reader and listener friendly ways. This thinking is influencing all our activity. We have started occasional e-mails called "InfoNuggets" for our members, which take a suitably irreverent yet informative approach to explaining some key EU stories of the day. A fundamental challenge for pro-Europeans is to bring the message of Europe down to earth. With a new team at the helm of an EU-lrish organisation with a great heritage, the EMI approach can be both a model and a catalyst in strengthening and developing support for the EU here in Ireland. Through an inverted approach to communicating — going to people in new ways — we will be clearly illustrating the very basic fact that we are better off in Europe than outside it.

I thank members for their attention. Ms Pappin and I look forward to answering their questions.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Molloy for his contribution. I call Deputy Michael McGrath.

Deputy Michael McGrath

Thank you. I will share my time with Deputy Dooley, if he has any questions. I welcome Mr. Molloy and Ms Pappin to the meeting and thank Mr. Molloy for his contribution, which was interesting. I want to raise a few issues with him. He mentioned at the outset that one of the objectives of the EMI is to develop a united Europe. Will he elaborate on this? How far would he like to see European integration go? There is a wide diversity of public opinion as to whether integration has gone too far already and where we should be going ultimately, both geographically in terms of enlargement and in terms of policy areas. When Mr. Molloy says "United Europe", is he suggesting a federal-type system along the lines of the US model? It would be interesting if Mr. Molloy could elaborate on this point.

Mr. Molloy commented on the initiatives the European Movement is taking to go to the public and not wait for people to come to it, which is a positive step in the right direction. When the committee held a series of public meetings in the run-up to the Lisbon referendum, we found there was very little public appetite, to be frank, for such meetings and the attendances were very poor. I also attended some of the Forum on Europe regional meetings and, again, the same people were attending the meetings. There were those who had a firm convictions on Europe on one side or the other, and the critical mass of people in the middle were not engaging at all. Thankfully, the turnout in the referendum was quite respectable. I would be interested in the witnesses' views on how we, as politicians, can engage people in a practical way about European issues. European issues affect people in their day-to-day lives but that relevance is not appreciated as much as it should be.

Mr. Molloy referred to the use of plain language, which is an issue coming up time and again as part of this sub-committee's hearings in recent weeks. There is a disconnect between the language used by those from EU institutions and Irish politicians when speaking about European affairs and the language people want to use in understanding Europe. Perhaps the European Movement can advise us on how we can change that. We need to talk more to people's hearts. We need to drop all of the European lingo that turns people off. I would be interested in the witnesses' views on how we can do this and how we can generate that debate with the public about the relevance of Europe and where we are going.

Will the witnesses comment on our position following the rejection of the Lisbon treaty? How would the European Movement like to see matters develop? The Government will be going to the December European Council summit with a proposal, whatever that will be. I would be interested in the witnesses' views and advice as to what direction this country should take with regard to European involvement going forward.

Mr. Shane Molloy

I thank Deputy McGrath for the questions. I will ask Ms Pappin to deal with the second question first, which would focus on some of our activities and would be helpful to the later discussion.

Ms Andrea Pappin

Drumming up attention and numbers is certainly a challenge. We need to call a spade a spade — Europe is not the most fascinating of subjects. If it was on television, a bad episode of "Emmerdale" would probably beat it in the ratings.

We did a lot of work at the time of the Lisbon referendum in terms of holding information meetings because we wanted to make sure people were informed. This is about taking the mountain to Mohammed. In the modern day, speaking, I hope, as one of the younger generation, the idea of going to an evening meeting in a hotel is just not interesting. People are busy watching "Coronation Street" or the Champions League, taking care of their children or doing shopping. Therefore, those who will attend an evening meeting in a hotel are those whose minds are pretty much made up so one will not convince them anyway. We changed the model. This is what we mean by an inverted approach because we actually go to the people.

We began organising information meetings during lunchtime, working with large organisations, which is where the people were. Instead of setting up in an area and expecting people to come to it, we brought the information to them. We had fairly good success because we were interested in informing people and they were interested in working with us. This mainly happened in companies. We organised a "lunchtime to learn about Lisbon" event in Google with 250 people in attendance, and over 100 people attended events at a couple of legal firms. It was a matter of timing. We said the meeting would be done in 60 minutes. We made it clear that it would not drag on, with each speaker given five minutes to set out his or her stall, after which audience members would have an opportunity to put questions to those on both the "Yes" and "No" sides. That is what attracted people to the meetings and we managed to attract large audiences in various firms. In AIB, for example, there were 450 people in the room. There is an appetite among the public to learn about European issues, but it is necessary to fit into people's schedule rather than expecting them to take time out of their day.

