Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on European Union Affairs debate -
Tuesday, 6 May 2014

General Affairs Council Meeting and European Parliament Elections: Minister of State for European Affairs

I remind those present to turn off their mobile phones. It is not sufficient to leave them in silent mode. They need to be switched off, as otherwise they will interfere with the broadcasting equipment, which means that we will not be able to broadcast the proceedings. Apologies have been received from Senators Colm Burke, Catherine Noone and Kathryn Reilly.

I am delighted to welcome the Minister of State with special responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Paschal Donohoe. Members will be aware that this is Europe Week and the event is being marked by a number of debates both in the Houses and in committees, so it is appropriate that the Minister of State is with us today.

The first item on the agenda is a discussion on the forthcoming General Affairs Council meeting, which the Minister of State will attend in Brussels next week. The main item on the GAC agenda is the preparation of the June European Council. I understand the agenda for the June European Council has not yet been finalised but I am sure it will address issues such as the European semester, justice and home affairs, and climate and energy. The European Council may also have to take decisions relating to the appointment of the next President of the Commission.

We will then discuss the forthcoming European Parliament Elections, which as we all know will take place on Friday, 23 May. I am sure many members are deeply involved in the campaigns that are under way. We are interested in the Minister's views on the issues at stake, the national and European campaigns, the role of the European political groups in the campaigns and voter turnout.

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to be present. I will start by giving an update on the forthcoming General Affairs Council meeting in Brussels. As the Chairman has indicated, I will comment on the forthcoming the European elections across our Union, and the political and economic backdrop against which the elections are taking place. Of course, any wider reflection on Europe and the discussion today must also recognise the great change that has taken place in the Union and consider the successful enlargement of our Union. I was delighted to speak earlier today at a special conference in Dublin Castle, at which Deputy Eric Byrne was present, marking the historic 2004 enlargement which took place on 1 May ten years ago and reflecting on the future political, economic and security challenges of the European Union. The Greek Presidency is also arranging a short ceremony to mark the ten year anniversary at next week’s General Affairs Council. I will be delighted to participate in this.

The 2004 accession reunited Europe after years of artificial division. As members will all recall, on 1 May that year, Ireland hosted a Day of Welcomes in the Phoenix Park for the 25 member states and those countries in negotiation to become members.

The late Seamus Heaney was commissioned to write a poem for the occasion entitled Beacons at Bealtaine. In his poem, Heaney exhorted us to "move lips, move minds and make new meanings flare". I hope that we have risen to that call but we must continue to do so.

We can be proud of the development of our relations with the countries who entered in 2004 and since. Our people-to-people contacts have never been stronger. Today, we are proud to count many people originally from the countries that joined the EU ten years ago as part of our Irish community. Our economic relations have also gone from strength to strength. Ireland's goods exports to central and eastern Europe were worth nearly €2.2 billion last year which is three times what they were worth in 2004.

Meanwhile, EU enlargement continues to drive transformation and anchor stability in the countries of south-east Europe aspiring to EU membership. Later this week, I shall attend an EU ministerial conference looking at how we can encourage the next wave of candidates and potential candidates, from the western Balkans, on their path to EU membership. The pull and influence of the EU is helping aspirant countries implement democratic and economic reforms, improve the role of law and respect for human rights and helps them overcome the legacy of their past.

The last General Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 18 March. The Council, which was followed by a lunch with the President of the European Council, focused on the preparation for the March European Council conclusions. The crisis in Ukraine was unsurprisingly uppermost in people's minds.

There was also an extensive exchange of views on the Commission's communication on the Rule of Law Mechanism with differing degrees of enthusiasm for the proposal among member states. It was agreed that the communication warranted a further, more substantial discussion at a future General Affairs Council meeting, possibly in June, when council conclusions on the Commission's proposal could be considered.

Apart from the enlargement ceremony, the main item on the agenda next Tuesday is the preparation of the June European Council. This will be the first ministerial engagement, in advance of the June meeting, of Heads of State and Government and we expect to agree on a draft agenda. Further and more substantive preparatory work will be done at the June General Affairs Council. At present, I expect that the June European Council will focus on the European Semester, climate and energy and the adoption of new strategic guidelines on justice and home affairs, as well as relevant foreign policy issues. It is likely that the Heads of State and Government will also discuss the appointment of the next President of the Commission and any other appointments. The June European Council will conclude the 2014 European Semester by endorsing country specific recommendations for member states. These will then be taken forward through the different national budget and policy cycles.

The committee will recall that we had a very constructive engagement on the European Semester on 1 April in the context of settling our national reform programme. This was then finalised by the Government and submitted to the Commission in mid-April. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, also had an important exchange with the finance committee on 15 April regarding the submission of our Stability Programme update. We currently expect that the Commission will present its draft country specific recommendations on 2 June. This is an issue to which we will return at our June meeting.

Members will also recall that the March European Council held a first policy debate on the framework for climate and energy to 2030. Heads of State and Government agreed that they would take stock of progress made on these issues in June, with a view to taking a final decision on the new policy framework by October. In light of the situation in Ukraine, the Commission was also asked in March to prepare a detailed analysis on Europe's energy security and to propose a comprehensive plan to reduce energy dependency for consideration in June. Meanwhile, intensive work is continuing at technical and political level, involving also the Environment, Energy and Agriculture Councils.

I will now turn to the justice and home affairs strategic guidelines. A key focus for Heads of State and Government in June will be the adoption of strategic guidelines to direct future work in the area of justice and home affairs over the coming years. The guidelines will succeed the Stockholm Programme, the current multi-annual justice and home affairs work programme that expires at the end of this year. Their adoption will be the culmination of a debate that has been ongoing at ministerial and senior working party levels since July 2013, and which has also included the submission of formal written contributions by individual member states in late 2013.

