Joint Committee on European Union Affairs debate -
Tuesday, 24 Jun 2014

Outcome of the European Elections: Discussion

Chairman

I remind members to switch off mobile phones. It is not sufficient to put them on silent. They must be switched off, otherwise they will cause interference with the broadcasting equipment.

Today we will discuss the outcome of the European Parliament elections and their implications for Ireland and Europe. We will consider the composition of the new Parliament.

We will look at the composition of the new European Parliament and consider the relatively low turn-out across the European Union. We will also discuss the move away from the traditional centre-right and centre-left parties towards extremist parties on both the left and the right and consider the possible impact that might have on the work of the European Parliament. We are joined today for our consideration of those issues by Professor Gail McElroy from the Department of Political Science at Trinity College Dublin and Ms Suzanne Lynch, who is the European correspondent of The Irish Times and is based in Brussels. The head of the European Parliament office in Dublin, Mr. Francis Jacobs, has helpfully provided the committee with a background note on the outcome of the European Parliament elections.

Before we begin today's proceedings, I have to remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not make charges against a person or entity by name or in such as way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I welcome Professor McElroy and Ms Lynch. I invite Professor McElroy to address the committee.

Professor Gail McElroy

I thank the committee for inviting me to speak on this broad topic. I intend to focus mostly on group formation in the European Parliament, the deadline for which is today. There was a great deal of media coverage of the European elections. One might think from reading the newspapers that a broad sweep of far-right parties was rising across Europe and arriving at the doors of the European Parliament. There has been an increase, to some extent, in the percentage of people voting for Eurosceptic and far-right parties, but I would like to make the point quite clearly that it has been overstated. Perhaps we were a little taken by the rise of UKIP in Britain and the success of the Front Nationale in France, but we should bear in mind that far-right parties won no seats in a majority of member states. In fact, 18 of the 28 member states do not have any far-right representation. Having said that, it is newsworthy that the Front Nationale topped the poll in France and the Danish People's Party topped the poll in Denmark. The question of whether the latter party is a far-right one is open to broad debate. The number of MEPs representing far-right parties, based on a general definition of that term, has increased from 35 to 52. This can be largely attributed to the success of the Front Nationale. Five far-right parties lost representation in the 2014 elections. It should be of interest to Ireland as a bailout country that the far-right did well in just one of the bailout countries. I refer, obviously, to the Golden Dawn party in Greece. The bottom line is that the rise of the far-right has been overstated. The two main parties in the European Parliament are still the two main parties. The EPP lost a not-inconsiderable number of seats, but it is still the largest group. In light of the austerity of the times we live in, it could be considered on some level as a not-unsuccessful election for the EPP.

The turnout, which increased slightly by 0.1%, seems to have levelled off at approximately 43%. There are huge variations across the different countries of Europe. We do quite well, even by comparison with the countries that have compulsory voting. It is obvious that our figures are inflated by virtue of the fact that our local elections are held on the same day. Maybe other member states could take a leaf out of our book on that front. Alternatively, we could all adopt compulsory voting in order to reach the levels of over 90% that have been attained in some countries.

I wish to say a few words about group formation in the European Parliament. Following the elections in May, the last month has been a time of great dynamism. The three main groups have been relatively stable, but there have been huge amounts of movement on the fringes. This issue has been in the news in Ireland today because the European Conservatives and Reformists, ECR, group has managed to oust the Liberals from third place. This is a big story, particularly because an Irish MEP decided at the last moment to become a member of that group. This matters in a lot of ways. The ECR's slight edge over the Liberals will mean that it does quite well in terms of report allocation, plenary speech time and chairmanship of committees. It is clear that the ECR was very keen to make a splash. There was a big battle for MEPs between the ECR and the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group, EFD. UKIP is probably most familiar to us of the members of the EFD. They battled for MEPs from parties like the True Finns and the Danish People's Party, both of which have switched groups.