All of us who have worked on European issues or have an interest in this area are aware of the importance of plain language. It takes a long time to learn all the jargon, particularly all the three-letter acronyms. There is an element of pride when people learn that QMV denotes qualified majority voting and that JHA stands for justice and home affairs. People are sometimes eager to show off their understanding of such terms. However, it is important to focus on communicating information rather than using all the acronyms. Instead of referring to JHA, we should talk about crime and justice issues such as tackling drugs and crime in ways that are easily understood. Another example that comes to mind is that politicians have an awful habit of talking about child care facilities which everybody else refers to as crèches. It is a question of loosening up the language rather than trying to catch everything in one large phrase with many sub-clauses.

Members asked about the current position and where we intended to go from here. As Mr. Molloy indicated, we have carried out several campaigns in recent months. We recently went to the national ploughing championships and asked people their opinion. The objective is to open up a conversation rather than telling people how they should vote or think and perhaps confusing matters. It is simply a question of ascertaining views and discovering whether people have any questions.

It is amazing to find how many want answers to very basic questions about the European Union. At the recent "Off the Rails" show, we set up a large sitting room where we offered a cup of tea and a sit-down to shoppers. This is something all women appreciate when their shopping is done. It was fascinating to discover the extent to which people did not understand the issues. One woman, once she felt comfortable that her question would be answered rather than having a particular view rammed down her neck, subtly asked me to confirm whether the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union. I was able to clarify the matter for her. Another woman referred not to the Lisbon treaty but to the "lesbian treaty" and thought it fantastic that Ireland was so progressive in attempting to introduce such an initiative. It is this basic level of information that must be imparted. Our ultimate objective is to ensure information is conveyed in plain English in order that people will understand what it is they are being asked to vote for. We will be pleased if that can be achieved and will play our part in ensuring it is done.

Mr. Shane Molloy

While the polls taken subsequent to the referendum indicate that many did not understand the Lisbon treaty and regarded the issue as too complex, the fact that the people concerned nevertheless voted is a statement in itself. We must take on board the fact that a significant proportion of the public is no longer in sympathy with the European Union. Actions speak louder than words. Any amount of box-ticking which suggests the public remains generally favourably inclined towards the European project cannot alter the reality that a significant number have gone from regarding the European Union as a structure which acts on their behalf to one which imposes decisions on them.

The rejection of the referendum was not merely a rejection of the Lisbon treaty per se but also an indication of Irish attitudes towards current perceptions of the European Union. Issues such as fishing rights, the closure of the sugar beet industry, water charges and the perception that high inflation followed the introduction of the single currency have built up cumulatively and influenced significant numbers. The key issue is not that some 827,000 voted “No” but that there were an additional 327,000 “No” voters compared with the numbers who had voted to reject the Nice treaty in the second referendum. It is their concerns we must address rather than focusing on the 400,000 to 5000,000 who traditionally vote “No” to EU treaties. It seems many are now taking a far more sceptical view of the European project.

That is why we must look more critically at the purpose of the European Union, what it offers and how far we should go in terms of integration. I am not personally in favour of a federal state. The way the Union is evolving is the sensible approach to take. Its painstaking nature contributes to the view that it is a complex structure, but it also ensures we will ultimately obtain a democratic position and that the European Union will have the capacity to take the lead on issues such as climate change, energy policy, international crime and terrorism. These are all issues on which it is important to have a strong European position and we should be part of the ongoing debate.

There is a difficulty in that it involves high politics which, for many, requires an amount of effort to get involved. The challenge for us is to bridge that gap. By adopting a more audience-friendly approach, we hope, albeit as a small organisation, to communicate the beneficial activities of the European Union. The changes made are clear to see. For example, both the Chairman and I know something about the washing powder industry. The contents of a box of washing powder have changed in recent years as a result of EU regulations. The European Union has dictated the raw materials used in products in the interests of energy efficiency and sustainability. We must find a way of moving from the high policy issues down to the practical day-to-day issues. That is what we are trying to do. It may sometimes come across as gimmicky but we hope people will connect with some of it. We must explore different ways of doing this in order to make a connection between the people who know about the European Union and those who have only a passing interest in it.

Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP

I was not aware that the Chairman was an expert on detergents. However, given his evident talents, it comes as no surprise to me.

I thank Mr. Molloy and Ms Pappin for their interesting presentations. The "Irish Stun" document they submitted is very well produced. When they refer to their organisation as pro-European, I am reminded of the recurrence of the notion of the "good European" in the limited debate that takes place in this country. Do the delegates accept that there are people who very much identify themselves as Europeans and understand the value of common European action but who either do not support the extent of European integration, so far as it is run, or, alternatively, and perhaps more significantly, have serious objections to the policy direction of the European Union? Do they agree that such persons are good Europeans, albeit with a different analysis and experience of the European project thus far?

It is implicit in the delegates' document that either we have the European Union as it is constructed or else we have doom and gloom and Jean-Marie Le Pen, heaven forbid, as the French Prime Minister. I support the delegates' approach in terms of novel communication methods, but this is a crude and misleading depiction of matters. Even the most ardent critics of the European project in this country do not support splendid isolation and understand entirely that little Ireland cannot battle it on its own in a globalised world.