The Presidency has indicated that it will present a paper for discussion at the June Justice and Home Affairs Council, after which a document will be sent to the June European Council that will take on board the views of justice and home affairs' Ministers. It remains to be seen what exact format the document will take or how detailed it will be. However, there is wide agreement among member states that following the development of an extensive legal architecture in the justice and home affairs area over the past 15 years, the next phase should focus primarily on the implementation, evaluation and consolidation of the existing legal framework rather than on a lengthy shopping list of new legislative proposals.

While the Irish Government shares this view, we and other member states have also recommended that the guidelines should be flexible enough to permit further legislative action, where there is clear and objective evidence, that this is necessary and that any additional costs are justifiable. Ireland's official written submission on the issue, a copy of which has been shared with the committee, identified a number of areas of co-operation that we believe should be considered for further development. The Minister for Justice and Equality has highlighted many of these areas in the course of discussions at Justice and Home Affairs Council and elsewhere.

The June European Council is also expected to agree further concrete measures in the area of Regulatory Fitness or REFIT which refers to the work that is being carried out by the Commission at the moment, to ensure that we have the right level of regulation in different sectors of our economy and society. This is an important emphasis that has been established over recent months and involves: withdrawing unnecessary proposals; simplifying what is already in place; and repealing what is out of date. It means reducing transaction costs for the businesses that can and will create new jobs. I hope that I have given the committee a flavour of next week's discussions.

Let me turn to our second agenda item which is the European elections and the broader European backdrop. As the Taoiseach has noted, this month's European elections are the most important for Ireland since we joined the EEC four decades ago because the European Parliament matters like never before. It is also because, in the coming months and term, its influence in the formation of EU legislation and the direction Europe takes is poised to be greater than ever before.

As members of the committee are aware, the Lisbon treaty has substantially enhanced the role and powers of the Strasbourg Parliament. Co-decision is now the EU's standard legislative practice, meaning that Parliament has a significant say in the formation of almost all EU legislation.

Members of the committee should consider its output over its current term. It included 45,000 legislative amendments, of which 16,000 were adopted, 2,091 committee reports on issues ranging from the Common Fisheries Policy to the role of the troika in European Union programme countries and more than 22,000 votes in plenary session, leading to the adoption of 2,583 texts, including 970 legislative acts. These numbers tell only part of the story.

The range of policy areas over which the Parliament exerts influence is just as telling. To take a few examples, the Parliament played an essential role in determining the EU’s multiannual financial framework. It contributed to the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and in its final session last month, it voted through legislation enacting the single resolution mechanism, the banking restructuring and resolution directive and provisions on the preferential treatment of depositors, all of which are critical steps in the creation of banking union. The next Parliament will take equally critical decisions on everything from Europe’s environmental and climate change commitments to what I hope will be a historic free trade agreement between the United States and the European Union.

One of the Parliament’s first and most important tasks will be to consider the European Council’s nominee for the Presidency of the European Commission. The steps from the elections to this critical vote and from thence to the final appointment of the Commission are worth considering, given their relevance to all that will follow in this term. All 28 member states will hold their elections between 22 and 25 May. Provisional results should be available quickly, with final results to be confirmed in June, in the course of which newly-elected MEPs will meet and constitute their political groups. During the same period, the Heads of State and Government will consider their nominee for the President of the European Commission with a view to reaching a decision at the June European Council. This consideration will take account of the results of the European election. The Parliament will hold its first plenary or constitutive session between 1 and 3 July. This will be dedicated to the formal constitution of the Parliament, with the new MEPs set to elect the President of the Parliament, 14 Vice-Presidents and six quaestors, as well as the chairs and vice chairs of the committees.

Assuming the Heads of State and Government select a nominee at the June Council, the Parliament would be expected to vote on the proposal at its second plenary session, which is scheduled for 14 to 17 July. When the Commission President has been elected, the Council, in agreement with the President, will adopt the list of Commissioners designate. Commissioners designate will then be called to appear in public before the relevant European parliamentary committees. After this screening process is complete, the President will present the full College of Commissioners and its programme at a plenary session of Parliament, which will then vote its consent to the Commission’s appointment. If all goes to schedule, the new Commission should take office on 1 November.

While this timing is provisional and somewhat uncertain, it is absolutely clear that the upcoming elections will substantially alter the Strasbourg and Brussels landscapes. As for what shape the new Parliament will take, current polls suggest the two main political groups, namely, the European People's Party, EPP, and the Socialists and Democrats, S&D, are closely matched. They also point to a significant increase in the representation of the far right, far left and eurosceptic parties. Indeed, indications are that anti-EU parties might secure as many as a quarter of all seats and may top national polls in several member states. All of this could mean a more volatile, fragmented and polarised European Parliament will emerge. However, as several commentators have suggested, it also is possible that the result will mean those parties in support of the EU will end up working more closely together than ever before.

Whatever is the case, the growth of euroscepticism is a worrying trend which, if left unchecked, could threaten the legitimacy of the European project. The fact that anti-EU voices have gained support through the economic crisis is of course unsurprising. In times of uncertainty and especially in times of high unemployment, the attraction of simplistic solutions should not be underestimated. While the promise that the challenges of a globalised world can be overcome by nation states retreating into protectionism can provide comfort, it is simply untrue. The reality is much more complex. Globalisation has changed the game for nations. It requires that we work together and this, as I have said a number of times, is what I believe the contemporary rationale of the EU should be, that is, by working together we can achieve more in a changing world than we could on our own. If the arguments of euroscepticism are to be debunked and the legitimacy of the Union maintained and enhanced, it is essential that this truth be demonstrated to voters. I believe this is best achieved through our response to the crisis, by restoring stability and delivering jobs and growth throughout the continent.

