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

Ireland’s Future Engagement in the EU: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome all my colleagues again for this day's work. I welcome our guests and thank them for coming in to participate in the work of this sub-committee. Before I begin I need to make some technical points about mobile phones. I have been again asked to remind people to turn off mobile phones. The proceedings are being recorded and the transcripts are being made available very quickly. The operation of mobile phones in the committee room makes that difficult to do.

I welcome our guests. At this stage I am sure they are familiar with the sub-committee's work. It was established after the Lisbon treaty referendum result to examine Ireland's future in the European Union. It was given four terms of reference which cover the following: how the operation and effectiveness of the Oireachtas in European matters can be improved; how the public's understanding of the EU can be improved; the implications of the result of Lisbon treaty referendum for the national interest; and how the national interest can be best delivered in particular policy areas in Europe.

This is the final day of seven weeks of public hearings. This module is examining people's attitudes to Europe and views that people have regarding Ireland's future in the European Union. The sub-committee has already received submissions from the guests which have been circulated to members. Each guest will get five minutes to make a presentation and then the meeting is opened up to the floor. Each member will have time to put questions to the panel and each of the guests can respond.

My job as Chairman is simple. It is to ensure everyone has an opportunity to speak and is uninterrupted. I will state any points regarding the operation of the proceedings if they arise. When members have finished their questions, I will put some questions to the panel if I believe they are pertinent.

I must inform our guests that while members of the sub-committee have absolute privilege, this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the sub-committee. I remind members of the parliamentary practice that they 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 call on Mr. Anthony Coughlan.

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

I thank the Chairman. My colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity of commenting on the submissions we made to the sub-committee. We submitted two lengthy documents, the first on the sub-committee's terms of reference and the second, setting out why the Treaty of Lisbon is a bad treaty for Ireland and the EU.

The National Platform is a voluntary group that provides information for various groups on the "No" side in these referendums. I am president of the European Foundation for Democracy which produced a version of the treaty with which I was involved.

I have four points I wish to raise. First, I have been a long-standing opponent of European integration on political grounds. I am in favour of economic co-operation in Europe and accept the EU has been a good thing for Ireland in many ways. However, I have been opposed from the beginning to the attempts to turn it into a political union, a quasi-superfederal superstate. The 1951 Monnet declaration was said to be the first step in the federation of Europe. The Treaty of Lisbon, which embodies the EU constitutional treaty and which the French and the Dutch rejected in 2005, is the culmination of the constitutional side of this federal project. It established for the first time a legally new European Union with its own legal personality, separate from and superior to its member states. We would all be made real citizens of this for the first time, which is a profoundly important development. This is a different European Union from the one we already have, as was clear from the constitutional amendment. I have been opposed to the project because that is what it is about. The economic side is quite a different matter.

Any proposal to re-run the Lisbon referendum will have to be done with exactly the same treaty as the present one. The Treaty of Lisbon cannot be altered by a jot or a tittle or by one comma before being put to the Irish people again, if that is the Government's intention, as seems to be the case. I hope the committee will not encourage that. It is intended to decorate the treaty with what I call cap and bells — with various declarations — but these have no legal consequence in the sense of altering the treaty one iota. The intention, I gather, is not to modify the treaty, to use the term used by The Irish Times in its opinion poll the other day, because it cannot be modified or changed in the slightest, but to modify its presentation. I hope this committee will not go along with this very dubious project, because the referendum last June was a valid constitutional referendum and any attempt to overthrow it would be constitutionally profoundly dubious. Any attempt to re-run the Lisbon referendum on the same treaty would be constitutionally improper. It will have to be decided by the Supreme Court if someone takes legal action. I draw the committee’s attention to the Hanafin judgment at the time of the divorce referendum in January 1996, in which the Supreme Court said it was not proper or appropriate to go behind the minds of the people in a referendum. Members may remember that Des Hanafin tried to overthrow the result of the referendum on the grounds that the Government had unconstitutionally spent £500,000 on the referendum, and the Supreme Court said it would not go down that road because it could not be proved that the people voted in any particular way, and it would be improper to do so. This is something the committee should consider in its deliberations.

There has been much hypocrisy about the idea that in some way Deputy Micheál Martin and his colleagues in Iveagh House have been respecting the result. The referendum result has not been respected. It was a perfectly valid referendum in which the majority of voters voted. For the Government to respect the result would mean abiding by the result; in other words, the Government should have said after the referendum to its European colleagues: "Sorry, ladies and gentlemen; Ireland cannot ratify the treaty because the Irish people have rejected it in a valid referendum." That would almost certainly have meant that after a period the ratification process would have ceased because there would be no point in other states' proceeding if Ireland was not going to ratify. The only basis for the other states' proceeding is that the treaty, as members know, can only come into force if all 27 states have ratified. However, instead of taking the proper course, which would have respected the judgment of the people, the Government went a different way. On the very morning of the referendum I remember seeing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, on the television saying that of course ratification would proceed in other countries. He could only have said that on the assumption that Ireland would re-run the referendum to ratify the treaty. The Taoiseach said something similar on the same morning. In effect, what has been happening is that the Irish Government, through the Minister and his Iveagh House colleagues, who have given the Taoiseach very bad advice in this whole matter — advice on which they decided on the very morning of the referendum, before the result had even been declared — have been working to isolate Ireland. They encouraged the remaining member states of the EU that had not yet ratified the treaty to go ahead with ratification in order to isolate Ireland — at the end of this year if possible, so that there would be 24, 25 or 26 states which had ratified — and thereby put pressure on Irish voters in a second referendum.

The Irish Government has been conniving in this to impose upon the Irish people — and European people generally — the constitution of a profoundly undemocratic European Union, because that is what is entailed in the Treaty of Lisbon. It is a new European Union marked by profoundly undemocratic features, in effect federal in character, of which we will be made real citizens for the first time, just as in the United States of America or the Federal Republic of Germany, which have federal constitutions of that kind. In my judgment, the most prudent course for the Government now — which this committee, I suggest, should support and encourage — is not to rush ahead with this matter but to wait until the next British general election, which is certain to occur within the next 18 months and which is likely to return a Conservative administration to office in Britain and Northern Ireland, although one cannot be sure. The Conservative Party is committed to putting the Lisbon treaty to a referendum of the citizens and recommending a "No" vote, provided we have not reversed our vote in a second referendum and thus enabling the treaty to come into force for all 27 member states. I hope the Government is not foolish enough to go down that road because, as Mr. Ganley said when he came before the sub-committee a few days ago, it would almost certainly result in another "No" vote, which would possibly precipitate the resignation of the Taoiseach and damage Fianna Fáil to the benefit of Fine Gael.

It is possible that there will be a British general election before next October as Mr. Gordon Brown may go to the country in the spring. The people of the United Kingdom have been denied a referendum by the Labour Party, which has broken the promise in that regard of the previous Administration of Mr. Blair. I am not a natural Tory but the Conservative Party is following a democratic course and the Irish Government should take that into account. Other EU states should not connive in imposing a European federalist constitution without the citizens of the United Kingdom, including our fellow countrymen and countrywomen in Northern Ireland, having a say. We should wait for the British general election.

My final point concerns the Referendum Commission, which I deal with in detail in my submission. There has been much talk about people not having enough information but that is absurd as a vast amount of information was provided on the Lisbon treaty from all sides and the citizens have made their judgment.

The body principally charged with informing citizens about the character of the referendum was the Referendum Commission. The Houses of the Oireachtas gave that body in excess of €5 million, which was profoundly wrong-headed. The Referendum Commission should carry out its constitutional task. I checked the Referendum Act 1998, which set up the commission, and it states that the body is charged with the task of informing citizens of what the constitutional amendment is and what its text is to be. It took private representations on my part for the Referendum Commission to put that text on its website. The booklet sent to all households failed to tell citizens about the constitutional significance of the referendum.

Members will recall the first and most important sentence of the constitutional amendment to be put before the Irish people, which reads: "The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon ... and be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that treaty." In other words, the treaty would have set up a new European Union with the same name but legally, constitutionally and politically very different from the current European Union. We would all have been made real citizens of the EU for the first time and given dual citizenship, the treaty amending the existing Nice treaty in that regard. One can only be a citizen of a state and all states must have citizens so it is a profoundly important matter. It would not confer dual citizenship of two different states but citizenship at two different levels within one state, exactly as is the case in the United States of America or the Federal Republic of Germany. An American may be a citizen of California or New York as well as of the United States of America. A citizen of Bavaria or Baden-Württemberg may also be a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany. The treaty would bring into being a classic federal constitution, giving the Irish people dual citizenship equivalent to the people of the German Lånder. Citizenship of a larger European quasi-federal state is a profoundly important development but there was not a word about it in the material published by the Referendum Commission.

The commission did not tell citizens that the Lisbon treaty proposed that future Irish Governments would lose the right to decide their national Commissioner. There was a lot of fuss about the proposal to reduce the number of Commissioners to fewer than there were member states, but the treaty also provides that the current right of Governments to decide who their Commissioner should be will be replaced by the right to make suggestions to the incoming President of the Commission, who will thereafter make the decision.

What is the point in every member state having a Commissioner if the Governments in question cannot decide who is that Commissioner? This important point in the Lisbon treaty was totally ignored by the Referendum Commission even though private representations again were made to it. That is profoundly delinquent. The Referendum Commission failed to do its constitutional task, failed to abide by the Referendum Act, which set it up and set out its statutory purposes, and it was constitutionally delinquent. It is supposed to give a report to the Oireachtas by mid-December. As far as I know, this report has not yet been submitted but it should be shortly. I hope Oireachtas Members, particularly those in opposition, will probe this failure of the Referendum Commission to tell the citizens what the referendum was about in crucial respects because if it had done and if the real facts of what is in the Lisbon treaty were brought home to the people, I do not have the least doubt the "No" vote would have been much higher than it was. If these basic facts are brought home to the people and if it is proposed to go down the constitutionally dubious, awesomely dubious and undemocratic course of re-running the referendum, there will be an even more resounding vote next time around. It would be folly for the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fine Gael Party to do anything along those lines.

Mr. Roger Cole

I thank the sub-committee for the invitation to address it. The Peace and Neutrality Alliance was established in 1996 because we believed then it was the intention of the Irish ruling class to destroy Irish independence, Irish democracy and Irish neutrality to ensure the State was integrated into the EU-US-NATO military structures. We opposed Ireland's membership of the Partnership for Peace and called for a referendum. Indeed, the then Taoiseach said it would be fundamentally undemocratic to join without such a referendum but we ended up joining without holding one. We also opposed the Amsterdam and Nice treaties because we sought a protocol that would exclude Ireland from the military development of the EU. However, in many ways more important than that, we also opposed Ireland's participation in George Bush's imperial war on Iraq where well over 1 million US troops were passing through Shannon Airport and aeroplanes landing there, which allegedly could have been carrying people to torture chambers, were not searched. Whatever about 1996, by now most people are very well aware that we are integrated into the EU-US-NATO military structure.