I wish to ask specific questions on the European Movement's perception of the desired extent of integration. Does it favour greater harmonisation of fiscal policy? What is its attitude to Irish tax sovereignty? What are the witnesses' views on referendums, Ireland's present policy in respect of equal access to the broadcast media, funding of referendums and so on?

I suggest to the witnesses that one reason many people have been deeply uncomfortable with the direction of European policy to date is the absolute supremacy given to the market, competition rules and so on at the expense of social solidarity and progress and that agenda. I suggest the reason many blue collar workers, for instance, voted against Europe, or rather, against the Lisbon treaty — that truly was a Freudian slip — was the great discomfort and apprehension regarding their living and working conditions. It was not due to perceptions that the Lisbon treaty was about lesbians or anything like that, it arose concretely from their own experiences, as well as their hopes and expectations for the future.

To summarise, while I accept and completely support anything that might be done to improve the quality of debate in Ireland, one must accept it is a debate in which there is not a single conclusion to be arrived at. As in every other member state, people in Ireland have different aspirations regarding where they wish this project to go. To date, the evidence is that the free marketeers, who, incidentally, have been discredited in recent times, have carried the argument. Many of us who argue for reform and change simply want the balance changed. I would appreciate a response from the witnesses to some of those points.

Ms Andrea Pappin

We will share some of the answers to those questions. As for the first question on whether we believe some people who are pro-European have issues with the rate of change and similar matters, absolutely. Let us have a discussion and debate in that regard. Ultimately, while the following point is anecdotal and more research should be done, our experience during the debates raises issues as to the level to which that is prevalent. From our experience, people did not understand what Europe could or could not do at present, rather than the direction in which Lisbon was bringing it. This is the primary priority we must tackle in Ireland.

Second, as for the European Movement's "Irish Stun", obviously it is an attempt at comical political communication and its purpose simply is to bring some levity to things. Its intended audience is young people and students who assume many of the benefits of the EU. Members may have noticed a list on its first page of everything that would not exist. As people who were born after 1973 take many of them for granted, we were trying to get that idea into their thought process, together with comical ideas on Paris Hilton, the line-up of RTE and bended bananas.

There is a debate on social policy in the EU and Ms McDonald has expressed her opinion on such matters. However, I have met others who believe the amount of social policy that has been introduced through the EU is absolutely incredible. I refer to measures in respect of discrimination and maternal benefits, which would never have been introduced without the EU. Consequently, we would welcome such a debate on balancing completely. As for who is right or wrong, the debate should be opened up but from what we could see of the "No" campaign, some people stated the document was too left wing while others considered it to be too right wing. As one group must be wrong, which one is it? The discussion on this issue must be opened up on all sides.

Mr. Shane Molloy

I reiterate that we absolutely want debate to take place. One reason we had debates during the referendum was to provide all sides with a platform. Debate is extremely necessary. It is a pity that proper debate on Europe only takes place around referendums. Therefore, this means that too often, the issue on which we are voting gets lost in a cloud of confusion about other issues that probably should be debated in different circumstances. My view is it is a great pity that Lisbon was lost. I do not deny there are issues to be raised about Europe, some of which Ms McDonald clearly identified. However, Lisbon offered opportunities for necessary change to the EU that I do not believe were necessarily fully appreciated, given the way the debate went.

Interestingly, during the recent US presidential campaign an independent organisation called FactCheck.org, which is an independently-funded body, played a similar role to that of the Referendum Commission here. In the US, however, because that body is independently funded, it is regarded as a genuinely neutral body and therefore most of the time both major parties in the US accepted the objectivity of this organisation. One great problem we have in debates during referendums is that, even if supposedly independent organisations express a view on issues such as tax sovereignty, their credentials are queried. It is difficult to have a debate in which the independent objective checkers of facts are discredited as there then are no lines or boundaries within which one can have a useful debate. The issue of how we can put in place an organisation that, as much as humanly possible, can be regarded as being neutral and not carrying baggage should be readdressed.

I reiterate the European Movement is not in favour of a federal state. We are not trying to recreate the United States of Europe, or America, as the case may be. I will respond to some of the issues raised by Ms McDonald. As for tax sovereignty, I subscribe to the position taken by the vast majority of the "Yes" camp that Irish tax sovereignty was not queried. One should debate whether referendums are the best way to have public discussion on complex issues. There is a great risk that such discussion is simplified in such a way that it is not constructive.