I will conclude with some thoughts on this work with regard to Ireland’s work with the European Parliament. More than most, perhaps, Ireland has special cause to recognise the importance of this rapidly evolving institution. Its Ministers and officials worked closely with the Parliament in preparing for and delivering Ireland's EU Presidency. In the 18 months prior to the Presidency, there were more than 35 visits by Irish Ministers to the Parliament in Brussels and Strasbourg. During the Presidency, Ministers participated in more than 70 debates in committee and plenary while at official level, Ireland held almost 350 trilogues with MEPs. This engagement has left the Government with a clear impression of the Parliament’s significance, a valuable insight into its workings and a strong network of influential contacts. Since the Presidency, the Government has looked to continue this positive engagement. A Minister has travelled to Strasbourg each month for most plenary sessions. I myself have already attended twice and will continue to so do in the coming months, as will other ministerial colleagues.

This engagement in the early sessions of the new Parliament will be critical in reinforcing Ireland's existing connections and in developing new ones. This is all the more vital given that the turnover of MEPs is set to be especially pronounced as just 336 current MEPs are seeking re-election, which means that more than half of the 751-member Parliament will be new. Many important figures are retiring, including group leaders Hannes Swoboda and Joseph Daul, as well as influential committee chairs Sharon Bowles, Malcolm Harbour and Klaus-Heiner Lehne. The scale of change and the growing powers of the Parliament make it essential that the 11 MEPs the Irish people elect this month, whatever their political background, are active and engaged from the outset. While Ireland's share of the Parliament is relatively small, the influence of our MEPs in advancing and protecting our national interests at EU level can be significant.

I also wish to emphasise two recent and important examples in this regard arising from different areas of European Parliament activity. If one considers the role the European Parliament and its MEPs in committee played in the latter stages of the design and negotiation of the structures for banking union, it is a clear example of the role of the European Parliament in negotiations and discussions that are vital to the Irish national interest. Another example relates to the role the European Parliament now plays in areas such as consumer rights and health policy. I was present in Strasbourg for the votes the European Parliament took in plenary session on the proposals for plain cigarette packaging.

That decision by the European Parliament provides a tangible example for people of the impact of the consumption of such products on their health. Perhaps such tangible examples in the areas of health, consumer policy and the rights of consumers provide a clearer example of the impact and role the European Parliament plays in our daily lives than, for example, a discussion on the proposed banking union which, while vital and of the highest priority for our national interests, sometimes does not exhibit itself in the daily lives of our citizens in the way changes in areas of consumer policy and health policy might. Both of those are vivid examples of the role of the European Parliament. That is the reason we have had Ministers attend nearly every session of the plenary sessions in Strasbourg since our Presidency and I have undertaken much of that travel myself.

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee. I will do my best to respond to any comments or questions the members may have.

Thank you, Minister. Our first contributor will be Deputy O'Reilly.

I thank the Minister of State for his thorough overview and explanations which were very helpful. I salute his huge work in this area and the effort he is making to do the job very well. I want to raise a few questions or observations. First, the likelihood of an historic free trade agreement between the US and the EU is welcome and will bestow many benefits on this country, but one of the risks of such an agreement is that it could damage our agricultural sector. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's comment on that and what steps he might be able to take to help us protect that sector in the face of a trade agreement. That is very important to the people I represent and for our economy.

Second, the Minister of State rightly cited the situation in Ukraine as being grave and he spoke of the need for Europe to develop its energy capacity and reduce its dependence on imported energy resources in certain sectors. It appears to us as observers that the situation in Ukraine is deteriorating by the hour and by the day. Will the Minister of State comment on the situation there and what steps the EU collectively can take to deal with it? The situation there is very depressing and appears to be getting worse. I would be heartened to hear a view to the contrary but it seems that is the case.

The Minister of State made a good observation regarding euroscepticism. I note from some national polling data in the media across the water that, frighteningly, UKIP is polling extremely well. That brings up the question of the risk of the UK opting out of the European Union by, first, having a referendum - as it will - and, second, by opting out of the Union. I know the Minister of State has been proactive in this area and he is concerned about it. What ongoing steps is he taking to use our good offices and influence to ensure that sanity will prevail in the UK? The implications of such a change for the Border area I represent are quite frightening.

The Minister of State made a good point, and it is important to get it across and get it onto the national agenda, namely, that the European Parliament has much increased powers and is a very relevant body and legislative assembly relative to its previous status. While I do not expect him to comment on individual candidates, I believe he would agree with me that this makes it incumbent upon this country to elect candidates to the European Parliament with proven records, parliamentary experience and with the capacity to contribute to this country's welfare abroad, irrespective of from what side of the political divide they come. It certainly suggests to me, and I know it is difficult for the Minister of State to comment on this, that there is no room for electing people who lack experience and who simply grandstand and produce platitudes with no capacity to back up what they say. We need to elect very experienced people with parliamentary, and indeed ministerial, experience.

It is a bit late for the Deputy to be adding his papers now.

I hope he is not intending to leave us.

That just shows how objective my comment was.

The next speaker is Deputy Dooley.

