I thank the Chairman very much for the opportunity to appear before the committee. Last time a team from European Movement Ireland was here was in January when we discussed our submission to the European Commission regarding the citizens' initiative. Since then there have been some notable developments within the organisation, one of which is the reason I am here to address this committee today. We welcome this opportunity to outline our accountability campaign before its first launch, but in order for this campaign to be fully explained it needs to be placed in context within the larger strategic direction that European Movement Ireland has taken since the referendum.
As the committee is fully aware last year, in fact nearly to the day, there seemed to be a collective sigh of national relief when the Lisbon treaty was passed by such an overwhelming margin. We at European Movement Ireland were happy with our contribution to that national referendum debate through our Just the Facts campaign, a multi-stranded approach to getting the basics of the treaty out to a range of audiences. Through our fact sheet series, nationwide events, media appearances, communications training, viral video work and daily e-mail series, during which more than 30,000 emails were sent, we worked through a range of mediums so that people could make up their own minds about this treaty.
Since the referendum last October, we have thankfully had the same focus on research after the second Lisbon treaty vote as we had in previous referendums. Many of the conclusions come as no major surprise. In reviewing the double referendums of Nice and Lisbon, the recent research by Richard Sinnott and his team at UCD concluded that knowledge, or lack of it, played an important role in bringing about those similar results, a statement that seems to verify the usual EU maxim, namely, the more one knows about the EU the more one is inclined to vote for it.
Research by the European Commission also revealed some analysis that was not too much of a surprise, that is, that the sociodemographic profile of a typical "Yes" voter was male, over 55 years of age with more than 20 years of education, most likely to live in an urban area and be self-employed. Again, no major shock. However, there were three worrying trends, in this research and through our own analysis, that came to the attention of European Movement Ireland and made us a little concerned that the national exhale after the October referendum results has a been a little too relaxing.
First, while the overall figures from Nice and Lisbon referendums display very similar overall results, there were two very notable differences in the voting patterns. The rate of abstention in the first Nice referendum was far higher than the first Lisbon referendum, in fact 19% higher. Compounding this further, the size of the "No" vote in 2008 was notably larger, 28% as opposed to 19% in the first Nice referendum. In short, unlike the first Nice treaty referendum, people did not avoid getting involved in the first Lisbon treaty vote, they very clearly turned up and voted "No".
Second, the main issues that appeared in our national discussion about the Lisbon treaty had a touch of groundhog day about them. The research on the first Lisbon referendum showed there were five main reasons people voted "No" in 2008. Only one, at a push two, of those five were actually in the treaty. Instead, we as a country became again preoccupied with the usual suspects of tax, neutrality, conscription and abortion. These are the four issues that now, without fail, we inevitably fixate on when there is a new treaty presented for our consideration.
The final trend was the one that caused us most concern. It was the fact that, in sociodemographic terms, the typical "No" voter is now female, aged between 18 and 24, still in education and from a rural rather than urban area. Taken together, this paints a picture of an unexpected Irish "No" voter, but taken separately it is even more worrying. Through social legislation, cohesion and structural funding, CAP, education programmes such as ERASMUS and through the very development of the Union, women, young people, those in education and those in rural areas are the Irish people who have arguably benefited the most from the European Union but now in Ireland are those most likely to vote against it.
Now after our second double referendum, we have slipped back into a habit that, I am sure the committee will agree for our democratic integrity we need to shake, of discussing Europe in a way which all too often oscillates between the extremes of apathy and demonisation. This is all too familiar. As the European Union referendum flags are now packed away, the trends I have just outlined show there is an even bigger danger that we now must confront, namely, that the lessons of Nice were clearly not learnt and we run the risk of doing the same thing again.
Our country is demonstrating signs that it is becoming increasingly eurosceptic. If that is the decision we make, then so be it, but it is our view in European Movement Ireland that this euroscepticism is more passive than proactive and the product of us as a country limiting our main European discussion to six weeks before a referendum vote. Martin Territt, in his final speech as head of the European Commission office in Ireland last week strongly asserted that, "We should not take for granted that the Irish electorate would automatically sign up for any future treaty change should such an opportunity present itself." He argued that we must not allow public debate about the EU and Ireland's membership of the EU to be confined to times when we are faced with ratification of a new treaty. He finished with the words, after noting the evidence of history, that "There is a compelling need to have a sustained approach to engaging with people on the EU and what it means for Ireland." He wished all organisations with that challenge the best of luck.