Putting the issue of Europe to one side, everyone recognises that in other elections there always is a significant group of people which makes up what one might call low interest voters. In any electoral situation, it is a challenge to involve low interest voters. As Europe probably is an even greater turn-off, trying to get such people to become involved in some of the more complicated issues is a challenge. We have a democracy in Ireland in which we elect people to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I believe that one way in which we should reinforce politicians' credibility is by placing more trust in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I recall from my history classes that the greatest users of referendums in the past were some highly unfortunate individuals. Much historical evidence suggests we should find a more useful way to debate such complicated matters.

Understandably, blue collar people rightly are concerned about what is happening. However, I suggest it is not necessarily simply about Europe. It is not necessarily about a free market because when compared with most other parts of the world, the social support schemes in place in Europe are far in advance of those anywhere else. My background is in international business and when one compares the European situation with elsewhere in the world, I find this point difficult to believe. It is not that the European system cannot be improved, but by comparison it is highly beneficial. That should be recognised and credit should be given for it. Many of our aspirations can be met by catching up with the fellow EU member states, such as the Scandinavian countries, that have set more admirable standards. I am coming from a pro-EU position, but I have something of which I can be proud and I am happy to defend my position.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank our guests for attending. I appreciate their good work to date. I apologise for not being present for their presentation, but I was in the Dáil for a debate on the EU and the reports of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. No one outside the Houses knows the committees exist or how they scrutinise European legislative proposals or hold the Government to account. A parliamentary committee constantly scrutinises what is occurring in Europe, but no one knows about it. We have fallen down as legislators and parliamentarians in this regard.

Who do our guests believe should lead a referendum debate? Traditionally, the Government leads, but the Government of the day may be tainted with unpopularity for a variety of reasons. Anything led by such Governments also has a habit of being tainted.

Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP

Subtle.

Deputy Joe Costello

I could feel Deputy Dooley's eyes on me. I am not referring to just this Government, as other Governments may be unpopular for good or bad reasons. For other reasons, they may not be in a position to lead a debate strongly, but this is not my point. Rather, we are discussing a referendum and changing the Constitution, in which the Government would have a major role. Does Parliament not have a major leadership role in the campaign? Does civic society not have a major role also? If civic society played a greater role, a lesser role might be played by politicians. The group to which Ms McDonald, MEP, belongs is the only political party on the "No" side, but there was a raft of "No" organisations in civic society. There was no such raft on the "Yes" side. It was almost as though civic society left it to the politicians to fill the gap. What are our guests' opinions on this point?

While we have been whipping ourselves blind for being incapable of communicating, no one in the room is a poor communicator. One does not get elected to the Dáil unless one can communicate with the electorate. There is no sense in our blaming ourselves for being incapable of communicating. Elections are all about communicating, but they are also about campaigning. Did our campaign match our ability to communicate? What is our guests' opinion on the extent of party political campaigning as distinct from non-party political campaigning?

Regarding the media, the Oireachtas will spend almost the entirety of today discussing European affairs. If any coverage is given to it on "Oireachtas Report", it will be about the walk out by Cóir and not the EU as such. Is there not an onus on the national broadcaster to show "Oireachtas Report" before the witching hour of midnight or, in many cases, 1 o'clock, and to do so in an attractive form so that it is not just a staid presentation of a couple of comments made in the Houses? There is an onus of communication on the national broadcaster at least, if not on other elements of the media. We raised this matter with RTE yesterday, but we did not get much succour. What are our guests' opinions?

Regarding the supremacy of the market, do our guests agree that the Lisbon treaty added more to the emphasis on workers' rights, solidarity and the social agenda than any previous treaty? The Charter of Fundamental Rights is a magnificent document, as are its restated values and principles and its social clause, which should be stated in statutory form. The treaty would have enhanced workers' rights. A specific problem with the posting of workers directive could have been dealt with by the social progress clause, as proposed by Mr. John Monks of the European Trade Union Confederation. The treaty would have promoted the social agenda more than any other treaty.

Concerning future referendums, I will not discuss the Lisbon treaty, as it is not our job to make proposals on a future rerun of the referendum. In terms of conducting business in a meaningful fashion, was putting a 300-page document before the people practical? Is it not incumbent on the Attorney General, who advises and decides for the Government whether a treaty is constitutional, to determine which elements offend the Constitution so that they may be made available to the Government, Parliament and public before the debate commences so that it can be focused?

Mr. Shane Molloy

I agree with the Deputy on the need for collective leadership. The recent referendum was different because there was a new kid on the block. It made one side of the debate more newsworthy than it used to be. Many of the bodies previously involved in campaigning on both sides were present, but the mix was changed by the emergence of a new grouping.

On balancing, I strongly believe in collective leadership. I will not go into the question of which, if any, party should take the lead. Clearly, the Government of the day has a special responsibility, but if political opinion favours something, there is an onus on the political leadership of all parties to work together in such a way as to make an impact on public opinion. It is important that this be complemented by the participation of civic groups. They are a necessary ingredient in a good debate and ensure a widespread coalition of interests competing for votes.