The European Parliament is very different from a national parliament in the sense that there is a great deal of volatility at election time. There are always many new parties and freshmen MEPs in the European Parliament. Typically, between 70% and 75% of incumbent Deputies are re-elected at an Irish general election, although this was not the case in the 2011 election. The equivalent figure in the European Parliament is never more than 50%, for a variety of reasons. People choose to retire. Life in Brussels is exhausting in some senses. The second-order nature of the elections means there is a great deal of movement. There is always a kind of reinvention of the wheel. Some countries are better at re-electing MEPs than others. Germany has a much higher return rate than Ireland or some of the east European countries. That gives German MEPs an advantage in terms of policy expertise and knowing the ropes of such an institutionally complex legislative environment.

There has been a lot of coverage in this country of the fact that UKIP did so well in Britain. UKIP has formed a group, which will probably have 48 MEPs, and is doing reasonably well. One needs to bear in mind that this group is not ideologically very cohesive. UKIP is in the same group as the Five Star Movement, which is led by the Italian comedian Beppe Grillo. They share a kind of Euroscepticism, but very little else. One of the big stories today is that Le Pen and her colleagues have not managed to form a group. They will be in the European Parliament as Independents because even though they met the numerical criteria, they failed to meet the state membership rule, which requires a group to have MEPs from seven countries. One could argue that over the years, the main groups have made a concerted effort to ostracise some of the more fringe groups by continuing to increase the criteria for membership. As a result, parties like the Austrian Freedom Party, the Dutch Freedom Party, the Le Pen group and Vlaams Belang will not be able to form a far-right political group with rights to make speeches and take plenary time in this Parliament.

It is possible that the European Parliament will not be very different in the new term. The three main traditional groups - the Liberals, the Socialists and the Christian Democrats or EPP - tend to turn up and vote cohesively and that is unlikely to change. The other groups, with the possible exceptions of the Greens and the GUE, find it hard to whip people into line. I am thinking particularly of the fringe far-right and far-left groups. Indeed, they find it hard to get people to turn up to the same extent as the more institutionalised and bigger political groups. The two big political groups will have a majority of MEPs between them. Along with the ALDE, they will have almost two thirds of MEPs. It should be borne in mind that these groups will have a standing arrangement to vote together. It cannot be described as a grand coalition because there is no government resting on a vote of no confidence. There are issues that will divide them. The EPP and the S&D have been explicit about their intention to make their arrangements, which are already consensual, more explicit. Consensus is the hallmark of the European Parliament. For many reasons, it is difficult for those of us who are more familiar with Anglo-Saxon democracies to get our heads around that. The use of trilogues and early informal agreements has risen hugely from approximately 28% in the fifth European Parliament to over 80% in the eighth European Parliament. We should not be obsessed about what happens in Strasbourg. All the decisions are made before that. I imagine we will witness more of that in the future.

Voting cohesion is very high in the European Parliament. Indeed, the three main groups - I include the ALDE in that for the time being - almost always vote together with no division among them on a plurality of votes. There is very little division between the groups because they have sorted it all out beforehand. If everything is decided behind closed doors, for example, in trilogues with the Commission and the Council, it has implications for transparency and democracy but it makes for legislative efficiency. The time that elapses between the proposing of legislation by the Commission and its becoming law has been reduced rather impressively over the last couple of Parliaments. I could continue, but perhaps I have used the seven or eight minutes available to me.

Ms Suzanne Lynch

I will touch on some of the same issues. I will deal with a couple of themes and then move to a broader analysis.

One could see the turn-out in a positive light. It is the first time that the year-on-year decline has been reversed. It has stabilised at 43%. There is a huge disparity between countries such as Belgium, where I voted, and where 90% of people vote, and Slovakia where the turn-out was 13%. There is a trend for quite high votes in the larger countries such as France and Germany, whereas the central and east European countries such as the Czech Republic and Slovenia are down at 20%. Why has the European Parliament not brought these countries, which acceded in the past ten years, along?