I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for his presentation. On the General Affairs Council, GAC, meeting and the work it will do in the preparation of the agenda for the June European Council and with particular reference to the foreign policy element, is there any potential to discuss the situation that is developing in Nigeria where Islamic militants, the Boko Haram group, have kidnapped in excess of 200 young female children from a school and the leader of that group has indicated that he intends to trade them into slavery? That is an appalling situation and one on which Europe should take a stand under its foreign policy remit. Clearly, the United States has taken a very public stand on it and I would hope the European Union could certainly play a role. There is room for active participation here rather than soundbites or platitudes because, clearly, this group is not going to respond to commentary from the United States from the President's publicity machine or from his public relations side and neither will it respond to similar outpourings by various different state leaders across Europe. Is there a potential for some level of support that could be provided to the Nigerian Government in an effort to try to deal with the situation that is evolving?

On the European elections, while I share some of the concerns of my colleague, I do not believe any of us is in a position to lecture the electorate in advance of elections and we must await the outcome of the democratic process. My concern around the issue of the disengagement with the European project by citizens across the member states and the development of support for UKIP and others, and perhaps for some within this jurisdiction, has more to do with a belief by the majority of citizens that Europe has not been working for them to the extent that it might. While the Minister of State spoke about the polarisation developing between the two bigger parties on the one hand and the extremes on the right and the left, the fact of the matter is that, effectively, the two big parties do not appear to have been delivering, particularly for countries that have suffered to the greatest extent.

To take the example of our own country, many of our citizens believe the ECB has taken political guidance, especially from members who would be aligned to the EPP and, in particular the direction, to some extent, from the German central bank whereby we have been forced to pay all the senior bonds, which has impacted very significantly on the services and level of taxation Irish citizens have had to endure. In addition to that and while I do not want to be political, promises were made in June 2012 when the parties in government believed a decision had been taken that would effectively be a game-changer in terms of the way in which our finances were structured or restructured. We are still waiting for flesh to be put on the bones of that decision.

I accept that banking union is a slow beast and that it will take some time to put the architecture in place but, notwithstanding that, our citizens are looking on and they still see the austerity programme, which I accept was necessary, although some do not, to resolve to some extent the crisis that has developed across Europe.

The prospect of light at the end of the tunnel, in terms of giving back to the State some of the moneys committed to the pillar banks, which is often referred to in the context of retrospective recapitalisation of our banks, has not come to pass. That is not necessarily the Minister of State's fault but somebody is holding out. If people saw European member states working together to deliver better outcomes for countries like Ireland and for citizens, it would make it easier for those of us who are anxious to maintain and develop the European project to explain during elections how this State benefits. People are currently saying to us that all we appear to be doing is making good the gambling debts of others.

This is the second time I have heard the Minister of State elaborate on the role he is going to play in Europe. I thank him for his detailed presentations and I agree with most of what he has said. In regard to his new engagement with those who will be elected to the European Parliament from the far left and the far right, it constitutes a worrying trend in European politics that people seek simplistic solutions and often adhere to slogans that are attractive. We have experience of that in Irish politics, not least in the Irish Parliament.

Does the Minister of State agree that we must start looking more closely at justice and fundamental rights issues in the European Union when it comes to, for example, hate crimes, xenophobia and anti-semitic outbursts? The European Union must hold firmly to its fundamental beliefs and the basic human rights that accompany them if we are to be able to argue strongly against the hatred that is being delivered by UKIP and others. This weekend my daughter brought back some UKIP propaganda from its election campaign. We are lucky in Ireland that we do not yet have an extreme right wing party propagating that type of hatred. Does the Minister of State agree that some of the solution to curtailing the ultra-right, in particular, and whatever goes with the ultra-left, which has been around for a long time, involves measures in the area of justice and fundamental rights to deal with hate crimes?

In regard to the decision to speed up the association agreements with Georgia and Moldova, what is involved in the agreements we are bringing forward? While I appreciate that we must pay particular attention to Georgia and Moldova in light of the unfolding situation in Ukraine, I am concerned that by rushing this process we will be creating an agreement that we cannot stand over.

Ukraine is a country in crisis. For the past two years I have been critical of the European Union's position on Ukraine. I have argued that it was never treated as a unitary state but there is no point in rehearsing my views because they are on the public record. I maintain contact with people in Ukraine. I was involved in two sessions in eastern Ukraine and I have very good friends there. Does the Minister of State agree that the danger arises that Russia, with its 40,000 troops on the border, is creating an atmosphere that could destabilise the region and that those separatists who want to become part of the old Soviet Union do not really represent the desires of the people of eastern Ukraine? Is there a danger that Russia's use of language depicting Kiev as a threat will ultimately leave those who are currently occupying buildings as the meat in the sandwich between the politics of Russia and the politics of Ukraine? I understand that many people in eastern Ukraine do not support the separatists who are currently occupying buildings. There are historic parallels, not least in Ireland, in which people's emotions were built up to the point where they marched behind the loudspeaker with the tricolour flying or became terrorists because their emotions were milked. Is the Minister of State aware that the separatists severed social media, television and radio links in eastern Ukraine and that the people of the region are almost exclusively dependent on Russian television, which is further exploiting the emotions of eastern Ukrainians? Does he see any sign that the Russians will not invade but will instead do everything they can to organise factions to destabilise the country in advance of the presidential elections due to be held shortly?