We also campaigned against the Lisbon treaty. Our Constitution is everybody's Constitution — it is not my Constitution. Article 6.1 states: "All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good." We had a referendum in which the people gave their decision and it is a pity that certain newspapers and others do not seem to think the Irish people are sovereign. That decision was made and one cannot ask the people to decide again on exactly the same treaty. It is questionable whether that is legal.

It is incumbent on those of us who oppose the treaty to give some idea of what should be contained in a new treaty. For a long time, PANA has outlined its vision of Europe. We want a partnership of independent, democratic states, legal equals, without a military dimension. We were founding members of the European Network for Peace and Human Rights. As far as we are concerned, PANA is part of a European movement. We are European in that sense but we belong to the European democratic tradition and our contention is that the people who support the Lisbon treaty, the process of the militarisation of Europe and the war on Iraq are all part of the imperial tradition in Europe. Our contention is that the people who support the Lisbon treaty and the process of the militarisation of Europe and the war in Iraq are all part of the imperial tradition in Europe. Anyone who knows anything about European history knows of the powerful imperial tradition. We have always argued that we wanted a protocol, a legally binding part of the treaty, unlike a declaration that has no legal status. The protocol would ensure that Ireland was not part of the military development. Denmark has had such a protocol for years and, to my knowledge, the world has not come to an end. It seems reasonable that this should be the minimum in the new treaty.

Over the years we have developed good contacts with groups all over Europe such as the Transnational Institute. They have produced books such as The Emerging EU Military-Industrial Complex, Arming Big Brother and the latest, From Venus to Mars. The latter clearly analyses, researches and details the process of that militarisation of Europe. In the process of developing these contacts, we are not seeking changes only in this country. We want wider changes and I will give the committee a few examples. The proposed job of a permanent EU President should not happen. PANA’s position is that the EU should be a partnership of independent democratic states and this is best expressed by the continuation of a six month rotation process. The European Defence Agency, which might be more accurately described as the European war agency, should be abolished and its assets transferred to a European climate change agency with a central role in ensuring that the technology now committed to military development be transformed to technology committed to the development of green energy farm production. For example, this could help to build a massive solar energy farm in the Sahara and wave energy farms along the European coasts united in a single grid. The obligation for EU states to build up their military capacities will be replaced by a commitment to build up its social infrastructure in health provision, transport, education and social housing. This is a key demand.

The US global sales of military hardware increased from €12 billion in 2005 to €32,000 billion in 2007. The US spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined. That goes a long way to explaining why the alleged richest country in the world has 45-50 million people with no health care, yet the vision statement of the European Defence Agency states: "If Europe is to preserve a broadly based and globally competitive [military]... it must take to heart... that the US is outspending Europe." What the EU wants to do is export even more weapons. Those who support the Lisbon treaty are supporting that. The Petersberg Tasks and the battle group provision should be abolished, as should the structured co-operation provisions. The concept that a number of EU states, operating within EU structures, should be able to create their own military mini-alliances is utterly bizarre. Any war they become involved in would obviously affect all EU states. The mutual solidarity and mutual defence clauses should be abolished. A partnership of independent states does not mean, nor should it mean, that there should be mutual defence implications between the states involved.

The EU should terminate all its relationships with the nuclear armed military alliance, NATO. In the broader context, Ireland is not a member of NATO but one cannot ignore the fact that it is continuing to expand. Most EU states are in NATO. To us, NATO and the militarisation of the EU are opposite sides of the same coin.

Over the years we have built powerful links with British CND and many other peace movements in Europe will be campaigning to have a major demonstration next April to seek the abolition of NATO. We will work closely in that regard.

We call for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, the regional body of all states of Europe recognised as such by the UN, to have a wider EU conference, which would call for European security treaty to address the concerns of all European states.

Perhaps then one of the inevitable consequences of that treaty being successful would be the abolition of NATO. The real issue is whether we continue the process of a military global build-up or whether we change. I will give an example. Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, have shown that while $1 billion creates 8,535 jobs, if spent on military production, the same amount of money, spent on home weatherisation creates 12,804 jobs or 19,795 jobs. If one is in the business of creating jobs, it seems to me that health, education, housing and public transport are much better ways of spending money.

I want to talk about the issue which was raised after the referendum, that of conscription. TNS MRBI did a survey prior to the referendum. This accurately predicted the outcome and the company has been in business for a long time so its predictions tend to be accurate. The survey asked people the reasons they decided to vote "Yes" or "No". The respondents were unprompted and they were allowed to give more than one answer. Conscription is not even mentioned in the list of reasons people decided to vote "No". The only occasion on which the issue of conscription was raised was in a discussion I had with a Fine Gael Deputy who raised it, a person on the "Yes" side. We never raised the issue. I was interviewed and I said that it did not mean that. It was never mentioned in any of the radio discussions.

Here we have the factual evidence from a reputable survey by a reputable company saying conscription was not an issue. The survey found that the reason people voted "No" was to keep Ireland's power and identity. People do not vote for a pig in a poke so if one does not know, then it is more natural to vote "No" and this was the biggest reason given by about 30% of those polled. The other reasons were, to keep Ireland's power and identity and to safeguard Ireland's neutrality. People do not like being told what to do. Irish people were nearly being bullied into voting "Yes". The reasons for voting "Yes" were not to embarrass Ireland, to enable the enlarged EU to function effectively, that it was necessary for our economy, for EU pay back. There are legitimate reasons people said they voted "Yes" and why they voted "No". However, once they have made that decision, for whatever reason, they have made that decision and they are sovereign. It is not the editorial board of The Irish Times which is sovereign nor the editorial board of the Irish Independent, it is the people. They have made their choice and their decision. The people who are elected must go back and tell the rest of Europe that we have to have a new treaty that takes into consideration what the majority of the Irish people want. As far as my group is concerned, the key reason is that we do not believe it is in the interests of the Irish people, the interests of the people in the other member states or the interests of the American people that we keep on going down this road of spending more and more money on weapons.

We believe that we are the realists. We are the ones arguing a case for the survival of humanity.

Ms Patricia McKenna

I will try to stick to the four points which the sub-committee was discussing. The first one is challenges facing Ireland following the Lisbon treaty referendum result. The first and most obvious challenge facing the Government is to acquire the courage and the integrity to respect the result of the vote. So far, that does not appear to have happened. This would result in Ireland telling our EU partners that the people have made their decision; they have voted on the Lisbon treaty and they have voted to reject the treaty which, as Mr. Coughlan said, would fundamentally alter the EU as it currently exists. I recognise the fact that as the EU currently exists there are major problems regarding democracy which need to be addressed but the Lisbon treaty did not do that. It alters it, turning it into a new Union which would have the constitutional form of a supranational federation. This fundamental change was stated clearly in the wording of the constitutional amendment. We would become a member of that Union established by virtue of that treaty. The wording of the constitutional amendment made it extremely clear to people that the European Union that currently exists would be no more and we would sign up to this new European Union that I have outlined. Mr. Anthony Coughlan is correct that the Referendum Commission failed abysmally in its task to explain that to the public.

The largest challenge facing the Government is to get the message across to our EU colleagues that the Irish people have voted and rejected the proposal that would fundamentally alter the EU. It does a great disservice to the people to refuse to get that message across to other EU leaders or to encourage them, whether publicly or behind the scenes, to forge ahead with the ratification process. It is as if the Irish had not voted or their vote did not matter. The Government is paid by the people and takes an oath after it is elected to work in Ireland's interests and for the Irish people. Its members have failed in their duty to do that.

Our Government must make it clear that we are not a pushover in Europe. It must make it clear that we are not going to kowtow to every European leader because our political establishment has an inferiority complex and is afraid to stand up to them. The Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, did not have to follow his predecessor, Deputy Bertie Ahern's, lead after the Nice treaty referendum in kowtowing to the EU leaders saying he will get the people to vote again. Even before the referendum result was out, taking comments made by the European Commission President, Mr. Barroso, the signal from our Government was that this was a little glitch which will be sorted out by getting the people to vote again.

Any isolation of Ireland will be our Government's making. If the other member states are encouraged to forge ahead with the ratification process, it creates a situation where the other 26 member states will decide Ireland is isolated. However, the treaty cannot come into force until all 27 member states have ratified it. They cannot forge ahead or cut us off. The Taoiseach can be proud of being the only EU leader who has a direct mandate from his people on the Lisbon treaty. He can point out that the people have rejected the treaty and he has an obligation to respect their decision.

All the other EU leaders openly admit they were not going to have a vote on this treaty. The French President, Sarkozy, said they cannot vote on it in France because the people would reject it. It is clear there is a conspiracy against the citizens of the member states to create a European Union which does not have their support. Establishing a European Union based on such dodgy and undemocratic actions will come back to haunt them. One cannot forge ahead with something that one openly admits does not have its citizens behind it. That is why they cannot let their citizens vote on it and have to go ahead with it.

This is very dangerous, and the Irish people should stand up for democracy not just in Ireland but across the European Union. We have been inundated with support from ordinary citizens throughout Europe on this issue since we voted "No". Despite the message that is being put across, it is a dilemma for some people, but they are the political elite of Europe, not the citizens. We — not just Irish citizens but also those of other member states — deserve nothing less than respect for our wishes and our role in where Europe will go in the future. That is the biggest challenge for us.

With regard to Ireland's future in the EU and our influence in the European institutions, to a certain extent the heading of this committee indicates that somehow by voting "No" people were saying they wanted to disengage from the EU. That was not the case. People voted "No" for other reasons. Many of us have problems with democracy as it operates in the current EU, but they also voted "No" because they did not want to support a treaty that fundamentally altered the existing EU and did not address the democratic deficit. Nobody voted to leave the European Union, from what I can gather. I do not know whether the opinion polls asked people whether they voted to leave the European Union or disengage. This is not a good message to be sending out. It is not the situation. When it comes to our influence in the EU, standing firm and respecting the voice of the Irish people would gain us more credibility than the actions we are currently taking. The Taoiseach and the Government are going out and saying we are going to vote again on the treaty without one change to the text and that they will get people to support it. This displays a lack of courage within our own political establishment and I do not think that does our power and influence within the EU any good. It would be much better if we stood up for democracy and the rights of people and pushed for democratic reform of the EU, which is what people actually want.

What we need to do is to allow the citizens of Europe to have a say in the process of where Europe is going in the future. The suggestion has been made that somehow we should come up with a format for what we want with regard to changes in Europe, addressing in particular issues that have come up in every single referendum since I have been involved. These include the questions of whether we want the European Union to militarise further, whether we feel there is a democratic deficit within the EU, and whether its citizens have some control over those who make decisions on their behalf. We should address all these issues and come up, ultimately, with something we can put to citizens in the individual member states and allow them to decide. Whether it is something I support or not does not matter. We should at least provide democratic legitimacy and allow the citizens of Europe to have a vote on that. That is what we should do.