It is legitimate to question how we go about our business, namely, via referendum. It is important that the role of the Houses be given the standing provided for in the Constitution. They are the State's decision-making bodies and we must ensure they play a more active role in major European decisions. I understand difficulties arise when elements of a treaty impact on the Constitution and that must be recognised. However, it does not seem to be helpful to bundle non-constitutional matters together with constitutional matters. It only adds to the complexity and makes it extremely difficult, even for people who are interested, to get a clear idea of what is going on.

I agree with the point made on workers' rights and I can only reiterate what I stated earlier. I will ask Ms Pappin to respond to the other questions.

Ms Andrea Pappin

In terms of communication, politicians are communicators and they do not get elected without communicating. However, they do not get elected for communicating Europe at the time of a general election. That is the point. Anyone who has worked on a campaign knows that even on a constituency basis a politician will get elected by discussing local schools and other local elements.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I am finished.

Ms Andrea Pappin

Deputy Dooley should head to Clare now. What is communicated and when are important. Everyone suddenly draping themselves in EU flags at the time of a referendum does not instill confidence in people. I am passionate about Europe. I believe it is fantastic and that we are better off at the heart of Europe than not. Europe needs to be peppered in communications at all times. Credit should be given where it is due. Every once in a while politicians have stated that the lads over in Brussels made them do it, but we are those lads. Everyone has used it. Local politics are the priority for politicians and everyone must recognise it. Their priorities may not be to communicate Europe when it comes to getting re-elected.

To further corroborate what Mr. Molloy stated with regard to civil society — which I like to call "people", and we are back to a point on language as the phrase "civil society" suggests there is an uncivil society somewhere — it is about communicating when and where and who does it.

The EU and the media are in an eternal battle. The EU is not the most interesting of subjects. It is quite complex. However, that does not mean it is something to be feared, and that is where better and stronger information is required. As Mr. Molloy intimated in his presentation, we have been drawing inspiration from performance artists such as the Reduced Shakespeare Company and Starz Bunnies which make movies in 60 minutes.

Mr. Shane Molloy

In 60 seconds.

Ms Andrea Pappin

Absolutely right. We launched an initiative whereby we try to explain the EU to someone in 20 minutes. We tested it and we were successful — it came in under 20 minutes. We do this under four simple titles which cover a brief history of the EU, what the EU can and cannot do, how the EU works and what is going on at present. People seem to be suitably informed. It takes a macro view of the EU rather than being pulled into the minutiae of certain case law of the ECJ when people do not even know what "ECJ" stands for.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I welcome the representatives of the European Movement. I flicked through the documentation they provided for us and I compliment them on it. It is accessible, colourful and interesting. It is exactly what we need to promote better public understanding of Europe.

In the earlier session this morning, we discussed who should be communicating Europe and taking an active role in campaigns to promote treaties. We spoke about politicians versus civil society, the credibility issue and to whom the public would listen. Politicians must do a much better job of communicating what is a complex subject to encourage people to support treaties and the European project in a more enthusiastic way.

People, or civil society, will be important because we must accept that many figures and groups have credibility because of what they do or who they are. At a time when we want to convince the public of the value of further European integration, we need representatives of various sectors of Irish society to state that Europe has been good for them and explain how they have benefitted and what is their experience.

The European Movement is an independent group. It is about projecting a positive image of Europe. From its literature it seems to focus on younger people. One of the leaflets is specifically targeted at students and their experience of Europe. That is good because it was of concern that one of the groups which stood out as voting "No" to the Lisbon treaty was young people.

As someone stated recently, many young people have no experience of an Ireland which was not part of the European Union. Often it is easy to take for granted many of the benefits of European membership because the European Union is not so good at promoting itself and its successes. Therefore, it may be easy for some who cannot imagine what life would be like outside the European Union to be critical of it and vote "No". Targeting the youth and explaining to them what European Union membership has meant to this country and to them as young people is good and I hope the European Movement will continue to do so.

Sometimes, it is difficult for politicians to be taken seriously by young people. We are seen in a particular way. They do not always identify and relate to us and it is important that we continue to target this constituency. An independent authority to establish the accuracy of particular claims being made about European issues or treaties would be important. This committee could put thought into what type of body would have this impartial and independent image with expertise. In the heat of a treaty debate one side makes one set of claims and the other side makes another, and it is difficult for the public to know who is correct. Do the witnesses have suggestions on how to establish on a more permanent basis a body which could adjudicate on and be a source of expertise on European issues?

Communicating Europe to various demographic groups is another challenge and I spoke about young people. Ms Pappin mentioned that politicians concentrate on local issues because they must do so to get elected as they are what exercise their voters. The real challenge is to connect Europe with local matters. That is the only way in which we will make people feel that Europe is relevant to them. That can be done because there are concrete benefits for local areas and people. However, we need to learn how to do it better. We need to examine all demographic groups at local level, such as older people, farmers and trade unionists and we need to be able to target the message about Europe at these groups. I welcome any suggestions the witnesses have on improving communication and I thank them for their presentation.