I was dreaming because I was inspired by the contributions from my right and my left. There is growing evidence of serious euroscepticism. It has existed for years but it is now a growth industry. The very openness of the European Union and its institutions encourage and accommodate such scepticism. European and national institutions are apparently incapable of dealing with it, however. A crunch time will eventually come when the hard right and the hard left come together in common cause. I hope that during the term of the next European Parliament, the new institutions will make a special effort to address the issues fuelling euroscepticism. During past referendum campaigns, we have encountered the various homes of euroscepticism in our neighbouring country and across Europe. Those involved have said nothing to us that would in any way endear us to their policies. They have repeatedly said whatever suits the audience in their home countries in order to bring them to national prominence. Unfortunately, that is the way these matters work. Unless something is done to examine the causes, of which there are many, and the extent to which they can be addressed, the problem will remain. There is no use listening silently to somebody who comes forward with an outrageous or ridiculous suggestion. The presumption is that the speaker in those circumstances is correct. Somebody else will pick up the argument and it goes on from there.

The EU-US trade agreement to which Deputy Reilly referred could have major significance for this country. I have repeatedly spoken about that agreement in this forum and elsewhere.

It is essential the European negotiators recognise that they must negotiate, having regard to the welfare of all European countries and not for the benefit of one at the expense of others.

Ukraine has been an issue for some time. I am disappointed by the extent to which the European Union has found it possible to engage with the situation there. I know there are difficulties and to interfere internally in a country is very difficult, but European countries have not been at one on this issue over the past three or four months. That is a weakness that is recognised by the Russians and by people who have other interests in Ukraine other than national interests.

My colleague referred to messages of hate. Incitement to hatred legislation in Europe is totally inadequate. There have been numerous outbursts of hatred directed at various groups of people in society. Incitement to hatred legislation has not done, or is incapable of doing, anything about it or is inadequate. A careful look should be taken at all incitement to hatred legislation in member states and at EU level to ensure this kind of thing is addressed. Otherwise it will go on and will be like an all-consuming fire.

We must not forget that the war in Somalia was started as a result of an apostle of hatred who sent out the same information again and again, targeting groups of people on a local radio station, and succeeded in revving up the tension to such an extent that it boiled over. We know the consequences of that. Let nobody tell me we are sophisticated enough in Europe not to allow that kind of thing to happen again. Anything can happen. Murphy's law will always prevail in that if it can happen, it will happen.

I pay special tribute to my colleague, Deputy Dooley, who was very entertaining in his appraisal. He very adroitly managed to mince along the economic footpath much like a mannequin at a fashion show, avoiding all the possible pitfalls and responsibilities that were there and carefully avoiding any responsibility which anybody previous to the current Government had in regard to the situation the current Government and the people of this country have had to shoulder. Lest anybody be in any doubt, I mention that the people of this country and both parties in government have taken on themselves the problem of resolving a most impossible task, an issue that was almost beyond the bounds of comprehension. It was in the minds of many of us that the country would not survive and that we would be facing an economic Armageddon for many years. The fact that did not happen is a great tribute to the Irish people who solidly decided what they were going to do and made the sacrifices, tough as they were. The Government had the resolve in very difficult times and it faced a lot of criticism and negativity. It stood up and did its job, which was very difficult to do.

Do not forget we have just been talking about propaganda and what it can do. It can undermine a lot of things.

Deputy Durkan is listening to it.

We got it from Deputy Dooley a few minutes ago.

(Interruptions).

The Deputy voted against all the decisions taken.

(Interruptions).

Let me go back to the decisions taken-----

We are approaching a situation where we will have to let Deputy Dooley respond. I think Deputy Durkan's point is made. We should focus on the task before us.

When we go to our colleagues in Europe and blame them for not responding quickly enough, there are some in this country who know more about that on the basis of the case presented. I would not be saying this at all-----

I will have to let Deputy Dooley back in.

I am a very quiet and peace-loving person but the points were raised obliquely and very carefully in order to pretend - we live in the world of pretence - that things were all right and that it was the current Government which made a mess of the whole thing, but it was not.

I thank Deputy Durkan. Will Deputy Dooley think about a short response in a couple of minutes?

I welcome the Minister of State and extend my best wishes for next week's General Affairs Council meeting. I refer to the country specific recommendations as part of the European semester. This is our first experience of that post the bailout. What can we learn from other countries' experiences? Will any particular issues be raised with colleagues about their experiences over recent years in that area?

A number of members commented on the situation in Ukraine. Do the problems there make it more important for us to expedite expansion to the east and that we open those chapters for accession countries and expedite applications? I refer to the Single Market in terms of energy. Given the ongoing tensions in Ukraine and Russian influence, is the Single Market for energy now more important in terms of energy security for the European Union?

In regard to the European Parliament elections, the Minister of State said that more than half of the MEPs in the European Parliament are retiring, which I did not know. Obviously, there is a much lower number in Ireland. I think one of our MEPs is retiring. Why does the Minister of State think that is the case across the European Union? Is it because of a perception of lack of powers? Obviously, there is not a lack of powers. Is it as a result of travel? Does the Minister of State think this election will be a temptation for protest votes rather than, as other members have said, electing real legislators who will play an important role for their countries?

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive report. I echo one of the points raised by Deputy Kyne. In light of the situation in Ukraine, the Commission is preparing a detailed analysis of Europe's energy security with a view to proposing for consideration in June a comprehensive plan to reduce energy dependency. I find that somewhat troubling because I would not have thought the situation in Ukraine was one that could not have been foreseen in any wider geopolitical analysis, in particular given that there has been a threat to the gas supply from Russia in the past. It is of concern that we do not have a more robust energy security policy. Is the Minister of State confident that the comprehensive plan proposed for consideration in June will be one which will go down the road of improving Europe's energy security which I would regard as a very fundamental issue in light of the very fragile recovery of the European economy in recent times which could be very significantly undermined by a significant rise in the cost of energy, for example?