The next point relates to enhancing the Houses of the Oireachtas. The amount of European Union legislation that goes through here is quite phenomenal. If the EU is reformed in the way I am talking about, this would reduce the amount of legislation coming out of Europe, and that would make it easier for national parliaments to have more control. However, if Lisbon goes ahead this will increase even more the amount of legislation going through. The last point mentioned was about improving public understanding of the EU. This should not be a propaganda-type understanding, in which there is no criticism whatsoever. That has been a major fault to date. There is a failure and a reluctance to criticise the European Union and the problems that people see. The Referendum Commission, as mentioned by Mr. Coughlan, was a major problem. It was after the first Nice referendum that the Government amended the role of the Referendum Commission to take away its function of soliciting the "Yes" and "No" arguments and giving them out. That showed a contempt for the rights of people to make up their own minds. I have heard many discussions about the McKenna judgment with regard to how it is dangerous to give people both sides of the argument. It is not. Let people make their own minds up.

I laughed during the Forum on Europe discussions because people were saying that some of the issues in which more power was being given to the European Union were irrelevant. Mr. Cole mentioned this as well. One issue that was highlighted specifically during a Forum on Europe debate was about space. One paper was entitled "From Venus to Mars: the European Union's steps towards the militarisation of space". Space is very relevant to the militarisation of Europe and, as Mr. Cole said, the European Defence Agency was originally called the European Arms Agency but its name was changed to make it sound less militarised.

My final point concerns the proposal from the political establishment for another referendum on the Lisbon treaty, this time involving various declarations. Those declarations will not be legally binding and the text will not be changed one iota. The suggestion that the declarations can be lodged internationally to give them legal credibility will not alter the fact that we will still be accepting the treaty and committing to the obligations therein. Issues relating to taxation and other matters will be decided by the European Court of Justice. The same applies to public services, as happened with the Laval judgment. The Irish Government's biggest challenge is to stand up for democracy and work towards a reform of the European Union, in order that democracy can be the top priority.

Mr. Joe Higgins

I thank the Chairman for the invitation. However, I wish to protest at the fact that only when our national organiser protested to him, the day before yesterday, did the Socialist Party receive an invitation. For the benefit of the public, the Chairman might later clarify the criteria whereby the sub-committee has allocated time. Why, for example, is this morning given over to four representatives who campaigned against the treaty but have very different perspectives on many of the issues when, by contrast, half a day was allocated to the right-wing Libertas organisation? This is an important matter because prominent sections of the media are attempting to portray Libertas as the natural representative of the majority of "No" voters, thereby tarring the "No" voters as right wing and isolationist like the elements Libertas seems to be gathering around itself in Europe.

The majority who supported the campaign in opposition to the Lisbon treaty were ordinary working people in working class communities, especially women and the young. Right-wing neo-liberal policies, as represented by Libertas, do not hold an attraction for those voters and will not be supported by them. Those who say, in the context of the coming European elections, that the large number of people who opposed Lisbon are represented only by the political voice of the establishment or the even more right-wing voice of Libertas, are attempting to demoralise opposition to Lisbon and denigrate the left. There has been a conscious writing out of the fact that the ideas of the left provide an alternative to how Europe is run at present. Those ideas played a major part in the arguments leading up to the referendum and were important in the outcome. This committee should not lend itself to the cynical agenda of important sections of the media.

I wish to focus on the sub-committee's term of reference relating Ireland's future in the EU in terms of economic and financial matters, social policy, defence and foreign policy. The Socialist Party does not exaggerate its position or role in society but we played an important part in the debate on the campaign leading up to the referendum. We did not lie, mislead or distort and will stand over every argument we put forward.

We concentrated on issues that are crucial to the development of the EU and working people, particularly within that such issues as the need to protect public services from privatisation and, therefore, to resist the lessening of protection that was implicit in the Lisbon treaty, opposition to militarisation and, crucially, the protection of workers' rights against attacks by the EU and the European Court of Justice. The laissez-faire neo-liberal economic agenda that has driven the Union’s economic policy, which has involved the privatisation of public services, attacks on pension rights and attacks on workers’ rights, is discredited on an international basis by virtue of the crash that is happening in the financial institutions and the world’s economy. We see the spectacle of our own privatised national airline trying to turn its workforce into a cheap yellow pack workforce courtesy of privatisation. In Ireland, that has been added to by the orgy of speculation and profiteering encouraged by the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government.

Going into the future, a Europe that continues to be dominated by EU-based transnational corporations that wield enormous power politically within the Union, the armaments industry and other factors is a Europe that, unfortunately, will mean mass unemployment and falling living standards. A Europe that encourages, as the Lisbon treaty does, and provides structures for further militarisation and further armaments spending is not a Europe that will contribute to peace in our world. Ninety years after the end of the First World War, there is one lesson that surely we have learned, which is that powerful economic blocs arming themselves and the creation of an arms race between them is surely not a way to bring peace to our world. Surely the horror and slaughter of the First World War should have taught everybody that lesson quite clearly. A Europe in which the armaments industry has important influence, is entertained and is being pushed with a desire to have a military wing to the economic power that is the EU, for operation outside the Union, is to assist in the creation of a world that is more in conflict and more destabilised.

The Europe we want to see instead is one where economic, social and political power is transferred democratically to working people in a real sense, where the major levers of the economy are democratically controlled rather than privately manipulated by small and powerful elites, where the financial institutions, particularly in the current crisis, are nationalised and again run democratically and where, on that basis, it would be entirely possible across all EU countries to have a democratic economic and financial system that represents and advances the interests of the majority of the population, reasonable prosperity and security for people in work and in their old age rather than have their pensions riding around in the casinos that are the world's stock exchanges.

With regard to the agenda to re-run the Lisbon treaty, there is a certain view among the Establishment that because of the economic crisis that has fallen on this country and the world, people can be scared into supporting it the second time around. I caution them on that. There will be a vigorous debate and in the course of that debate some of us will bring out the fact the crisis that will create such major problems for working people is the fruit of the type of policies that are being pushed by the treaty. When people understand that, the idea that a second vote will turn up a "Yes" result will prove to be false.

Oddly enough, members did not suggest him. I was given the privilege as Chairman to determine how we would deliver the work and meetings. I made the decision, supported by colleagues, that it would be worthwhile devoting time to put the kind of questions to Libertas that members will now put to Mr. Higgins. I thank Mr. Higgins for his contribution.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank the Chairman and the four guests, who are very welcome. I will begin with questions to Mr. Coughlan. It was stated that the Lisbon treaty would create a new legal entity and this would have the effect of a move towards a super-state. We already have two legal entities, the treaty establishing the European Union and the functioning of the European Union. To establish a single legal entity was therefore hardly a cataclysmic step forward. In what way would it create a super-state? The delegation spoke about citizenship. The idea was that citizens of each member state would retain their citizenship and that any European citizenship was additional.

The committee has heard from expert witnesses who stated they did not see any sign of a super-state being created and that there was no stomach in Europe for it, even though traditionally the bigger states might have been regarded as being more inclined in that direction at some time and the case can be argued from time to time. Mr. Ganley came in here and gave us the exact opposite view. He was looking for a super-state and for a constitution of 25 pages, he was looking for a united states of Europe and he was looking for a directly elected president which was purely federalist and super-state. He said we did not have any of that. We can argue the toss on this forever but unless the delegation can show specific elements it is very hard to go forward with it.

I wish to ask the delegation about the ratification process. Surely the ratification process can continue if that is what members wish. It happened during the constitutional treaty which was rejected by some countries and approved by others and another nine or ten countries went on to ratify it, even though we did not do so.

What are the members of the delegation looking for? Mr. Cole said that he would be quite happy with renegotiation and according to Ms McKenna and Mr. Coughlan it is over and done with, full stop and should be forgotten about so long as a protocol was achieved that would eliminate military matters from the remit of the treaty. I am not sure what Mr. Higgins's position is on this matter. Is Mr. Cole saying he would be happy enough to go forward again for a further ratification if there was a renegotiation on that point? He referred to Denmark in that respect. Denmark is a member of NATO and we would not want to be a member of NATO. Denmark's opt-outs were for different reasons and now I understand Denmark is seeking to get back because it seems to believe that once it does not have a seat at the table, it is not able to engage in matters while it is quite interested in military matters, so it is not the best example.

I was very pleased that Mr. Cole specifically addressed the issue of concern to him and he made a proposal as to how to deal with it. I ask him to elaborate on that point. Is he looking for a protocol, full stop and if this is achieved, then renegotiation is on?

Many of Ms McKenna's points were similar to Mr. Coughlan's and I can understand this as their positions are similar. Her main point was that we want proper democracy in the European Union and this is not there at present. How can this be achieved by means of the institutions given how they evolved? For instance, we did not even have elected MEPs until 1979, so it is not something that happens overnight. It seems the Lisbon treaty had more elements of democracy than virtually any of the other treaties. Its democratic nature was contained in its restating of democratic values and principles, both domestically and internationally, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the social clause and the citizens' initiative. There was a reaching out in the Lisbon treaty to enhance the democratic process. There was a new initiative to enhance the role of parliamentarians in getting more directly involved in the EU institutions.

I share Mr. Higgins's concern for the protection of public services and workers' rights, which ended up as a major reason for people voting "No". Article 16 of the treaty is specific on the provision of public services. The protocol on public services and the Charter of Fundamental Rights specifically underpin the provision of, promotion of and access to public services. John Monks and the European Trade Union Confederation secured an appended protocol that would deal with any threat to the posting of workers directive and any dilution in workers' rights. This addressed the issues that arose from the Laval, Rüffert and the Viking cases. What are Mr. Higgins's views on this?

Mr. Joe Higgins

As Deputy Costello knows, there has been massive pressure from the European Union to privatise public enterprises and services. The Commission is predominantly a neoliberal organisation. The major transnational corporations and the various lobby groups such as the European Round Table of Industrialists which brings together the most powerful capitalist economic entities within the EU, are regularly entertained by the Commission. Their policies have been largely pushed by the Commission but also by EU Governments in the neoliberal drive of the past 15 years.

We saw the removal of the absolute veto, especially when health and other services were being made market commodities, as crucial, not that we had great faith in many of the EU governments with their record in protecting public services. At least while a veto was in place, an enormous campaign of opposition could be mounted to the Government in the event of a proposal coming down for the mandatory opening of health and education services to multinational corporations.

We also argued that within the Charter of Fundamental Rights was the limitation of those very rights. It stated clearly that those rights were delimited by the treaties and the fundamental economic policies on which the EEC and the EU were founded. The European Court of Justice also found this. The judgments given are unanswerable, even by the sub-committee. It was not the case that the European Court of Justice was waiting for the charter to be formally a part of the Lisbon treaty but that it was taking it into account. It still gave judgments that seriously undermined the wages and working conditions already negotiated by trade unions in several countries. We did say — and it is true — that companies coming in and trying to get established with inferior wages and conditions do have to obey the law of the land with regard to minimum wage and so on, but far more than that should be defended by elected representatives and the trade union movement. Where, in an industry, there are certain conditions and wages that have been hard won by working people they should not be given away. In the current Charter of Fundamental Rights and therefore implicit in the Lisbon treaty were provisions for them to be given away.