The performance of the far right and far left is used as a term to mask greater diversity. There are extremely xenophobic parties such as Jobbik in Hungary and Golden Dawn in Greece and the more moderate parties such as the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, in Britain which is regarded as less extreme than the British National Party. It is true that the European People's Party, EPP, and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, S&D, are still the largest parties but we cannot underestimate the success of these anti-establishment parties. Their strong vote in large founder member countries such as France and Britain means they will have more MEPs which will change the hue of the parliament. It is significant that Marine Le Pen's party, which is anti-European and wants to exit the euro, topped the poll in France, traditionally the most federalist and pro-European country and one which pushed the euro.

The main impact will be felt nationally because the success of the political fringes may force mainstream parties to change their policies somewhat, for example, the British Conservative party is hardening its Eurosceptic stance and anti-immigration policy because of UKIP's rise and because it is losing voters to UKIP. The same is happening in France. President François Hollande is quite strong on anti-immigration policy but arguably if the National Front was not succeeding he might not have been as strong on that issue.

This will solidify consensus among the EPP and S&D members. I have heard people say off the record that there is a concerted move in the parliament to isolate some of these extreme parties. That will encourage the S&D and EPP to work together more. We will know more about the political groupings next week but the fact that Marine Le Pen and Mr. Wilders did not get enough support from the seven countries to form a group is significant. This raises the broader question of how much power the European Parliament really has. We have heard how since the Lisbon treaty in 2009 the European Parliament has gained much more power but the power to initiate legislation still resides with the Commission. The member states have more power through the Council formation. One of the ironies of contemporary history is that the period since 2009, when the parliament should have come into its own, coincided with the bailouts and the eurozone crisis when all the decisions were made at Council and Commission level. The European Parliament had no part in any of the decisions on the Greek and Irish bailouts. The Commission and Council were actively involved in the troika programmes. Maybe now that the eurozone crisis has calmed down a bit the media will take more interest in the parliament and there will be more activity in the parliament when the EU is out of crisis management mode.

One of the outcomes of the elections last month has been the debate about the election of the European Commission President. This did not really engage the public before the elections but it has now become very divisive and quite serious. The Taoiseach is travelling to the summit of EU leaders on Thursday. It now looks likely that Jean-Claude Juncker will be appointed. The debate arose over the so-called spitzenkandidat system. The political groups argue that they interpret a clause in the Lisbon treaty, to the effect that the Council must take account of the elections, as meaning that each party must nominate a candidate and the person with the most votes wins. Britain has taken a very strong stance on this. Traditionally, it has a history of blocking or vetoing European Commission Presidents. The significance this time is that if it goes with Mr. Juncker it will set a precedent and that will continue from now on. Many people from the Parliament say this is a good way to address the democratic deficit between voters and the institutions that represent them. That raises the question of where does or should power reside in the European Union. Should it reside in the European Parliament, the only directly elected institution? Or should it reside in the European Council? The battle is taking place this week in Brussels. Britain is very strongly opposed to the parliament getting more power. It believes it does not have a mandate because the election turn-out is so low. It feels strongly that the job of the European Commission President should not be politicised and that if the parliament gets involved that will politicise a role that should be neutral. Many see the European Commission as a kind of civil service. There are serious debates going on this week in Brussels.

The context for the debate about the EU job that happens every five years has changed because there will probably be a referendum on EU membership in Britain in the next few years. In the past few days there have been hints that the Conservative Party may even campaign for a "Yes" vote to leave the EU after this. There is a danger that this issue of the appointment of the next Commission President will alienate Britain and British voters. It has featured very heavily in the British and German media. A former French leader wrote an opinion piece in Le Monde, that was published in The Guardian, saying that Britain should leave the EU, that there has been enough of Britain making changes and it should just go. It would be interesting to see how the British membership of the EU plays out in the next few years. This debate over the leadership of the European Commission could have serious ramifications for the future of the European Union.

Chairman

I thank Ms Lynch for those comments. This is a very interesting week because of the choice of the next President of the European Commission. It would not be the first time that somebody has been vetoed. Britain aspired to have Chris Patten elected at the beginning of the decade and that was vetoed by its Gallic neighbours.