I refer to the European Parliament and the issue of European identification and the identification of the citizen with the citizens' Europe. The enlargement of the European Parliament and the strengthening of its powers were part of a strategy to improve citizen engagement with Europe. To some extent, that has been a failure. On previous occasions, we have discussed not only that with the Minister of State but the rise of euroscepticism and the consistent failure of European citizens to engage with Europe. It is almost going in the wrong direction. The engagement of citizens with Europe is becoming weaker rather than stronger.

I wonder if there is an extent to which the European Parliament - although it has had more powers - is actually becoming unwieldy and fragmented. The Minister of State made the point about the significant number of current MEPs who are not seeking re-election. More than half of the new Members will be new. Given the importance of political groupings in the European Parliament with such a large number of Members, is this a serious issue in terms of undermining the capacity of the European Parliament, to do its job and to communicate with the people of Europe about its work?

EU enlargement is another issue of concern to me. The Minister of State and I have differing views which we have debated in the Seanad. I am not as confident that this is the time to engage in wider enlargement, particularly, given the geopolitical situation with regard to Ukraine. The expression, "Do not poke the bear", comes to mind. I question whether in light of the rise of euroscepticism and parties to the far right and far left we should consider whether it is time to have and to hold and to consolidate rather than to continue on an enlargement path. I fully understand that there are countries who aspire to EU membership and of course I am not suggesting that we should never proceed along the road to enlargement but I think there is a case to be made to slow down this situation, particularly until we can see some serious progress on the Ukraine and the stabilisation of the relationship between the EU and Russia. Is there any merit in that situation?

If the Senator has finished-----

I am not taking up anything like as much time as some of the other commentators.

I apologise, I thought the Senator had concluded.

I can leave it there, thank you.

I invite Deputy Dooley to make a short comment to the Minister of State.

To clarify, I apologise to the Chairman for turning my quiet and peaceful colleague, as he has indicated he is, into a defensive quarterback on this occasion. I did not seek to apportion blame within this jurisdiction. I think the Minister of State will appreciate that I was trying to be a bit more reflective about what is happening across Europe rather than getting into the "who did what, when and where" in this instance. It is a wider European debate about the capacity of the community method to prevail at a time of crisis, that helps to reduce the necessity to become nationalistic and seek to build borders instead of breaking them down. That is the point I have been trying to make.

Excellent. I thank the Chairman. A full range of issues have been raised, everything from models to quarterbacks. I will do my best to respond to each question in turn. A number of consistent themes made an appearance and I will deal with those.

My colleague Deputy O'Reilly asked about TTIP, the transatlantic trade and investment partnership which is the opportunity for a trading deal between the European Union and America. He referred to the sensitivity and concern that exists in our agricultural community and sector about that deal. I assure the Deputy that we are fully aware of the concerns of people about a likely deal and the impact on different sectors of our economy, in particular in light of the extraordinary performance the same sector has delivered for our economy in recent years and also for the wider community and society.

Deputy O'Reilly also asked me about the process of the deal. The EU Commission is the lead negotiator for the European Union. At each stage of discussion and negotiation with its counterparts in America it reverts back to the Ministers to give them an update on the negotiations. The deal will then be agreed by the Ministers and, as I mentioned in my contribution, the European Parliament will play a decisive role. I emphasise that the Government and the Ministers involved are very much aware of the concerns articulated by the Deputy.

On the Deputy's point about euroscepticism and what may or may not happen in the United Kingdom, my view is that there has been a change in the composition of the euroscepticism we are witnessing at the moment compared to a number of years ago. The kind of euroscepticism that was present in the European Union for much of its existence focused on changing the terms of participation of countries within the European Union. Many parties or commentators in the past who may have been associated with the term, "eurosceptic" were supporters of the concept of the European Union but had great concerns about how their countries were participating in it. We are now seeing some new dimensions of that kind of political outlook among many prominent political parties who were against the European Union as it is currently organised and against their countries being in the Union, parties which were opposed to the kind of growth of interdependence and interconnection.

In my view the next Parliament will play a very significant role. Opinion polls are only polls but it is likely that this view will be articulated in greater numbers than in the past in the very forum that is meant to legitimise or offer greater legitimacy to European integration and in the very forum that will have more power than it has had for most of its existence. If those numbers were to be elected to the European Parliament it will pose different consequences for how the European Union will work.

Deputy O'Reilly asked about the United Kingdom referendum. There is a possibility of a referendum under the next British Parliament, depending on who will be in government. Until those hypothetical situations materialise, it is very important for us to be aware of the difference between political debate in the United Kingdom and what a future British Government might do. I wish to affirm the importance of our membership of the European Union and the fact that we will continue to be very durable and positive contributors to the European Union. That is our objective in the years to come. I hope that were such a referendum to take place that the United Kingdom would continue to occupy a similar role.

I will reply to the points outlined by Deputy Dooley. He raised the awful situation in Nigeria and the number of children involved. If that crisis is to be discussed by the European Union it will take place in the Foreign Affairs Council rather than in the General Affairs Council.

That discussion will take place in the Foreign Affairs Council rather than General Affairs Council. It is likely that it will be discussed in some form given the scale of the issue, as Deputy Dooley noted. I will revert to him with a note on the issue as I am unable to confirm when the discussion will take place.

Deputies Dooley and Durkan expressed views on the bank debt, to which I propose to respond by making two points. The scale of the repayments to bondholders arising from the bank debt was heavily influenced by the breadth of the bank guarantee. The decision by the Government of the time to introduce the guarantee framed much of what followed. It is important to emphasise this point when seeking to apportion blame in debates about the bank debt. The decisions on the breadth of the bank guarantee and amount of bank debt covered were taken in Dublin.