Ms Patricia McKenna

The issue I was talking about was proper democracy and how one goes about it. That is a question we should come back to at a later stage, as it would be impossible in the length of time we have here to talk about how we would go about it and what would be all the elements. Members mentioned that the Lisbon treaty had more elements of democracy, and Mr. Higgins just covered one there. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, as he said, limits rights as opposed to guaranteeing those already existing within international charters. In fact, it puts a question mark over those in the UN charter on human rights. With regard to the social clause, members stated that they shared the concerns of Mr. Higgins and others about issues raised during the campaign. At the time, there was a failure by people on the "Yes" side to share those concerns, yet now they are saying they share them. This is good.

A protocol on workers' rights or anything else is hypothetical at the moment because it necessitates a renegotiation of the treaty. From what we can see, the Government is refusing to allow for a renegotiation because it is encouraging the ratification process to go ahead in other countries. It has been stated that it is up to other countries to continue with the ratification process, but this clearly presupposes that Ireland is going to say "Yes". The other countries would not be going ahead with the ratification process if there was no point to it because Ireland had already given its answer. The message being sent out is that we are going to vote on it again. This is the question with regard to democracy and our rights as enshrined in our Constitution.

Someone mentioned earlier that it is quite clear that all decisions on policy derive from the people. It is the people who have a final say and they have already made their decision on this. In the interests of upholding the Constitution and protecting our rights as enshrined within that, we should seek renegotiation. I am not referring just to renegotiation of the treaty, because that means going back to all the other member states. That is what I was trying to get across — this is the opportunity to look for real democracy within the European Union. It is an opportunity to involve the citizens of Europe in something from which they have been excluded to date — the decision on how to address the democratic deficit. Every time there is a rejection of the treaty, whether it be Denmark's rejection of Maastricht or another treaty, people say we have to address the democratic deficit, but no treaty to date has addressed it in any effective or visible manner. It is quite clear how much the citizens' initiative actually means when we consider the fact that citizens throughout Europe are campaigning right, left and centre for the right to vote on this treaty and they are not being given that right. The citizens' initiative — the process being carried out by the governments themselves — flies in the face of the assertion that people have rights.

Mr. Roger Cole

As I was saying earlier, it is incumbent on those of us who campaigned for a "No" vote to advocate an alternative. Our basic minimum demand is that Ireland be excluded from the process of militarisation in Europe. States such as France, Germany, the UK, Belgium, Spain and Italy have powerful and deeply rooted imperial traditions. In fact, there is a powerful imperial tradition in this country. For example, The Irish Times recently published a book called Our War, in reference to the First World War. It did not mean the First World War was an editorial war involving The Irish Times but that it was the Irish people’s war. I belong to a political party once led by James Connolly, who was not in favour of that war. Members of Fianna Fáil, such as its founder Eamon de Valera, were not in favour of the war either. There were people in Fine Gael, though not many, who felt the same. They looked up to Michael Collins and he was not in favour of the war. It was not our war. It was Britain’s war and the war of the British union. We should not become part of a newly-emerging militarised super-state. We did that before and I cannot understand why we would want to do it again.

This situation will lead to a new treaty because once a protocol is added to a treaty it becomes a new one, perhaps the treaty of Prague or of wherever takes over after the Czechs. We have developing relations with the Swedish peace movement and its members may want a protocol to exclude Sweden from the militarisation of Europe. Ultimately it is up to the people of the other states to decide what kind of Europe they want. I would like to think that, eventually, all the states of the European Union will have a protocol to exclude themselves and that we do not go down the road of militarisation because we have been there before. Thousands and thousands of Irish people are in Afghanistan and they are all dead, having fought for the battle groups of the British union.

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Contrary to what Deputy Costello suggests I did not say the Lisbon treaty would turn the EU into a super-state. I said it established a legally new European Union with the constitutional form of a state. It would not have all the attributes of a fully developed federal state. It is not an invention of mine but it is clear from the 28th constitutional amendment that, "The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon ... and be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that treaty." That is clearly a different European Union, from a legal point of view, from what exists. The existing European Union, with its three-pillar structure, does not have legal personality and is not separate from or above its member states. The European Community has a legal personality and the European Union encompasses that entity, with its two pillars of foreign affairs and justice and home affairs.

The Lisbon treaty abolishes the existing European Community, which we joined in 1973 and have amended in subsequent treaties. That is a hugely important development. As the European Community is mentioned in our Constitution, it must be removed, leaving the atomic energy constitution behind. The pillar structure is abolished and a new European Union is established in place of the existing one, with a unified constitutional structure encompassing the areas now covered by the Community with the addition of foreign policy and justice and home affairs. All areas of public policy, actually or potentially come within the compass of the new Union, whose laws, acts and measures are then valid in the State, a fact which is evident from the second sentence. These are important constitutional facts and profound changes. However, most people are unaware of them and the Referendum Commission hardly mentioned them.

The first effect of the treaty is to give the new EU its own legal personality. The second is to give a unified constitutional structure to the new Union and the third is to abolish the existing European Community. The fourth is to make us real citizens of the new legal entity, which is separate from and above its member states, just as the United States of America are separate from and above California, Kansas and New York. One can only be a citizen of a state and all states must have citizens. Existing citizenship does not mean anything very much because the European Union is not, at present, a state and does not have legal personality. Accordingly, it cannot have individual members but that would change with the Treaty of Lisbon. The Nice treaty states that citizenship is complementary to national citizenship and effectively subordinate to it. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, European citizenship would become additional to national citizenship and the treaty was amended to make the change. The word "complementary" was replaced by "additional to", which makes it real citizenship. It is not bogus to be a citizen. We remain citizens of Ireland, just as the people of California are citizens of California or the people of Bavaria are citizens of Bavaria, but we would also become citizens of the new EU with a constitutional structure very similar to the Federal Republic of Germany and the USA.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome the witnesses and compliment them on their presentations. I thank them for their contributions, which they provide for us on an ongoing basis. While coming from different backgrounds, they largely represent the "No" side. Their contributions have validity and they have always argued their points in an open and up-front way. They have indicated to the people what they do and do not believe in and they have not hidden behind flowery language. They have been clear on all occasions and they put forward their points well. That is welcome and it is good to have them here to feed into this debate.

Deputy Costello has covered many of my questions. We hear a great deal about the notion of a democratic deficit. The witnesses have gone some way in explaining it but I need to understand a little better how they would improve democracy in a European context. My concern about a democratic deficit and the notion of a European elite is that if one takes that to its logical conclusion, as Mr. Ganley did earlier this week and Mr. Dunphy did yesterday, every European citizen would vote on various bodies and positions. Ireland's influence would be lost in that environment. The complex nature of the entire construct protects our identity to some extent and our position in terms of our capacity to influence decisions. If one does the simple maths, we are one of 27 member states and we comprise 1% or less of the overall EU population. While it has been suggested that directly elected individuals equals democracy, I do not support that in the European context. If we want to protect our identity as an individual State in the complex structure that is the Union, the Lisbon treaty and other treaties afford us a position on which strictly on population terms we should lose out.

Mr. Coughlan and Ms McKenna said that we should not have indicated or suggested that ratification by other countries was a matter for themselves. The Government said at the time that we were not involving ourselves in anybody else's ratification process, and we should not do so. Perhaps the witnesses will explain why they think we should do so. It would have been wrong for a member state to influence Ireland in its capacity to make a decision and it would not have gone down well if we suggested, as Mr. Coughlan said, we should wait until after the British election, which he believes will bring forward a different view there because of promises made by the Tories. Our independence from Britain came about when we joined the EU and I do not know that the people generally want to be intertwined with the decision or outcome of the next British general election in that regard.

UN missions are more increasingly devolved to regional entities and, particularly, the EU. If we are to maintain our presence in peacekeeping missions, is it not important we remain part of the EU peacekeeping process through CFSP? Perhaps Mr. Cole will comment on that.

Ms Patricia McKenna

On the democracy issue, there are several issues we could examine to begin with. There is clearly disengagement between people and the European institutions. That is because as the number of treaties we have ratified over the years has given more and more power and people are on the outskirts, it has become an issue to address where the EU is going, what decisions should be taken at the European level and what decisions could be given back to national parliaments. I have always been of the view that issues such as environmental protection must be decided at the international or global level. There are no borders on these issues. Other issues with an international perspective are best decided at European level.

Someone must be accountable for all decisions. As it stands, there is not much accountability for decisions taken at EU level. To whom does one go to complain? Where does one go if one is not happy with the way the EU is being run? In the Irish system, and in national systems, one can choose to vote for someone else at the next election. If one does not like how the economy is being run, one can vote for Fine Gael and boot out Fianna Fáil. One does not have that choice within the EU to have some control over those who make decisions on our behalf.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

On that point——

Chairman

I would like to allow Ms McKenna to finish her point.

Ms Patricia McKenna

The Commission is appointed. There is no control by the electorate over the Commission, not even how it is selected. Some years ago, I suggested that the committee here in the Dáil could form the interview process and that suggestions could be made on who should be the Commissioner. There is also the idea that citizens could elect a Commissioner within individual member states. The process of assessing who Commissioners should be is political payback time in Ireland and other countries. We could have a process whereby all national parties could make suggestions on who should be the Commissioner. The candidates could be interviewed by the committee and a decision could be based on that. It is the very minimum that there is some sort of democratic accountability because the Commission proposes legislation. One could continue into other areas of democracy and where one would go in the EU but the greatest problem in respect of democracy ties into the reference made to ratification.

Long before the campaign started, we were inundated by the European Referendum Campaign. This group had people in all member states seeking the right to a referendum. It is not good enough to say that it is not up to us to interfere in other countries. We should be a voice for people. Ireland has always had the idea of being a voice for the disenfranchised and those who are oppressed. To an extent, it is no exaggeration to say that many citizens of Europe feel they were oppressed because they did not have a vote. We could have been a voice for those people and could have pointed out that Irish people were having a referendum and that it would be good practice to allow other countries to have it. The fact that the ratification process is continuing is a signal that our vote seems not to have counted.

Mr. Roger Cole

Regarding the comments of Deputy Dooley, I am an Irish republican. My objective, as a citizen, is to establish a united, independent, democratic, Irish republic with an independent foreign policy pursued primarily through the UN. The UN has reformed and is more reflective of the 21st century than the 20th century. This is where I am coming from and why I helped to establish PANA in the first place.

If Mr. Ganley said there should be a directly-elected president of the EU, I do not agree. I agree that the Irish, the French and the Germans are people who are either Irish, French or German. There is no such thing as the European people. What we need and advocate is a partnership of independent democratic states and, in our case, without a military dimension. We think that is what the people of Europe want also.

I was invited to take part in meetings in Holland during its debate on the European constitution and it was clear from talking to people from Holland that one of the main reasons the Dutch people had voted "No" was that they had also wanted to have more power transferred back to them. There was a sense of alienation on their part, with power being transferred to institutions in Brussels with which they did not identify. As I was not in France, there could be other reasons they voted "Yes" or "No" but they voted "No" also. If one is trying to create a state that is increasingly alienated from the people, it will bust up and eventually crack apart. I am not in favour of the European Union cracking apart. The idea of co-operating nation states seems to be a perfectly good one. I have no problem with concentration on issues of mutual concern such as a proper health system or a proper system of generating electricity.