As one of the few organisations to take up this challenge outside a referendum context and the only one that is not a single-issue body or a representative office of an institution, we strongly agree with Mr. Territ's view and go even further. We believe it is not necessarily just about getting people to sign up to a treaty but getting Irish people to think of Europe as a whole and the about real impact it has on our lives.
Discussion on Europe in Ireland for the most part happens during a referendum and outside that when our national conversation does touch on the EU too often our focus is on the financial benefits when there has been so much more. As a population, we recognise what the EU has done for us as a country, but this does not translate into active engagement with it or more basic knowledge about what it can continue to do for us. Due to our approach through our education system and our approach to politics overall, too many Irish people are left with less than basic information about the EU. Geography tends to get in the way, with the EU being perceived as "them" rather than "us". This is further compounded by the fact that, given the highly technical nature of its work and the complexities that arise from dealing with 27 political cultures, the materials produced on the EU are not always easy to understand.
While the European Union is founded on clear democratic and citizen-focused principles, the debate on Europe in Ireland is too often framed for us instead of by us. Therefore, it is unsurprising that there is limited engagement except in a reactionary way. After all, how are Irish people expected to get involved in a discussion which we do not feel we can shape and direct, especially when the capacity to criticise constructively has yet to be truly incorporated? Ultimately, why does this matter? We have benefited from and contributed to the direction of the EU. We can continue to do so if we choose that path, and if we do, we as a nation need to decide what kind of Europe we want to have, and work to make that happen, rather than let other people decide that for us.
Taking all of this into account, European Movement Ireland agreed a three-year strategy for our organisation earlier this year, entitled Making the Connection. With our mission statement of getting Europe discussed in Ireland every day rather than just on referendum day, we have developed a range of advocacy and education programmes to generate real debate and influence decisions on key European issues affecting Irish people, and to challenge more Irish people to become directly involved in influencing European decisions. As the EU handles matters ranging from counting cows to trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East and everything in between, and given the capacity of our organisation, we chose a selective, target-driven approach to these campaigns and programmes to deliver this strategy.
Using this strategy as a basis, 2010 has seen us develop three advocacy campaigns, the Citizens' Initiative Campaign, the Graduate Jobs in Europe Campaign and, of course, the Accountability Campaign. As the committee will know from our last appearance here, our Citizens' Initiative Campaign tracks the development of this new democratic tool as it goes from the consultation to implementation phase. Keeping an eye on its progression to see how committed the various EU and national institutions are to fulfilling its potential, we have also sought to influence those institutions on our views of the best implementation practices for the European Citizens' Initiative.
We have also kept an eye on how much public awareness of the initiative exists, and conducted a poll on Europe day this year in Galway, Cork and Dublin. We intend to meet the Departments charged with implementing the citizens' initiative on how best to communicate this new tool using and based on our findings.
Our campaign on graduate jobs in Europe has been designed to show students the vast scope for career development offered by the European system and to encourage graduates considering emigration to look to Brussels and Luxembourg to fulfil their career ambitions. This is due to the fact that we Irish are very good at the business of the EU, evidenced by people such as Catherine Day, John Bruton and David O'Sullivan; when we get there, we seem to do extraordinarily well. However, despite our excellent record and the high regard in which the Irish are held in Brussels, too few Irish people know how well we do in the EU system and fewer still know how to get started on an EU career path. Through ourGreen Book, nationwide career talks, the College of Europe scholarship programme, our stage programme and working with college career offices to publicise upcoming EU jobs, we hope to increase Irish graduate uptake of opportunities in Europe.
In the area of education, we have the "My Vision for Europe" competition, training programmes and our recently completed education audit, which mapped and analysed all school programmes that deal with European issues in this country. The aspect I will flag is the "My Vision for Europe" competition, which is an all-island schools competition for students aged 15 and 16 years old, which we run with a range of partners North and South. Students all over Ireland are challenged to be creative by producing and directing a short video expressing their ideas and vision for Europe. Teams compete for the overall prize of a trip to Strasbourg for their class and teachers, where they will have an opportunity to experience a taste of life as a Member of the European Parliament. If members know of any schools in their constituencies that may be interested in signing up, they should tell us.