Mr. Shane Molloy

I thank Senator de Búrca for her comments. I agree that the critical task is to establish better public understanding. That is the key focus of our work. We are deliberately trying to focus on engaging with young people and — I run the risk of insulting gender — women because they are the two groups that stood out as having a degree of scepticism about the European project.

I go along with what Professor Sinnott stated, that it is critical to make contact with working class communities. The more strongly it is investigated, the more data show that major issues exist. I am not certain it is understood why this may be so other than the obvious greater degree of uncertainty about job prospects. There is a sense that the European Union may have had an impact but I personally do not agree. We have to find a means of engaging with these communities. Our organisation is not of sufficient scale to take on such a challenge but we are prepared to work with others. We can be helpful in regard to languages.

Ms Andrea Pappin

All of our projects can be scaled and we can impart information in various ways once people are interested. I agree that it is a matter of using a range of voices to communicate. The team to which I belong is new but since taking on my job I have received a number of communications from people who believe in the project and want to play their part rather than leaving it to the politicians. We want to harness that interest in the search for positive solutions. We can all point to problems but cannot stop the world and get off. Solutions must be provided when problems are identified.

Chairman

I thank the delegates for their contributions. I will make a shameless observation before putting my questions. Mr. Molloy was kind enough to acknowledge our shared background in selling soap powder, although he has been much more successful. Selling soap powder has taught me that one has 20 seconds rather than 20 minutes to explain matters. Our challenge in communicating the idea of the European Union and the European Union is not being able to explain it in 20 minutes. The European Movement is fortunate in having people who wish to listen for 20 minutes but we are trying to crack the concept of explaining it positively in 20 seconds or less. We have been given lots of ideas but our biggest challenge is that our next debate will be about the European Union rather than the Lisbon treaty. We must find a way of explaining the issues correctly. It is not a question of narratives; it is a story. Politicians have a duty to work on this.

It appears that the European Movement has been running the perfect public meeting programme. Deputy Costello and I spend a lot of time attending public meetings in our constituency, at which attendances and interest levels vary dramatically. The European Movement has been running a programme for people who wish to engage in their workplaces and has at times attracted large numbers of attendees. In the next round of the European debate the movement might conduct a scientific exercise at its public engagements to assess the success or otherwise of speakers in changing people's minds. I would love to know at the end of, perhaps, ten meetings attracting a total of between 1,000 and 2,000 people and addressed by a variety of my colleagues our level of success in influencing the audience.

Deputy Joe Costello

We had Bill Cullen here this morning. He is prepared to lead any future campaign that might be conducted.

Chairman

Absolutely. We will have to speak to him about it.

Deputy Joe Costello

He was convinced by this morning's debate.

Chairman

The assessment to which I refer would be relevant to the work we do in the Houses. The European Movement's submission contained several strong statements regarding the effect of the Lisbon treaty referendum decision on economic investment in Ireland. In particular, it warned of the danger that Ireland would be perceived as an isolated offshore location and effectively excluded from the mainstream of European activity. It notes that we live in an ever more connected world which is perpetually moving and makes the point that economic recovery depends on Ireland being perceived as demonstrating its strong pro-European Union commitment. Will Mr. Molloy elaborate on this? What are the long-term economic consequences of non-ratification of the Lisbon treaty or another version of it?

Under the heading "Recommendations to enhance the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in EU affairs", the submission makes reference to research commissioned by the European Movement in August regarding how the Houses of the Oireachtas can make a better contribution to the European legislative process. If the representatives can share their observations of that work, it would be useful to the sub-committee.

Mr. Shane Molloy

I thank the Chairman for his questions. The programme of meetings was public in the sense that they included members of the public but the most successful events were held in corporate premises and confined to the people employed at those locations. As they were held during the course of the referendum, they reflected genuine interest on the part of the corporations concerned. The mere fact that they had agreed to hold the meetings, as well as the number of attendees we attracted, reinforces that belief. While we hope to continue these as public awareness meetings, they will probably be more difficult outside the context of a referendum. I am optimistic about them because we have received confirmation from several organisations that they are happy to facilitate meetings on an occasional basis.

In terms of assessing the effects of the meetings, Professor Richard Sinnott pointed out that the more information people received, the more knowledgeable and — encouragingly from our perspective — more pro-European Union they became. If all politicians can communicate as effectively as Deputy Costello believes, public meetings should present a good opportunity for conversions. However, I am not necessarily convinced by him. We would have a reasonable chance if an effective way of communicating could be found, although I am not sure how this would be assessed. We asked for a show of hands at the start and the end of one of our meetings but the change was not as dramatic as we would have hoped. As it takes more than one discussion to change minds, we might be setting ourselves a very high standard.