In respect of the spitzenkandidat, we had many meetings here in advance of the European Parliament elections and people said that having a lead candidate from each party would help to raise awareness among the population at large and make the elections more democratic. Deputy Byrne, Senator Noone and I attended the meeting of the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union, COSAC last weekend in Athens. We discussed the outcome of the European Parliament elections. One of the draft conclusions was that COSAC welcomed the success of the spitzenkandidat as a concept but we removed that conclusion because the feeling across the room was that it was not a success. It may have been a move in the right direction but it certainly could not be called a success. I would be surprised if 5% of the Irish population could name Mr. Juncker, Martin Schulz or Guy Verhofstadt. I do not think their names have crossed over into common parlance.

It was a positive move in the right direction but I do not believe it could be described as a success. It did not make that much difference when it came to the turnout but it is something from which we can learn.

The way the advent of the new MEPs from the far left and far right could lead to some fragmentation of behaviour within the Parliament was mentioned. Many of us as parliamentarians believe there has been a shift in power in the European Parliament since Lisbon II. Moves are under way between myself and my fellow chairmen of EU affairs committees across Europe to try to increase the power of national parliamentarians. If there is fragmentation at European Parliament level it might give national parliaments an opportunity to increase our overall power within the structures of the Union. I would be interested to hear the witnesses' views on that.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I thank the witnesses for their presentations, which were helpful. It is always useful for us to reflect on the opinions of people such as the witnesses who take a broader view than those on this committee of the national Parliament, but it appears that citizens across Europe are disengaging from the European project. We all have a view on the reason that is happening but at a time of crisis, when they see a failure on the part of the institutions to react in a manner they believe benefits them, they tend to withdraw and take a more nationalistic view, which clearly has happened.

Ms Lynch spoke about the Council and the Commission being seen as the institutions that dealt largely with the crisis when, in effect, a more bilateral approach appeared to deal with it - too much between France and Germany. Despite the democratic deficit, to use that great phrase, in which the institutions operate, we ended up having this bilateral arrangement where summits were held on a weekly basis in France and Germany, undermining the institutions in which people had built some trust. It is clear they were not in a position to deal with the crisis, and they did not have their own legal framework. Part of the reason for that had to do with the way the euro project came about without the appropriate mechanisms to deal with the crisis.

It is not surprising that citizens across Europe are becoming more eurosceptic and nationalistic in their outlook because the project people believed in, and it is happening here, was not fit for purpose; it is still not fit for purpose. Much of it is lost because people talk in generalities on occasion but we have some concrete examples now of where the Irish State is looking to Europe regarding the retrospective recapitalisation of the pillar banks. Two years ago a decision was taken at a Council meeting, and the matter is still dragging on. This committee has gone into the minutiae of that across all political parties. It is about banking union and having the appropriate resolution in the event of banks failing again, but it is dragging on and there is no determinate point at which we can say we will resolve that. We get soundings from various officials to the effect that is unlikely or it might not happen, but that further erodes the confidence of citizens in Ireland who seek some type of outcome. They believed a decision had been taken that was positive for Ireland yet it seems to have petered out and withered on the vine, so to speak. The centre of Europe has not been its own best advocate in that regard.

We can even look to the efforts made in Lisbon to try to do away with the democratic deficit and allow more input from citizens on decisions being taken. In terms of the decision on the next Commission President, everybody expected that the Council would be mindful of the results of the Parliament. It is a classic fudge, but the fudge has to be dealt with at some point and we are now dealing with the fallout from that. This wrangling is going on now when it was sold at the time to citizens that if they follow this route the issue they have had about the Commission will be resolved because it will be based on some type of electoral legitimacy and will have an albeit indirect connection to the citizen. However, member states that largely bought into the notion of the collegial way of doing business are now saying that is not what the citizens decided, and they tried to play fast and loose with the rules that were established. It is the institutions themselves and the member states, largely through the Council, that undermine citizens' impression of what should and could happen because they return to secular or national interests, and we have a way to go to get the Council to think more collectively in the best interests of all member states rather than looking at its narrow, nationalistic benefits. At some point we must decide who is in or out.