Deputy Dooley asked where we stand now. Progress has been made, for example, in eliminating the Anglo Irish Bank promissory notes. The Deputy also asked how we will deal with the portion of the national debt that arises from the costs of supporting the banking system. As the Government has stated, once the banking union becomes operational in the next 12 to 24 months, it will continue to pursue the option of retroactive bank recapitalisation. I have no doubt the Deputy will continue to hold the Government accountable for doing so. That is the framework within which we have addressed this issue. Progress has been made on the promissory notes and we will address the issue of retroactive bank recapitalisation in that framework.

I fully concur with comments on the need to protect the Community method. Maintaining the bargain the underpins citizen support for the European Union requires a level playing field for countries in respect of the issues that matter to them. The implementation and maintenance of the Community method is essential in this regard. The Community method is basically the quasi-judicial role the Commission plays in certain areas of decision-making and its function as the initiator of European Union legislation. It is extremely important that these roles are maintained if current levels of support for the European Union are to be sustained. There is a tension on this point. I have seen much polling on political attitudes towards the European Union. Most recently, an American polling organisation, the Pew Research Center, surveyed levels of support for the European Union in various member states. I was struck by the finding that the majority of European Union citizens continue to understand that an entity other than the nation state is required to deal with problems that extend across many countries. We are all aware, however, that the level of support for the European Union is declining.

Deputy Eric Byrne referred to the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, and the absence of legislation on hate crime. My view of this matter differs slightly from that of the Deputy. The European Union is examining legislation on hate crime in various member states and the way in which it is being implemented. The rule of law initiative put to the previous General Affairs Council by Commissioner Viviane Reding addresses this issue. This morning, I attended the launch of the Crocus programme, which is designed to remind Irish schoolchildren of the horrors of the Holocaust and the role xenophobia and the abuse of the freedoms we take for granted can have in creating an environment in which hate of the other occurs. As Deputy Byrne is aware, the scale of the horror and damage done in the Second World War was one of the catalysts for European integration.

I concur with Deputy Eric Byrne on the importance of having in place robust legislation on hate crime, xenophobia and the terminology used to describe racial minorities. That being said, in many cases, strengthening hate crimes legislation is not the best response to the political forces about which the Deputy expressed great alarm. The best response is good political debate. As we experienced at this meeting, when one somebody raises a point with which one disagrees one challenges them. In my statement on accession in Dublin Castle this morning I noted that passion and certainty in political life in Europe cannot be confined to the extremes of politics, namely, the far left and far right. When defending the values we hold dear, we, on the centre left and centre right, must show the same type of certainty as those who are intent on removing these values. This is a better response to the issues the Deputy raises than legislative action.

On Georgia and Moldova, it is planned to proceed with the association agreements with both countries. The agreements have been initialled to a varying degree already and it is planned to strengthen our relationships with both countries. I will revert to this issue when I respond to Senator Hayden who raised related questions. The reason we are continuing with the current approach to both countries is that their elected governments have indicated a desire to continue with the process. The European Union will continue with the current approach for as long as the governments of the countries in question wish to do so. It is important to acknowledge the progress that is being made on visa liberalisation with some of these countries.

I touched on the point raised by Deputy Durkan on our response to extremist political opinion in Europe. As I indicated, we must respond by engaging in debate, questioning extremist points of view and presenting facts.

Deputy Durkan also raised the varying levels of engagement with Ukraine. Countries are expressing varying levels of concern about the impact an escalation in the crisis could have on them, for reasons of geography, trade and so forth. While such concerns are understandable, I have been struck by the level of unity maintained to date in the statements and measures taken by the European Union thus far. Many people believed it unlikely that unity could be sustained on Ukraine. In acknowledging the varying impact the crisis will have on different countries, I should note that the European Council, Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council have thus far adopted all the positions they have taken on Ukraine with unanimity. All member states have agreed to the stance taken by the European Union.

The Deputy's concluding question was on the role of incitement to hatred in legislation and I have already touched on that.

I fully agree with Deputy Kyne's first point. I believe the European semester is a very important change in Irish domestic governance and governance within the European Union. I thank the Deputy for raising a question on it. I was pleased to appear before the committee a number of weeks ago to discuss the issue. I spoke at the Institute of International and European Affairs on this process last Friday morning in an attempt to draw more public attention to it. In my experience, if we do not keep on explaining what we are doing, fiction grows around it and it then becomes a real challenge to explain what the Government is doing while working with our partners in other countries and in the European Commission.

In terms of lessons to date, I have not yet had an opportunity to ask the Ministers I deal with on the General Affairs Council for their observations on the process, but I will do so on foot of the Deputy's question. It is worth emphasising the breadth of involvement that the European semester means for how governments deal with them. We are so used to much of our engagement with Europe being measured by things such as deficit levels, debt levels, structural deficit levels and so on.

I encourage members of this committee, anybody listening to this hearing or anybody who has any interest in European and Irish politics to look at the national reform programme that is available on the Department of the Taoiseach's website. This indicates how we will engage with the European Union through the European semester. The breadth of policy areas included within it is very striking. It covers everything including levels of participation in secondary schooling, the environment, an area we have already discussed, and all the economic stuff with which we are more familiar.

The fundamental difference for Ireland is that up to this date much of the high-profile engagement we have had with Europe has focused on the consequences of decisions that have been made. However, the semester process looks at policies and decisions in all those different areas that then influence and determine economic growth, social inclusion, debt levels, and deficit levels. It is a fundamental change in how we are engaging with Europe.