Having participated in decisions by companies on where they should locate, I speak with a degree of knowledge of economic repercussions. Certainty is the critical factor in such decisions. Uncertainty has a tendency to outweigh other elements which might make for a more positive argument because one does not want a situation where the prospects for the future are unclear. The blunt reality is that the Lisbon treaty has introduced uncertainty at a time when it is the last thing we need. In my personal view, not necessarily speaking on behalf of the European Movement, I cannot think of a more disastrous situation than that which has arisen. Many companies are reviewing their corporate bases and the introduction of a question mark will, unfortunately, militate against the interests of businesses located here. That is the blunt reality.

Ms Andrea Pappin

We have started a research project on how we can make the system more democratic without requiring a treaty. There are many things we can do that do not require a referendum on a complex document. We want to tackle the idea of democracy head on and realise our work in Ireland can limit that infamous democratic deficit about which everybody talks. We are examining it in many areas and a volunteer researcher is doing the work for us. There should be some sort of a state of the European Union statement, to use the idea of the State of the Union address in America, to bring the European Union to the fore in the debate rather than have the usual Opposition versus Government slinging that happens sometimes in the Chamber. Thus, we could have a larger discussion about the European Union and, I hope, everybody would put on his or her European hat, if possible.

There is a research department but we need to enhance it as a practical measure. I worked in Brussels very briefly and my boss in the European Commission was called before the House of Lords regarding something that had not even become Commission draft legislation. She was grilled about what we were doing and why. It is about where we want to begin influencing European law, having the capacity to do it, because it is important, and prioritising the areas of key concern in Ireland. We will not be able to get through every draft regulation and directive but must begin somewhere. By starting there and having some understanding there can be a very positive multiplier effect in our taking control of European law. Our democracy project is examining this at European level to see what the European Union needs to do. The Council votes should be public and we do not need a treaty to do this. Some of them are but people do not realise this. That is a perception. We can do things at European level but the vast majority of work can be done here. It is about all of us stepping up to the plate.

As Mr. Molloy said, it is difficult to ascertain the influence speakers had at the public meetings. From organising many of them, I can say, anecdotally, that much of the debate focused on what ifs. What if France and Germany overruled us in QMV? It was very hypothetical. It comes down to the quality of speaker. I would have loved to have seen people pull it back and say we had had 35 years of working with these countries. I would have loved them to challenge people to give five, three or even one example of when France and Germany had over-voted us in the Council. It has never happened in 35 years. It could have been grounded much more in fact rather than saying if one tilted one's head to a 45° angle and the moon was in the house of Aquarius, this could possibly happen. Much of the issue of communication relates to dealing with the reality.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome the members of the European Movement and thank them for their presentation. I recognise the tremendous work they have done. I am taken by some of the very interesting documentation they brought. I have seen some of their events and that is the route our society needs to take. I have talked about this to previous guests. We must engage with the European Union as a whole rather than just Brussels. In our context, people who want to get a feeling for what Ireland is all about do not arrive in Dublin and just come to the Oireachtas to see what is happening in a committee or the Dáil. They look to the wider community and see what we are about, rather than just mining and drilling into the seat of power. Perhaps this is political and our guests will advise us on this. Are the politicians leading people off the track by focusing on the technical issues? We had Mr. Bill Cullen here earlier and he pointed out that he was a car salesman and helped people to make decisions about cars. Clearly, most people who buy cars do not know how the internal combustion engine works. They are not interested in the workings of the car but making it move and turning the four wheels. The European Movement seems to be suggesting to people what the European Union is and what it can do rather than how it does it. That is where, to a certain extent, we lost the focus in the Lisbon treaty debate. Everybody became a legal expert. Everybody sat on a bar stool and discussed if the self-amending clause allowed something else to happen, the European Court of Justice might decide something. People thought they could guess what a judge or a group of judges in that court might do about something in the treaty. The other day we had proponents of this here who clearly did not even know what was behind their own rhetoric when they were not able to support the allegations that three-year-olds could be taken from their families in a certain eventuality.

The prophets of doom examined the treaty and it was a little like plotting the perfect murder through legislation in place. One could do it if one followed a particular route but there was no perpetrator at the other end. This goes back to Ms Pappin's point that there is no perpetrator in the European Union trying to foist all this on us or find some way to catch us out. We participate in the Council and decision making but have done a bad job of communicating this to the public. I am interested in the European Movement's approach because we have failed to move the debate on from the cash cow, the billions of euro, the roads, sewerage systems and infrastructural projects. We were very good at selling this from a European perspective when we put up a big sign at the start of a road indicating, for example, that 75% of the money came from European Structural Funds. That is coming back to haunt us. We were thankful and it was necessary to demonstrate this but it showed only the element of the European project that assisted us in getting to the level where we could participate as equals in the European context.