On the question of EU missions, my core problem is with the imperial traditions of many other member states. For example, in Chad the current leader is in power because the French military keep him there. Irish troops are in Chad to help prevent people from being attacked or starved and so far, so good, but if it starts to go haywire and they start taking sides with Déby, the current gangster, the people on the other side who are against him will not be able to distinguish between the French soldiers supporting him and the Irish soldiers. That is the core problem.

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

The Lisbon treaty would give the European Union the constitutional form of a state. I did not say a super-state but rather a state. It would give us dual citizenship. It seems rather awesome that de Valera's Fianna Fáil Party, the party founded by him, should look with such equanimity at turning us into real citizens of this European entity, the laws of which would be superior to our own. I will give one illustration of this change. Under the existing treaties, Mr. De Rossa and Ms McDonald as MEPs are representatives of the peoples of the member states brought together in the Community. This is what the existing treaties state. If the Treaty of Lisbon goes through, they will become representatives of the citizens of the European Union. That encapsulates the constitutional change. MEPs would become representatives of the citizens of the European Union, which is different from representatives of the peoples of the member states of the Community.

If there is to be a European federation of the member states of the European Community, there is strictly no such thing as EU law; there is EC law, as it is the Community which makes the laws, not the Union. This would change under the Lisbon treaty. Two thirds of the legal Acts of the State come from Brussels and they are looked at for a couple of minutes apiece by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. If the Lisbon treaty goes through, far more will come from Brussels. If a federation comes into being — the Lisbon treaty would substantially bring this about by giving the new Union a constitutional reform — it is better to have democratic processes, whereby the laws are made by people elected to make them, either the Members of the European Parliament or the national parliaments. That is Mr. Ganley's position as I understand it and it would also be mine. I would prefer a European federation run on democratic lines where the laws would be made by people elected to make them rather than an undemocratic federation which is what is proposed. It would be very desirable to have European Commissioners elected by national parliaments, perhaps, if not by the citizens. A slimmed down treaty along these lines is highly desirable. Instead of the existing Union making two thirds of our laws, and more if the Lisbon treaty is passed, many powers should be repatriated in national parliaments. It can either be called a treaty or a constitution. The EU already has some features of a constitution as the European Court of Justice has indicated. This is what Mr. Ganley proposes and I support the alternative treaty written by Jens-Peter Bonde, MEP, circulated to every Oireachtas Member, as better than the Lisbon treaty.

Mr. Joe Higgins

The European Union is now a superstate but it should not be. It is primarily an economic bloc, made up of smaller economic blocs based on nation-states. Their economic leaders, the capitalist class and their political representatives, see an advantage in creating an economic unit which is now 450 million people strong and quite powerful. The Lisbon treaty is about giving this bloc more neoliberal economic policies for greater profits and exploitation. It will give it a military wing so that it can go on the world stage and vie with the United States and other large powers for markets, raw materials and political influence.

I disagree that we should have a superstate, or any of its trappings. The tendency in the next serval years, against the background of the most serious economic world crisis since 1929, will see tensions not just between the major powers on economic and other issues but growing tensions within the European Union itself as the economic blocs — the nation-states and their capitalist classes — vie with each other for a share of a dwindling cake. We may even see the euro coming under severe threat in the next few years, depending on the depth of the current economic crisis. In signing up to the euro, these nation-states gave away one of their traditional weapons that gave them an edge in competition over their rivals, which is devaluation. A democratic socialist Europe, in which we plan our economy on a rational basis and in the interest of the majority, is a far superior way to go.

Chairman

Mr. Coughlan approves of the scenario of Ireland and a Tory-led United Kingdom Government not ratifying the Lisbon treaty. If this were to happen, our fate as a sovereign country would be completely intertwined with the UK which is where we were in 1916. I would rather Deputy Enda Kenny determining our fate as a country as opposed to David Cameron. I would even take the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, determining our fate. In Mr. Coughlan's scenario, the sovereignty we fought so hard to establish would be ceded to a Conservative Party-led UK Government. I am no Tory. If there is any party in the UK which is less likely to represent the interests of the Irish people, it is the Conservative Party. We should assess what could happen in other countries and what our best reaction could be, as opposed to ending up having our interests determined by a party that has a track record of being unfriendly to our interests and those of other small countries.

Mr. Cole has described very well many of the complexities of the operation of European defence and security policy. Surely when one cuts through the complexity — to quote another of our guests — there is one reality — veto, veto, veto. The Government has the ability to say no to any military operation under the European heading in which we are being asked to participate. Mr. Cole made reference to our participation in Chad and Sudan and said, with regard to the saving of the lives of thousands of people, "so far so good." It is not so far so good. If our forces have played a role in saving the life of one person in these countries, let alone 1,000 or tens of thousands, as I hope is the case, that is surely a great use of our armed forces. They are operating under the mandate of the people, which the Government can withdraw if we so decide at any point. I ask Mr. Coughlan and then Mr. Cole to respond to my point.

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

As I indicated, it is our judgment and was the judgment of the electorate last June that the proposed Lisbon treaty is not in the interests of Ireland or the people of the European Union. The Prime Ministers, Presidents and Heads of Government who are pushing it are divorced from their own peoples to a significant degree, as shown by opinion polls all over the place which state people wanted to have a referendum on the treaty. The citizens of the various European countries do not want the European Union to be given the constitutional form of a federation and do not want to be made citizens of the new European Union which would be supreme over the national constitutions in all relevant areas. That is why the citizens were denied a referendum. The Prime Ministers and Presidents agree that on no account should it be put to a referendum. It could not be avoided in Ireland because of the judgment in the Crotty case.

That is why it is very progressive and positive that the citizens of the United Kingdom who are profoundly against this project should have a referendum. The Labour Party promised one — it was a commitment in the last Labour Party manifesto which Tony Blair agreed to implement but on which his successor, Gordon Brown, has reneged, precisely because he has committed himself to the other Prime Ministers and Presidents that on no account will there be a referendum in the United Kingdom. It is a progressive democratic position that the citizens of the United Kingdom, including our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland, should be given an opportunity to vote on the treaty. As Mr. Hague said in his article in The Irish Times last July, Ireland is not alone. Citizens all over Europe do not want the treaty. The only other country in which the government — or potential government — has committed itself to allowing a referendum, as far as I am aware, is the United Kingdom. That is why the prudent and positive course, not only for the Taoiseach but also for the other EU member states, without trying to pre-empt the outcome of a referendum in the United Kingdom, is to wait until the citizens of the United Kingdom, a very important element, have a say in the matter. Likewise, other citizens should be given a say.

We have given our result and the Government has shown total disrespect to it. If it had respected it, it would have said to other EU countries that we were not going to ratify the treaty. In this case, as members know, it would have been pointless for those other member states to continue with ratification to any significant extent. That is why David Miliband said last June that the future of the Lisbon treaty was in the Taoiseach's hands. However, he did not stand over the people's rejection of the treaty. There is a race on to get the treaty through at all costs before the people of the United Kingdom can have a say in it, while refusing a say to people in other countries. That is a good democratic reason the prudent course — not only for the Taoiseach and his colleagues in the Government but for all other EU member states also — is not to foist this constitution for a federation on 500 million people, reducing national democracy, without giving them a say in the matter. They should stand over the decision made by the Irish people when they voted "No" on 12 June.

Chairman

Does Mr. Coughlan really want the party of Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Hague to play a role in determining the future of this country?

I will try to resist the temptation to fight the referendum campaign again. I seek a few clarifications. The last time I debated with Mr. Coughlan on two occasions within an hour he accused me of being a traitor and I asked him to withdraw that and he did not. Perhaps he might take the opportunity today to withdraw it.

He said all states must have citizens but that is not true. Some states have subjects. The UK, for instance, does not constitutionally have the notion of a citizen. All people in the UK are considered to be subjects. Throwing out these catchphrases and so on is not a real debate and it does not get to the crux of the issue.

Mr. Coughlan said the Lisbon treaty will create a new Union but it proposes to create a single structure fully accountable to member state Governments, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. The reality currently is the third pillar, the retention of which he has argued for, ensures only member state Governments have a role in decisions made at European level. The European Parliament and the European Court of Justice are excluded from having a say as to whether the decision is in accordance with the treaties. Abolishing the third pillar is an improvement in the democratic accountability of the Union to the elected members of the Union and MEPs, and the court established by the Union and the member states to ensure the treaties are complied with would also be brought in on virtually 99.9% of all decisions. That, therefore, is a key democratic advance for the Union.

Mr. Coughlan has created confusion in my mind about his precise attitude to the Union. In his opening remarks, he was highly critical of the notion of federalism. He implied at least the notion of a federal state was an anti-democratic structure and he included the Federal Republic of Germany in that definition, which is surprising. Later, in reply to a question, he said he favoured federalism and he agreed with Mr. Ganley on that matter. He clearly does not want the Union as it exists to continue but he said, on the one hand, he is opposed to a federal Europe but, on the other, he is in favour it. Will he clarify his position for the sub-committee?

Mr. Cole constantly includes the war in Iraq in his perorations against the Lisbon treaty and the Union. Does he accept the Union is not in Iraq, the Union did not make a decision to support the war in Iraq and when Italy and Spain joined the war under right wing Governments, they withdrew when left wing Governments took over and it is improper to imply the Union is any way involved in the war in Iraq or in Afghanistan?

Mr. Higgins has completely misunderstood the judgment in the Laval case. The judgment refers to the application of the posting of workers directive. This regulates the manner in which a worker comes from one member state of the EU to another and is supposed to ensure that the conditions applying to the seconded worker are the same conditions that apply in the member state to which the worker has been seconded. In other words, there cannot be discrimination against a worker in respect of pay or conditions. The Laval, and related, judgments found that the posting of workers directive was defective in respect of protecting those workers. In the specific circumstances of Sweden, labour law does not exist and all labour criteria are agreed by the social partners and approved by the state. They do not have a legal minimum wage. Mr. Higgins misunderstands the reference to minimum pay and assumes that it means minimum wage as we have it when it does not. I suggest Mr. Higgins revisits that judgment and other judgments.

Specifically, I advise him that the Laval judgment does not refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The decision in the Laval judgment was not based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In no way does the Charter of Fundamental Rights say that these rights are subject to economic law or economic conditions.

Ms McKenna implied the Charter of Fundamental Rights undermines the European Convention on Human Rights or the UN convention. In the Charter of Fundamental Rights it says that where there is a dispute concerning the interpretation of rights in the charter, and rights in the European Convention on Human Rights, the charter states specifically that the convention is superior.

Regarding privatisation and mandatory privatisation, I ask Mr. Higgins to consult not only the Lisbon treaty but also the existing treaties where he will find an explicit statement that the EU is neutral with regard to public versus private ownership. This has been there since the foundation of the Common Market. The EU has no view on whether a state should own a company or whether it should privatise a company.

It has been said that the EU insisted upon the privatisation of Aer Lingus. That is factually incorrect.