I believe we should be open about it not only because it is our duty to be open about it to the people, but also because this was the subject of so much discussion in different referendum campaigns in which we have participated. Given that this is a consequence and this kind of engagement is very much in line with the spirit of, for example, the fiscal governance treaty, I believe it is very important that we talk about it as openly and as frequently as we can.

I will deal with the Deputy's comment on Ukraine when I deal with the point Senator Hayden put to me.

The Deputy asked about the number of MEPs who are retiring. I understand there tends to be a high degree of turnover in the European Parliament anyhow. There are MEPs who might be going back to politics within their own national domestic political system, not to mention all the other things that would happen in terms of retirement. The Deputy asked if I believed the level of change at the moment is as a result of concerns MEPs have regarding lack of influence of the European Parliament. My genuine assessment is that it is not. In fact, MEPs are very much aware of the level of influence and power they have at the moment.

Growing influence.

If for whatever reason people may be moving on, lack of appreciation of the role of their institution is not one of them because it is very much a changing body.

The Deputy asked about protest votes and legislation. I believe people can protest strongly against the direction the European Union is taking and still be effective legislators. They just have a very different outlook from mine, which is their right and what makes politics work. All I hope is that the people, who get elected to the European Parliament on the back of opposing the EU or how the Parliament uses its powers, will still participate fully and use all the powers the European Parliament has at its disposal. It matters greatly to Ireland and our national interest in different policy areas, and it matters to the European project. Given the amount of debate that is going on and how hard people are working to get elected to the European Parliament, I am sure they will participate with great vigour if and when they get elected to that Parliament.

Senator Hayden asked about energy independence. When considering that, we should acknowledge the amount of progress that has already taken place in trying to increase Europe's energy security. For example, mechanisms are now in place to allow reverse-flow exchange of energy between countries, which means that gas or whatever the energy is can go in both directions through infrastructure. A significant amount of work has taken place to ensure that happens. We should consider the amount of additional physical interconnection that is now in place between different member states versus where we were when other crises took places in Ukraine. Considerable progress has taken place, but much remains to be done.

The Senator asked if I was confident that would happen. I am certainly more confident that it will happen because it is now clearer than it ever was previously what the larger forces are that could affect Europe's ability not only to access energy but to access energy at a price it can afford. Both of those are very important. Based on the discussions in which I have participated, there is crystal clear awareness of how important that is now, while acknowledging progress that has already been made.

The Senator asked if the size of the Parliament is an impediment to it using its powers effectively and increasing its political legitimacy. Based on my dealings with it, I would say that it is not an impediment because of the amount of work that is done in the committee structure within the Parliament. I am struck by what is happening in this term of the Dáil and Seanad, perhaps for other reasons. The people who are performing roles within the committee structure of the European Parliament have acquired significant influence and a large role in terms of how the European Parliament does its work. Either consciously or otherwise, they have dealt with the point the Senator raised, which is how a body with 751 Members can possibly operate efficiently. That has been dealt with through an extremely impressive committee system that operates in a very focused and professional way, much of it depending on the role of individual rapporteurs.

The Senator spoke about caution regarding future European engagement and enlargement. She acknowledged that we would have differing views in that regard. Thank God for that; how else would any of this work? Why do I have a different role in relation to the role that the European Union can play outside its current borders by the offer of either European Union membership or closer association with the European Union at a point in the future? The most important example of that at the moment is with what is happening in Serbia and its relationship with Kosovo. The Belgrade-Pristina agreement is an extraordinary agreement between two countries that have had great mutual difficulty in the past and still do now.

So much of that agreement was secured, if not all of it was secured, through the role the European Union can play in influencing and projecting soft power outside of its own boundaries. We have seen already in the 1990s the difficulties and the significant consequences that can be caused for all of Europe by difficulties and volatility in central and eastern Europe.

If one were to ask me why should the European Union continue to engage with countries outside of its borders and conscious of some of the points Senator Hayden made, the best example I can offer is the extraordinary progress that has been made in that part of Europe to which reference was made due to the role of the European Union. We are very pleased to welcome our friends from Croatia who recently joined the European Union. I have heard many politicians from that part of Europe speak recently about the difficulties they have had and they say that the most important structural charge in that part of Europe versus the position they were in ten to 20 years ago is that the region is now a positive contributor to stability as opposed to what it would have been in the past. That is I believe due to the role the European Union has played. I very much look forward to debating this and continuing to do so in the future. This is what the people we represent care about. It is very important that people can see the different sides to the argument, that both sides can hold views that are different in some respects, but are genuinely held, on the role of the European Union.

As to whether we should slow down the integration process in response to that kind of concern, it will not surprise members to hear me say that I do not believe we should, but what we need to emphasise is that we have a very different integration process from what we had a few years ago. As the nature of integration for current members of the European Union deepens and changes - what is happening in Justice and Home Affairs is an excellent example of that - it means that what we ask future member states to accede to and become members of has changed and because of that the integration process has changed.

If we were to compare the integration process that Croatia has just completed, and contrast it with what happened in 2004, not to mention what we in Ireland did more than 40 years ago, I need hardly tell members that is a comparison of night and day. Different dynamics have kicked in to the accession and integration negotiation. The discussion and negotiation that the European Union would have with other countries may have changed but I do not believe they have slowed down or should slow down because of concerns that people would have regarding enlargement as an objective per se. I continue to believe that it is as important as it has ever been.

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive explanation of where we are at present. We all wish him the very best at the General Affairs Council meeting next week in Brussels.

At our next meeting we will discuss voting rights with the academic Dr. Adrian Kavanagh and Jennie McShannon from the Federation of Irish Societies.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.34 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 May 2014.
Top
Share