Slowly but surely we are having a debate that we probably should have had much earlier. The mistake inherent in this is that an entire generation of citizens have seen the European Union for nothing other than its capacity to deliver cash. They have reached a point where they are no longer interested in learning the fundamentals. That is why it was so difficult with this treaty because we were trying to talk about reforming something people did not understand. It lacked the tangible benefit for Ireland or hook that other treaties offered. There was not the common market, the euro or the enlargement which the Nice treaty had brought. The information deficit has shown through. What the European Movement is doing in imaginative and less technical ways is bringing people in and assisting them in a very open and friendly way to understand whatever element of the European Union they want to understand. They do not have to become an expert overnight. People turn off because they are not interested in getting into the mumbo jumbo of the technicalities. That is for technical people to deal with, whether politicians or lawyers generally.

The European Movement must see some reaction. Has it received much feedback to its office since the treaty rejection? Has it seen an increase in the level of participation in the movement?

Ms Andrea Pappin

Yes. We have noticed an increase in membership and people began to call immediately. We have tried to make events more social. We have certainly seen an increase in membership. People who may not be a member of a political party or do not want to get involved in that element are keen to meet like-minded individuals, start talking about this and get out to do something about it. They realise we need many voices and not just the single voice of politicians.

I do not know how air traffic control works but I know it is good and somebody does it, which means I can travel on holidays. I bought a DVD player recently and flicked through the little guide that came with it before throwing it in the drawer along with other guarantees for my iron, microwave and everything else. It is the bizarre drawer which everyone has. As these examples show, I wonder why some people think others will sit down and thumb through a treaty as if it is a Marian Keyes novel. To call a spade a spade, one uses a solicitor to go through legal documents when buying a house rather than reading through them oneself.

This comes back to having 20 seconds to describe this. Unfortunately there is no silver bullet and the EU is complex. It works from counting sheep to dealing with international negotiations. As a result there will not be a silver bullet. We can create a feeling for it. For me, it is about living in a world with international problems related to guns, drugs and the environment, for example. These are international issues that do not respect borders, so we need an international solution. The EU has a fantastic capacity to achieve this, demonstrated by dealing with events like the financial crisis which has just happened.

With the treaty, people are ultimately being asked to understand a concept when they do not understand what came before. We need independent reasons for voting for such treaties rather than relying on swatting away some of the more colourful and crazy arguments that others can conjure. In that case we venture into "What if?" territory rather than putting forward independent reasons for this treaty being a good idea.

Mr. Shane Molloy

We need to take a much more aggressive attitude on the positive side of Europe. There is an extent to which the "Yes" side is somewhat on the defensive, which flies in the face of facts. There is much to be proud of and all of us must get out there to talk about it. I am sufficiently old to be able to say this but in the past, political reputations were made by people adopting Europe as their major cause. They did not attack Europe but rather sold it in a very positive way. We must see several champions, to be blunt, in the Houses of the Oireachtas who are prepared to take leadership.

I was asked earlier about the balance of political leadership but today I cannot identify any Members I would particularly identify as being pro-European in a way that some figures from the past would have been. This indicates an opportunity is possible as things have not changed that much.

I will tie that into another point. In retrospect there was a message about the Lisbon treaty which could have been used. The treaty could be summarised as being about change but we allowed it to get too technical. It was all about changing the EU to make it better. It is a simple and almost clichéd line but as we have seen from the US elections, very simple lines such as "Change" and "We can do it" can resonate with the electorate. One runs the risk of being simple as opposed to simplifying but the simplification could be right. Change is what we should talk about now.

Europe has the power to change the destiny of Ireland for the better in current circumstances and we need all the help we can get. Personally, I advocate selling Europe as the opportunity to bring improved circumstances for the country.

I commented on the economic position and I recognise there is a balance between being alarmist and facing reality. That is a critical question currently as there is need for the senior political leadership to spell out clearly how serious a crisis we now face as a consequence of the Lisbon rejection. From anecdotal experience, I do not believe people appreciate fully how much damage the country has done to itself. Good work is being done in this room which is getting some media coverage. I am alert to conversations on Europe but I am not getting any feedback from my wider circle that the message has been put across about the damage we have done. There is a great need for very senior politicians to come out and state categorically how difficult the challenge we are facing is.

Chairman

I thank both the delegates for their contributions and for bearing with us as we had to change the time they appeared before the committee. We will deliver our report next week and the contribution of the witnesses will be very helpful in doing so. In light of how long a day we have had, we will suspend until 4.05 p.m. to give a ten-minute break.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

We will get to see the natural light.

Chairman

I would appreciate if our next guest could bear with us but we have had an even longer day than normal today. I would be grateful if people returned by 4.05 p.m.

Mr. Shane Molloy

I thank the sub-committee for the opportunity to come before it.

Sitting suspended at 3.55 p.m. and resumed at 4.15 p.m.