Mr. Joe Higgins

I did not say that.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I said that it had been said. I have a letter from the EU denying any responsibility in that matter, stating that this was purely an Irish Government decision.

The word "privatisation" does not appear anywhere in existing treaties or in the Lisbon treaty. In so far as I agree with Mr. Higgins at all in these matters, it is true that the EU has been pursuing neo-liberal policies. That is because we have a preponderance of neo-liberal Governments in power, elected by the people of Europe. Some 20 or 21 of the Governments in power in member states are centre-right Governments. Inevitably, the policies they pursue will be centre-right but I, and others, in the EU and the Convention on the Future of Europe, and in discussions in the European Parliament, insisted that equality would be a fundamental value and principle of the Lisbon treaty, that a social market economy be established as an objective of the EU. Full employment would be established as an objective of the European Union, as would the ending of poverty, while the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be incorporated as legally binding in the European Union, none of which any neoliberal worth his or her salt would claim as his or her policy. When there is a majority for a centre right approach to the economy, that is what one will get. I remind Mr. Higgins that when we succeed in ensuring a centre left majority, we will see implementation of the objectives of the Lisbon treaty which I hope we will succeed in having ratified and established eventually.

Mr. Roger Cole

I do not think I said the European Union was involved in Iraq; if I did, I apologise. What I meant to say was that the majority of the states that make up the European Union, including Ireland, supported the war. The former Taoiseach described President Bush as a great American President. It did not amount to EU involvement, per se. My point is that there are deep and very powerful imperial traditions in many European states and this is one of the reasons. I am well aware that my group does not reflect the political establishment in this country. We do not support imperial wars we do not get support from the corporate media or lots of people. However, we have no regrets and do not apologise for being against imperialism and imperial wars. In fact, we are proud of our views. For example, by a vote of 414 to 117, in November 2006 the European Parliament approved a report highlighting the links with NATO and stated, “The EU is on the way to developing into a security and defence Union”. If people want to support the Lisbon treaty and have been beaten, that is the kind of European Union Irish people do not want because we have been there before. We were part of a militarised union, a neo-liberal, centralised military union and I do not understand why we would want to do it again.

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

The last time I had the pleasure of debating with Mr. De Rossa I reminded those present that we knew one another very well 40 years' ago when he was a member of the republican movement and I said he had betrayed the republican and democratic values for which he had stood then. He obviously may have a different opinion but in that context, I may have used the word, "betrayal". There is no doubt that he has profoundly changed his views on republicanism and democracy. He made the point that our group was not happy with the European Union. I prefer it as it is under the Treaty of Nice than it would be under the Treaty of Lisbon, manifold as its drawbacks and defects are. He also made the point that the British people were subjects, not citizens, but that is not correct. They are subjects of the Crown but also citizens of the United Kingdom, just as citizens of Sweden are subjects of the Swedish Crown and citizens of Denmark are subjects of the Danish Crown and so on. They are all citizens and should be consulted before the profoundly constitutionally important change is made, a constitutional revolution to make them all citizens of the new European Union which would have the power to make laws in all areas of public policy. That is what is proposed in the new European Union that would be established by the Lisbon treaty, as is clear from the constitutional amendment put before the people but which was not adequately explained to them. The Referendum Commission failed to explain it because if it had been explained — or is explained in the future if people are so rash as to put it to a vote again — it would have led to a much bigger "No" vote.

Mr. De Rossa asked me questions about federalism. I am not a European federalist; I am very sceptical of the federalist project because it would generate huge nationalist and democratic reactions, especially if the Treaty of Lisbon were to be ratified. If we are to have a federation, I would prefer one in which the laws are made by people directly elected to make them, either in the European Parliament or national parliaments. This is much better than 27 non-elected gentlemen in the European Commission having the monopoly of proposing all laws, which are made by the 27 members of the Council of Ministers, on which we have seven votes out of 345, while the European Parliament cannot initiate any law. That is a profoundly undemocratic set-up. Mr. Ganley is progressive in saying that it is better to have a democratic federation than an undemocratic one. I am convinced this is politically unrealistic in that the prime shakers in the European Union, the German and French Governments and the Commission, have no intention of allowing democratisation of the European Union in that form.

Mr. Joe Higgins

No, I did not misunderstand the meaning of the Laval or the Rüffert judgment. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, should know better than I that the European Court of Justice has ruled time and again that workers' rights are subject to the organisation of the market. In one judgment, the court stated, "it is well-established in the case-law of the court that restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of those rights, in particular in the context of a common organisation of a market". That is as clear as daylight. That is what happened in the Laval and the Rüffert cases.

I draw Mr. De Rossa's attention to the European Trade Union Confederation's statement on the Rüffert case when the European Court of Justice ruled that a Polish sub-contractor who had been operating in Lower Saxony, Germany, could pay workers less than half the agreed construction rate of pay in that state. It stated:

The European Court of Justice judgment in effect is an open invitation for social dumping, which will not only threaten workers' rights and working conditions, but also the capacity of local, small and medium enterprises to compete on a level playing field with foreign sub-contractors. ...

Nor does it recognise the rights of trade unions to demand equal wages and working conditions and the observance of collective agreed standards applying to the place of work for migrant workers.

Mr. De Rossa is much closer to the European Trade Union Confederation than I am but that is its take on these cases.

All the Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees is the basic rights accorded by the law of the member state concerned. It is a complete cop-out by Lisbon treaty proponents to argue it is the fault of the government in a particular member state. What is the point of the Charter of Fundamental Rights if it is depends on being enshrined in member state law? It is meaningless.

The Lisbon treaty does not say it stands for privatisation. Language, like in war, is a casualty of these treaties. One does not hear the Americans say "We slaughtered 50 civilians in Iraq". Instead they say "There was some collateral damage". It is clear, as Mr. De Rossa said, the Commission has been pursuing neoliberal policies, pushing privatisation through Article 188c of the treaty and international agreements on trade. Article 188c states it will achieve "uniformity in measures of liberalisation". It also states that in the matter of "trade agreements relating to trade in goods and services", including health and education, "the Commission shall make recommendations to the Council, which shall authorise it to open the necessary negotiations." In concluding an agreement, the Council shall act by a qualified majority. Why did the Lisbon treaty make the change from unanimity on trade of services such as health and education to a qualified majority, if it does not have a purpose? The purpose is to lessen protection for public services.

It is true that Governments throughout Europe are pushing neoliberalism. Unfortunately, the international organisation of political parties to which Mr. De Rossa is affiliated is one of the biggest culprits. The term social democracy, or socialist, in their mouths, no longer means anything. The Chairman's colleagues in the UK who are part of the same organisation, so-called New Labour, are the leading neoliberals in the whole of Europe, and also the leading militarists. Terms do not really mean what they meant in previous times. We have to analyse the reality.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

I am happy to put Mr. Higgins right on these things, first with regard to the Rüffert case. Mr. Higgins should read these judgments more carefully rather than depending on staff to extract bits for him.

Mr. Joe Higgins

Hold on a second. I am not relying on staff.

The European Court of Justice has stood again and again on this. It is quite clear that what it calls the organisation of the market takes precedence, fundamentally, over workers' rights. It has been stated in judgment after judgment. I already mentioned what the European Trade Union Confederation said about it. The impression was that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would automatically guarantee workers the same rights and conditions as negotiated in a particular industry, for example, for migrant workers coming into that industry. However, it does not. It is dependent on national governments introducing legislation but that undermines the argument that the charter is the answer. The answer will be to force them to enact legislation. The claims made for what the charter would mean in the context of the Lisbon treaty were overweening.

The change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in respect of trade in public services in health and education was seen as a weakening of protections and giving rise to an increasing likelihood that these services would be opened up to the market in the neoliberal way.

Ms Patricia McKenna

I congratulate the sub-committee. Until Mr. De Rossa'a intervention, respect was shown to both sides. I have been impressed by the Chairman and members of the sub-committee in that regard but, unfortunately, Mr. De Rossa broke that respect by making the comment to the effect that this was not a real debate and that Mr. Higgins's quotes were selective. The European Court of Justice judgments are the basis for EU laws and the court will make those decisions. I did not think we would debate the content of the treaty today, as I thought we had moved on to the question of where Ireland should go from here in the light of the referendum result. There is a clause in the section of the treaty dealing with the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights which states the Union's interests will not be affected. It thus imposes a precondition.

On the question of where Ireland goes from here, I want respect for the decision of the people. I am not too surprised by the intervention of Mr. De Rossa because he was the only one of the 13 Irish MEPs to vote to reject the motion that the result be respected. He nailed his colours to the mast in that regard a long time ago.

Deputy Noel Treacy

Like the Chairman, I also welcome our four visitors and thank them for coming. I fully respect their points of view and their right to express them. A summation of what they said would be that the European Union is anti-democratic, pro-militarisation and has an imperial tradition that cannot be trusted. I was not born when the Monnet Declaration was made in 1951. As an enthusiastic student in 1972, when we held a referendum on entry into the European Community, Mr. Coughlan was a major opponent. The people overwhelmingly voted in favour to join the European Community. If Mr. Coughlan's version of democracy is so strong, he should not have opposed Ireland's positive progress within the European Union during the years. He has at every opportunity led a campaign against Ireland's position within it. That is democracy which is a two-way street. It involves rights and responsibilities. There are rights to make decisions and one must discharge one's responsibilities in respect of the decisions taken.

Mr. Coughlan and Mr. Cole have talked about the imperial tradition. For 800 years this nation tried to unburden itself of the yoke of imperial tradition, eventually succeeding. Mr. Coughlan and Mr. Cole are saying we should subordinate the wisdom of the Government and the Parliament, as well as the rights of the people, to an imperially controlled Tory party in the United Kingdom, that we should stand back, become second class citizens and agree to what that organisation decides. That is neither sovereignty nor democracy and it has no sustainability in any democracy.

The Union was established in 1957 as a result of two world wars and, particularly, as a result of the ravages of the Second World War to bring together an economic community that would eliminate the conflict of the past and to create the rights of people to develop an economic entity through their mobility and the mobility of goods and services. The structures were created and it has succeeded.

All the witnesses have referred to this terrible anti-democratic operation and militarisation. When since 1957 has the EU invaded a country, assisted in war or added to a conflict? The Union has been a force for good in the world and it has assisted in every way possible to eliminate conflict where there has been conflict and militarisation. I presume all the witnesses are pacifists. If they served as president of the Union or the Commission what would they have done in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Srebrenica when Europe and the world stood idly by? I am a democrat and I have the utmost regard for the UN, to which Mr. Cole referred, but it is run by the Security Council. A small number of powerful countries make decisions and the rest must accept them. Within the EU, every member state has its rights and every citizen has his or her rights.

Ms McKenna is a woman and a mother. She has rights equal to every male in this room and on the island and they have been enhanced, strengthened and delivered on as a result of decisions taken by the Union.