I will now speak about the campaign which we are here to formally discuss. Our accountability campaign is focused on testing and verifying a number of long-held perceptions. First is the idea that "them lads in Brussels" are responsible for "inflicting" EU legislation on us, most notably the unnecessary and ridiculous. Second, our campaign seeks to test some of the claims we have heard, most notably last year, about the EU system that France and Germany will bully us with their voting weight and that faceless bureaucrats, usually from other, bigger countries, are the ones who make decisions on Europe.
For us, this is about grounding a national discussion on the EU on contextual evidence, rather than on the "I have heard that ..." school of thought and hearsay. We want to have a real discussion about these long-heard rumours and if they are true to highlight them and work to find solutions. The European Movement, working with its members, advisory council and the European Movement network, identified 20 quantifiable indicators at each stage of the EU legislative process. From the initial conception of the legislation through to its national implementation and transposition, we found 20 distinct markers in the law-making process to use as yardsticks by which we could measure the extent and quality of our national engagement with the EU system. We added to this list nine further areas which quantify the amount of media attention that EU issues receive in Ireland, the level of Irish representation in the EU system and a review of those infamous national sensitive issues to establish changes, if any, in the areas of tax, abortion, neutrality and conscription. Rather than list all 29 indicators now, for the convenience of members we have attached a full list to the presentation document which has been circulated.
There are four main phases to this campaign, of which we are now in the final phase. The entire campaign will culminate in a national report to be launched in early 2011 subject to the verification of figures, after which we envisage continuing this campaign on an ongoing basis, releasing quarterly figures where possible. The campaign has a number of key elements which are important to highlight at this juncture. We are focused on being open, transparent and fair in this campaign. All involved either directly or indirectly, including members of this committee, should have received a letter from us several weeks ago, informing them of this campaign, the reasons underlying this work and welcoming further meetings to discuss the details. I thank everyone who has already contributed to this accountability campaign and strengthened its work.
Further to this, our accountability campaign team has made a clear decision that all data must be taken in context. For example, we welcome the input of those involved to explain unusual patterns of attendance throughout the process, be it at the European Parliament, Council meetings or even here. This also applies to key Government submissions in the Commission consultation process and other stages of the legislative system including implementation. In short, this is the complete opposite of a quick headline grabbing campaign; we have structured this to address our usual habit of shout first and explain later when it comes to EU issues. This is about a larger national discussion and seeing how all of us can take even greater responsibility for our role in that process.
The integrity of our data in this campaign has also been key. Further to the input of our advisory council in the development of this campaign, we have been working with experts to ensure that we maintain a high standard of data collection. For example, our team includes people such as John Beckett. As founder and director of a number of successful technology businesses in Ireland and internationally servicing a range of notable international clients, Mr. Beckett is extremely well placed to act as an independent data integrity specialist for the European Movement.
It is also worth noting that there is great complementarity between the work of the campaign and that of the committee. While obvious reforms are needed at an EU level, much work can be done to improve our domestic processes that deal with European affairs. The committee is only too aware of this work, having developed a sub-committee to tackle this very issue. On behalf of European Movement Ireland, I take this opportunity to note the report of the sub-committee chaired by Deputy Creighton which outlined some highly practical steps we can take to improve our Parliament's handling of EU affairs. The accountability campaign can provide the much-needed evidence to ground the conclusions of the committee's recent report and to keep the discussion on reform in the national arena where it needs to take place.
The campaign provides a valuable service to the national European discussion that needs to keep developing here, referendum or no referendum. We have already had interest from our colleagues in other European Movement offices around Europe in potentially building a system for comparison by tracking these indicators for their country. By doing so, and in particular through comparing ourselves with countries similar to Ireland, we believe there is great potential for this system to provide an even more accurate and evidence-based picture of how Ireland does at the European table.
As the committee is aware, our data are going through verification processes at present and until all data for the year are collected and verified our plan is to withhold the release of figures. We are delighted that the committee has taken such a keen interest in this campaign and we would be happy to reappear before it in the new year to present our results. Through this campaign, a bank of data composed of facts, statistics and evidence will be available to encourage a more informed, regular and national discussion in Ireland on Europe. After 37 years of membership with the wealth of research and data compiled on each referendum, we now have an opportunity to avoid falling into the trap of repeating the same mistakes. It is time we moved our national debate from the land of "what if" to the land of "right now". I welcome the views the committee may have on this campaign and on the work of European Movement Ireland overall. I thank the committee.