There is a debate about whether the United Kingdom will remain in the EU. It is vitally important for Ireland that it remains in the European Union but the associate membership it has created for itself is damaging because other member states then begin to wonder if they have more to gain by dislocating themselves somewhat from the EU. It is not surprising that citizens are showing a greater level of euroscepticism when, ultimately, the politicians and the leadership in Europe is disengaging more and not engaging in a proactive way that benefits everybody rather than their own national interests. That is a long-winded way of making my point.

Deputy Dara Murphy

I welcome both witnesses. To contradict what the previous speaker said, people are not disengaging more. We had a higher turnout in the elections. It was marginal and still low but it is inaccurate to say there is greater disengagement. It is probably more accurate to say engagement could be greater. While there has been a strengthening of some of the eurosceptic and far-right groups such as the European Conservatives and Reformists, ECR, which would be very damaging to Irish interests in the positions they take, the reality is that the European People's Party, EPP, is still the biggest party and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, S&D, is the second biggest. In terms of the narrative we seek, we forget sometimes that in Europe the centre very much won, as in Ireland. Fine Gael was the winner of the European elections.

While some of the parties on the other side have done a little better, they are still very much in the minority when it comes to what the people of Europe want. If we combine the EPP and the S&D membership of the Parliament, we can see they have a huge majority, and we can add ALDE to that also. The people of Europe have expressed the view collectively that the European Union's centre way of operating got a huge vote of approval from the people of Europe. It is also a concern, and something we all have to take on board, that the opponents have grown in number but it has been an extremely difficult number of years for the European Union and for many of its member states.

I have questions for both witnesses. I attended an EPP meeting last week, and this follows on from some of the comments made about the United Kingdom. Are the witnesses getting a sense that there is a growing weariness of the "our way against the rest of you" position being taken not just by the Tories but the British generally, and that the European countries are becoming fed up with it?

I agree with Deputy Timmy Dooley that it is very much in our national interest to have a strong United Kingdom within Europe. Are we getting lonely as one of the nations standing up for Britain's membership? Is there a growing sense in Europe of "if you want to go, off with you"? My second question is a bit technical, it is about a comparison between our system and the various systems of electing MEPs and the list system. The witnesses referred to the churn of membership. I suggest the reason for a low churn in Germany is that it tends to replace people at the top of their lists. I would be interested to hear the pros and cons of the list system and how it would impact in our little republic.

Chairman

I thank Deputy Dara Murphy. I call Deputy Eric Byrne.

Deputy Eric Byrne

Ostensibly, I think I heard the witnesses analyse the outcome to the election between Left and Right extremist parties. The statistics show that the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats are still the strongest groups in the European Parliament. At the outset we should congratulate Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP, on his decision to opt for a different grouping to that for which he was supposedly elected. We have heard it said that he was the ALDE candidate. In a sense he is doing Irish citizens a favour by allowing this controversy to raise its head. What would ALDE have meant to the Irish electorate? In trying to analyse the reason for the growth of the extreme Left and the extreme Right, we look to the statistics and some of those from both wings who have been elected to the parliament. I will cite some of the political groupings such as I Believe in Slovenia; Earth Party, in Portugal; Politics can be Different, in Hungary; Animal Rights Party in the Netherlands; the Pirate Party in Germany; We Can, in Spain; another called Citizens, another called-----

Deputy Timmy Dooley

The best party in Ireland must be the Labour Party.

Deputy Eric Byrne

-----the Peoples Decide Coalition in Spain. There are many more examples. What I am trying to elicit from the witnesses' practical knowledge about what is going on in Europe is whether we should be surprised there are so many groupings going forward? After all we are a community of 28 nations. Within some of those nations, unlike Ireland where we have a single border and, two religions, Catholic and Protestant, there may be a dozen borders with various minority groups such as Greeks, Hungarians or Poles living there. There are far more complex political issues to deal with than in Ireland. What does it mean for all these disparate weird groups being elected throughout Europe? A little closer to home, Mr. Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, MEP, got 50% of the electoral support in his constituency. Does it mean anything to the Irish electorate that some have the title S&D after their names, some have Christian Democrats or the EPP and, if not, what does it say about the electorate? Let us concentrate on the Irish electorate. Are they really voting for MEPs on the basis that as European MEPs they are going to do something very specific, very political, on behalf of Ireland Inc.? My fear is that it does not, and is not working that way.