Mr. Coughlan is hair splitting on citizenship. We are proud Irish people and citizens and we are also proud to be European citizens. I refer to Mr. De Rossa's contribution. I have been elected for almost 27 years by the constituents of Galway East. My primary responsibility is to represent them and their problems in Parliament but my overriding responsibility under the Constitution is to ensure that, as a legislator, I legislate for the common good of the nation. Once I am elected, I enter the Parliament to represent the common good similar to Mr. De Rossa and his colleagues in the European Parliament. We cannot separate the requirements, responsibilities and rights in this democratic situation. If democracy is as Mr. Coughlan perceives it, then once a decision was taken by the sovereign Irish people in 1972, that should have been the end of it. We must, as elected politicians and as an elected Government, in consultation with our people, discharge our responsibilities and what we believe is in the interest of the common good today, tomorrow and thereafter. Nobody has a right to put any inhibition on the march of a nation and that has been clear.

Mr. Higgins referred to democracy. He has served in Parliament, as has Ms McKenna. He has the right to offer himself again. That is democracy. We must revisit situations if situations require a responsibility that these situations have to be revisited. We must accept that situation. He referred to workers' rights. The changes in the Union's structure in 2004 conferred additional rights and benefits on European citizens, which allowed them to work in any member state, as many citizens of the new accession states did that year. They are still working in Ireland. That right and responsibility has been conferred on the Union for the benefit of the individual worker. These are positive impacts of a Union that has made a massive contribution.

Rinne sé óráid freisin mar gheall ar an Ghaeilge agus ár gcultúr. Dúirt sé go mb'fhearr leis muna mbeadh aon seans ag na daoine an cheist seo a athbhreithniú. Nuair a bhí an reafrainn againn i 1972, dúirt a lán daoine go marófar an cultúr agus an teanga. Tugadh stádas oifigiúil oibre don Ghaeilge — an seod is luachmhara atá againn sa tír seo — 35 bliain ina dhiadh sin. Is sampla é sin do maitheas na hEorpa. Tá dualgas orainn uilig cuidiú le chéile chun maitheas na daoine a leathnú agus a láidriú sna blianta atá os ár gcomhair amach. Is é sin an aidhm atá ag na polaiteoirí atá anseo agus san Eoraip, agus muintir na tíre atá ag obair le chéile.

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

As I said, I opposed the various European treaties during the years——

Deputy Noel Treacy

All of them.

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

As I said, I opposed the European treaties during the years because I read the memoirs of Monnet 30 years ago. It was evident from the beginning that this was a political project to turn the European Union into a quasi-state. The original Schuman declaration indicated that it was the first step in the creation of a federation of European states. The Lisbon treaty is the constitution of a federation, about which there is no doubt.

Deputy Treacy referred to citizenship. We would still be Irish citizens but we would also be citizens for the first time of the European Union. We are not citizens in any meaningful sense because the Union is not a legal entity with its own personality. Citizenship is meaningless; it is complementary to national citizenship but would be additional under the new treaty. We would be citizens, just as citizens of Bavaria and California are citizens of their respective federations. That is undeniable.

Do sub-committee members think it is of no importance that MEPs would move from being representatives of the peoples of the member states of the European Union to being representatives of its citizens? That encapsulates the change. This is profoundly important. It is a constitutional abomination that politicians are trying to gull the Irish people, and other peoples in Europe, into without them being aware of it. If the people of Ireland want to vote to join such a federation, let them do so but the people are being denied the opportunity to vote in a referendum in every other country.

Our citizens were not told what was at the heart of the project on which they voted in the referendum last June. The Referendum Commission completely failed in its duty. If Deputy Treacy is rash enough to betray the best traditions of the Fianna Fáil Party, de Valera and the Constitution by trying to undo the perfectly democratic result of the referendum and the people find out that it is proposed to make them citizens of a federation, separate from its member states and empowered to make law in all areas of public policy, he will rue the day. The Opposition, to which the Chairman belongs, will be delighted if the Government is defeated in that project. I recommend caution and respect for the people's decision. The people have decided——

Chairman

Mr. Coughlan, I have to allow Mr. Higgins to contribute.

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

It would be unconstitutional to re-run the referendum campaign. I would be surprised if the issue was not put before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Joe Higgins

I make no apology whatsoever for opposing the treaties. I have a completely different view of and vision for the European Union from Deputy Treacy. I want a socialist, democratic, workers' Union.

Deputy Noel Treacy

That has failed.

Mr. Joe Higgins

The Deputy is championing a European Union dominated by big business. These are two different views. While the Deputy continues to place his view in front of us, I have to react and respond. We will fight against it. The Deputy challenged us in respect of the peacekeeping record of the European Union to point to where it had intervened negatively. Even though he was a child at the time, I bring him back to the record of three of the most important of the original six member states of the EEC. For several years after it had been set up, they had the most dreadful human rights record. The brutality visited by Belgium in the Congo is an example, as is the record of France in Algeria in the 1960s. The most monstrous brutality was visited on the Algerian people and the resistance movement. Britain and many other places are very important cornerstones of the European Union and represented their economic interests in these interventions. That the European Union somehow has an unblemished record in bringing peace and love around the world is, unfortunately, not the reality. It is quite different.

Deputy Treacy undermines the record of the Government and is correct. It happened during the course of the referendum debate when he said, "We would not have women's rights and other rights without the European Union." That does not say much for the Fianna Fáil Governments that have dominated the State since its foundation. Why did Fianna Fáil not give these rights rather than saying they had to be given by the European Union? This is a condemnation of the political history of the Deputy's party and others parties such as——

Chairman

Fine Gael.

Mr. Joe Higgins

With the Labour Party as their acolytes at various times in just about every decade. Deputy Treacy finished up by saying that if it proved necessary to revisit an issue, it was the people's right to revisit it, by which he means——

Deputy Noel Treacy

Responsibility.

Mr. Joe Higgins

He means the outcome as regards the decision of the people in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty was not satisfactory; therefore, it must be revisited and another referendum held. If that is true, the outcome of the last general election was highly unsatisfactory, particularly for me, but apart from this, all the facts and figures and prognosis about the economy which Deputy Treacy's party, Fine Gael and the Labour Party put before the people have been absolutely and totally undermined by the reality. I, therefore, ask for a re-running of the general election on the same principle.

Deputy Noel Treacy

Next time.

Ms Patricia McKenna

Because Mr. Coughlan opposed our membership originally it seems it is being argued that he should have accepted that result and not challenged any future treaties. It was said he had opposed all of them. The same question was put to Mr. Joe Noonan at the National Forum on Europe. I ask the question as to when does a treaty go too far or when one will ever be willing to say, "enough is enough." This could be linked with the question on women's rights, that we will have to wait for the European Union to stand up for our rights. I do not mean disrespect to the male population but I am always a little wary when men start talking to me about women's rights. In Scandinavian countries such as Denmark women voters have always been the biggest opponents. The largest "No" vote has always been among women, this in a country where the social rights of women are much more advanced than here. During the recent referendum campaign we discovered that women were very critical. They are very aware of what is going on.

Mr. Higgins dealt with the military aspects of the Lisbon treaty. Ireland is participating in the European Defence Agency. How many times has this agency been discussed in the Dáil? Our participation in it was never discussed, as we agreed to sign up to it in Thessaloníki without any public debate or discussion on how much it would cost and what our involvement would be. It is under way. Officials from Enterprise Ireland attended some of the meetings on our behalf but nobody knows what goes on at them. When will there be a debate in the Dáil on our participation in the agency? I cannot understand why, since this is supposed to be a neutral country, that we are participating in it. It was initially called the European Arms Agency——

Chairman

I must hand over to Mr. Cole.

Ms Patricia McKenna

Deputy Noel Treacy

That is okay.

Mr. Roger Cole

As it happens, I am not one. I make no apology for identifying with our struggle for national independence against the British Union from 1790 onwards and neither should any Irish republican.

A decisive majority voted in favour of Ireland joining the EEC in 1972. I was a member of the Labour Party at the time. Mr. De Rossa was a member of Sinn Féin, The Workers' Party which also campaigned against entry. After the result neither party demanded another vote. They respected the decision of the people. The Constitution states power resides with the people. To have a re-run of the same treaty would be pointless. People have made up their minds.

For most of its history, the European Union did not have a military dimension. Up to ten years ago there was never talk about battle groups, rapid reaction forces or militarising space. This lack of a military dimension may be the reason people approved of the European Union. While the media gave much coverage to Mr. Ganley and all that jazz, the main reason the people do not support the Lisbon treaty is that they do not agree with the current direction of the Union. It is not that they are anti-European Union. My mother is Portuguese and I do not have an anti-European Union bone in my body. However, I do have a powerful anti-imperialist tradition and do not support empires. Why should Irish people not be suspicious of and concerned about the direction of the Union in the past ten years? Why can we not have a new treaty with a protocol that would exempt Ireland from the military dimension?

Deputy Noel Treacy

I fully respect the views of our guests. Lest there be any misinterpretation, I was saying democracy was a two-way street and we all had rights. With these rights, there are responsibilities. I used the word "pacifist" in a respectful way as a tribute to all our guests and members. We all believe in peace, prosperity and progress for the people, which symbolises what the European Union stands for. Power is vested in each individual citizen of Ireland and the European Union and they make their own decisions. Together we have responsibilities to discharge within a democratic operation that ensures there is a global balance to ensure we can play our part as a small nation in the European Union which is committed to positive progress in a developed, balanced, peaceful world, to which it has made a huge contribution in the past 50 years and will continue to make an even greater one in the centuries ahead.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I extend my thanks to the people who have come before us today with well thought out ideas. They obviously differ greatly from my point of view, but I respect and recognise them. There was a suggestion by Mr. Higgins that there were some member states that did not have the proudest tradition in foreign policy in a European context in recent years. Everybody accepts this, but the benefit of member states working together has been that the influence of Ireland's approach to foreign policy has had a measure of success, to the point that the concepts mentioned would no longer be seen as acceptable in Europe. As part of this collective, a small country such as Ireland has been able to bring its values to the table and helped to create a more shared approach to how the European Union should move forward. That has been to the benefit not just of the citizens of Ireland but also the citizens of Europe.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank our guests for this very interesting and valuable discussion. I have three brief questions. Mr. Cole has rightly highlighted the fact that there is an imperialist tradition and that the vast majority of countries in the European Union are members of NATO. Does he not think the position Ireland should adopt is to ensure it is around the table, making sure these countries do not continue in that tradition within the European Union but that the Union deals with conflict resolution and others in accordance with our perception as a neutral country and within the mandate of the United Nations? We should be at the table rather than sitting outside the tent insisting on this.

Mr. Coughlan has stated two thirds of our legislation is coming from the European Union, although that is disputed. That is the position, irrespective of the Lisbon treaty. What views does he have as to how we might best ensure legislation is in accordance with the wishes of a country such as ours and that there is full involvement by the Oireachtas?

Mr. Coughlan spoke in pejorative terms about the work of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, stating legislation received two minutes. As a member of that committee, I can assure him we do not work like that. We have an accountability, a scrutiny and a transposition role in the House. All the institutions are involved, in one way or another, in all EU legislation that comes through. How does he think this can be improved, irrespective of the Lisbon treaty?

Mr. Higgins has asserted that the organisation of the market takes precedence over workers' rights. Before the Lisbon treaty, it would have been a question of obtaining the rulings of the European Court of Justice. Would the Lisbon treaty do anything to worsen this? Surely the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the rejigging of the principles and values of the European Union are very strong on workers' rights? Surely the social progresss clause which states categorically that all law must be made taking account of the impact on employment and so on is an improvement?

To return to the question I asked first which he did not answer, what is Mr. Higgins's view of the proposal made by John Monks of the ETUC — to deal with the Laval case, the posting of workers directive and the perceived neoliberalism of the institutions, particularly the Commission — of a social progress clause that would be appended to any future treaty of the European Union? He proposed that we vote for the Lisbon treaty but that a social progress clause would be the way forward.

What are Mr. De Rossa's proposals in the context of the challenges facing the European Union?

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

No treaty is ever presented to the people without having been minutely negotiated by a Government elected by the people. The notion that treaties appear out of the blue for us to accept or reject is not part of realpolitik. The Lisbon treaty emerged as a constitutional text from a convention of public representatives. Over 200 Members of Parliament from all across Europe, including me and others from the Dáil, among them the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, met and produced a draft constitution. The Lisbon treaty is, in fact, plan B and we do not yet know what plan C will be. Treaties do not appear out of the blue. Irish Governments, of whatever parties, play a strong part in their negotiation and ensure they represent the best interests of the people.

I take issue with the argument that a second referendum would be somehow illegitimate. At least two of the delegates campaigned on at least two occasions for the removal of the ban on divorce in the Constitution. In 1986 the people decided in their wisdom that the ban should remain and in 1996 when the question was presented again, the people decided it should be removed. I am happy with that decision, although I was unhappy with the first and continued to campaign against it. The removal of the ban has made a lot of people happy; it has enabled people to leave deeply unhappy relationships and benefited tens of thousands of children. One needs to be consistent with referenda. If it is illegitimate to hold a second referendum on a treaty, surely it was illegitimate to do so in the case of divorce any other issue.

There has been some pointscoring and I wish to respond. I voted twice against the Sinn Féin proposal that the European Parliament respect the outcome of the ratification process in Ireland. I make no apologies for being the only Irish MEP to do so, as I was sent to the European Parliament to exercise my good judgment, which I try to do in the best interests of the country and the European Union. The proposal only referred to Ireland and did not ask the European Parliament to respect the ratification processes in every other member state. The referendum had not yet taken place but the campaign was under way and as this was an attempt to intervene in a sovereign decision of the people, I rejected it. I will bring Ms McKenna up to date on matters by informing her that the European Parliament recently approved a resolution respecting the outcome of the referendum in Ireland, for which I voted.

The call for respect implied that the treaty would not be ratified. In a referendum the people are asked to say "Yes" or "No" and the Parliament ratifies their decision. As the Dáil has not moved to ratify the treaty, respect has been shown to the referendum result in that way. It is for the Government to decide whether it wants to bring forward proposals for a new referendum and my party will consider the pros and cons of any proposal when it is made.

Ms McKenna said once the Commissioners are appointed, we have no control over them. She was an MEP when the European Parliament fired the entire Santer Commission. I was a member of the European Parliament that prevented the appointment of the Italian nominee because we felt he would not be capable of carrying out his functions in the proposed role, as he was obliged to do on behalf of Europe, and his nomination was withdrawn. If his nomination had not been withdrawn, all the nominees would have been rejected. We, therefore, have control over the Commission. We can fire the Commissioners. We do not do that very often but it can be done.

I am struck by the fact that none of the witnesses has mentioned a major issue, which they all raised during the campaign. I was surprised the loss of a Commissioner was not mentioned. What are their views on this? The Nice treaty provides for fewer Commissioners than member states from June 2009. Ireland may not lose a Commissioner but some member state will lose at least one Commissioner. Under the Lisbon treaty, that would not happen until 2014 and it also contains a provision, which enables the European Council to reverse that position and ensure there is one Commissioner for each member state. By saying "No" to the Lisbon treaty, we are locking ourselves into losing a Commissioner at some point whereas by saying "Yes" we would have opened up the possibility of reversing that decision. What is the view of witnesses?

Chairman

At times witnesses have brandished the Constitution and made statements about it. As someone who is lucky enough to hold public office, it is important to make clear I have an understanding of the text of the Constitution and the intention of its provisions. Neither I nor the sub-committee will do anything that is incompatible with the responsibilities and powers conferred on us by Bunreacht na Éireann. It is important, when inferences to the contrary are made, to take the opportunity to put my view on the record. In chairing these meetings, I have been at pains to ensure everybody in attendance has an opportunity to contribute as fully as he or she wants so that when the process is completed and our report is made, those who have participated will say they attended and had a fair hearing. I thank the witnesses for their contributions and for attending.

Mr. Joe Higgins

I refer to the social progress clause. We will stand up and fight for anything that enhances the rights of workers. That would not by itself make the Lisbon treaty, to which there are many aspects, including militarisation and so on that we oppose, acceptable. It would be better if the European trade union movement was not going around cap in hand to governments looking for this or that, as the Irish trade union movement is officially, but, instead, mobilised its 1 million membership and the power it has to demand and fight for rights without depending on the European Court of Justice, which fundamentally represents the European establishment and not the welfare of workers, and putting everything in its hands.

Mr. De Rossa is correct in a sense. It would be ridiculous if once a question is decided — a referendum, for example — it could never again be opened up. That would be ludicrous. Times change and societies change. The period from 1986 to 1996 was instanced in respect of the divorce referendum, but at least there was a ten-year gap. I am objecting in this case that no sooner was the result out of the box than the campaign of denigration and to overturn it began. It began immediately within hours of the result. That is quite different from reopening a question after a period of years.

We in the Socialist Party did not make much of the loss of a Commissioner. We would had have something to say about it, but it was not fundamental.

I thank the Chairman and the sub-committee for the fair play we were afforded to express any views. That is important and I appreciate it. I finally appeal to the media from this important platform to give the same fair play to all components of the debate, those who genuinely opposed the Lisbon treaty, and not attempt falsely to elevate one component, Libertas, pretending that it is the leadership in representing the majority of working people, especially young people, who voted "No". That is false. They are maliciously trying to build up a straw man, very right wing and neo-liberal, particularly in the face of the forthcoming European election campaign, so that they may pull him down when it suits their purposes. We want a genuine reflection in the media of the debates and ideas that informed all the people who campaigned and voted "No".

Ms Patricia McKenna

Nobody really focused on the loss of a Commissioner because it had already been recognised as an issue about which people were concerned. Even the poll in The Irish Times was somewhat misleading in asking people if the Lisbon treaty should be modified to allow states to retain a Commissioner. “Modified” means “changed”. So far the Government has said there will be no changes to the treaty because they are not going to renegotiate it. There will be no modification of the treaty. Under the rules of Nice and, indeed, of Lisbon, things can be facilitated in a certain way.

On the issue of control, Proinsias De Rossa said, "Not true". He has a tendency to put into people's mouths things which they have not said and then claim they are not true. I said we have no control over the Commission. I am not referring to Members of the European Parliament but to citizens, who have no opportunity to elect or de-elect Commissioners. They have no control. That is the bottom line. We know all about the Santer Commission — I was there — but that is not the issue. The European Commission is the body that proposes legislation. Control by citizens in the selection of their Commissioner would be a beginning. There is real democracy when people can decide not to re-elect a candidate.

I do not agree with the point about being inside the tent. The whole rationale of PANA is to campaign against the process of militarisation of the European Union. That is what we have been doing since 1996. In that period we have built up very good contacts with peace movements all over Europe. These contacts are well established and getting stronger all the time. When we adopt a new treaty with a protocol, I would like all the other states to opt for that too. I would like to see every state in the EU having that protocol so that none of them will be involved in the militarisation of Europe.

The point was made that there was a ten-year gap between the referendums on divorce. I was the campaign director in Dún Laoghaire where we won more than anybody. Winning is great fun. Of course, the wording proposed in the second referendum was completely different.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Our sub-committee has received 88 written submissions. Some 24 of these submissions were from individuals and organisations that attended meetings and gave oral presentations. We were all in a position to thank those speakers for their contributions in person. I know I speak for all members of the committee in thanking all the individuals and organisations who made a submission. We appreciate the time they put into making a contribution to the debate. It would have been great to invite more people to participate but within the timeframe that we have accepted, this has not been possible. The submissions received covered a wide range of issues. They included many suggestions for consideration by the committee and we will reflect on all the material received in compiling our report. We have all had an opportunity to look at the submissions received. I thank Ms Malone and her team for compiling them in such an accessible manner. A summary of all the points has been prepared and will be circulated to everybody. I hope this document will be helpful in considering the draft and perhaps reverting to any points which have been made.

Members will remember that yesterday I circulated a copy of correspondence received from Mr. De Rossa, MEP. They will have heard the points I made about it yesterday. Mr. De Rossa at the meeting of the sub-committee on 29 October mentioned that he would forward further material to the sub-committee regarding a contribution he made at that meeting, which was regarded as a mistruth by a member of the sub-committee. The document mentioned has now been received and Mr. De Rossa continues to be of the view that this document is consistent with his oral outline of the position given at the meeting of 29 October.

If there are no matters arising, we will go into private session.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

It is important that the documentation I provided is appended to the proceedings in some way. The point I made was critical in terms of the approach of one of the parties campaigning against, on the basis of their position, which they denied. They accused me of being a liar, which they subsequently withdrew, saying it was a falsehood. The documentation I have provided demonstrates beyond doubt that what I stated was absolutely correct. I think it is important that the correct information should be appended to the report.

Chairman

That is the reason I brought up this matter in public session. In line with the nature and tone of Mr. De Rossa's correspondence, I felt it was important to do so in public. I gave some consideration to how to do it appropriately. We will consider in private session how we could include that in the publications emanating from this committee.

The sub-committee went into private session at 1.15 p.m. and adjourned at 1.25 p.m. sine die.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union) debate - Friday, 21 Nov 2008

Ireland’s Future Engagement in the EU: Discussion.

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Roger Cole

Ms Patricia McKenna

Mr. Joe Higgins

Ms Patricia McKenna

Ms Patricia McKenna

Mr. Joe Higgins

Ms Patricia McKenna

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Ms Patricia McKenna

Ms Patricia McKenna

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Joe Higgins

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Mr. Joe Higgins

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Joe Higgins

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Mr. Joe Higgins

Mr. Joe Higgins

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Mr. Joe Higgins

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Mr. Joe Higgins

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Mr. Joe Higgins

Ms Patricia McKenna

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Joe Higgins

Mr. Joe Higgins

Mr. Joe Higgins

Mr. Joe Higgins

Ms Patricia McKenna

Ms Patricia McKenna

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Mr. Joe Higgins

Ms Patricia McKenna

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

Mr. Roger Cole

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Mr. Anthony Coughlan

Ms Patricia McKenna

Ms Patricia McKenna

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union) debate -
Friday, 21 Nov 2008