My final question centres on the debate on Brian Crowley, MEP. It appears to me that horsetrading is taking place. If so how does it work? It seems to me that this man has got a better deal from his new grouping than he had from ALDE. What type of services are these groupings providing to individual MEPs? What type of seduction takes place? A former colleague MEP, who had left the Labour Party which is a social democratic party ended up in the Social Democratic Party grouping in Europe. Can the witnesses analyse what the people of Ireland are telling their MEPs to do on behalf of Ireland Inc.? Does S&D, L&N, MS, M5 or PD after one's name have any relevance whatsoever?

Chairman

I call Deputy Seán Kyne.

Deputy Seán Kyne

I thank the Chairman. I welcome both witnesses to the discussion on the European Parliament elections and its broader history. On the turnout issue, Ireland would have had a reduction in turnout. When Ireland became a member of the EEC, as it was then, the whole concept of direct elections was coming into being and there would have been a new process for all the countries involved. In regard to new entrant countries, such as Slovenia, are the witnesses surprised at its turnout rate of 13%? Does that correspond to a lower turnout in its national or local elections? Is it the case that as this a new democratic process for Slovenia in terms of European Elections that it would have such a low turnout?

On the issue of the turnover, I put that question to the Minister of State, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, when he appeared before the committee recently. Does the retirement rate for the European Parliament damage the interest in the process - not so much in Ireland - across Europe as the well-known faces are not seeking re-election? There is also a high replacement rate even in Ireland in terms of Members of the European Parliament.

In regard to the spitzenkandidat , was the lack of engagement, the methodology or the fact that they would not have been household names, albeit, very important and strong Europeans in terms of Mr. Juncker and Mr. Schulz, an issue? If the candidates were Ms Merkel, Mr. Sarkozy, Ms Legarde or Mr. Barroso would they have generated a greater level of debate across Europe than the two very strong and experienced candidates who would have gone forward?

Chairman

I call Senator Paul Bradford.

Senator Paul Bradford

I welcome the witnesses. We may be beating ourselves excessively in terms of electoral turnout and what it means. We have to concede that on 23 May, of the 51% or 52% of people in the Republic who cast their vote, at least 95% of those went to the polling booth to vote for the local election candidates. Let us be honest, the European ballot paper was secondary. That is the way it has always been. If people try to say otherwise I ask them to reflect back to 1984, which was the only year in which the Irish European Elections was held separate from local elections. In the 1980s the average Irish turnout would have been 70% plus but I think the turnout on European election day in 1984 was about 40%.

I do not think we should be shocked that the European election campaign did not particularly engage the voters. We have to be thankful that more than half the people voted. We must accept the fact that they actually voted in the local elections and while they were at the polling station they filled out the European election ballot paper. The challenge is how to enthuse people to take a more pro-active part from a candidate perspective, a party perspective and a voter perspective in the European election campaign. In that regard, Deputy Dara Murphy asked the witnesses to reflect on the electoral system. I look forward to their response to that issue. We are permanently debating the electoral system. The Oireachtas debates parliamentary party issues and the Constitutional Convention but we have not really progressed. If we want to be politically brave and innovative we could certainly use the European elections to look at an alternative electoral system. Nobody can claim that the current three constituencies of enormous size make any sense.

The nearest MEP for a person in County Wicklow, just a few miles out of south Dublin, geographically, is Deirdre Clune who is based on Cork city. Will the delegation comment on this aspect of the electoral system?

I also want to raise the issue of how candidates advertised themselves on their posters and so forth. Candidates should show the emblem of their European political affiliation rather than their home political party. For example, Deirdre Clune was on the ballot paper as “Deirdre Clune, Fine Gael” when she should have been “Deirdre Clune, European People’s Party”. This would bring home to the voter that the candidate is not simply representing a narrow, national political party but a broader political movement. What is the delegation’s view on this?

In my time in the Oireachtas, we have had only one weekend poll. Over a decade ago, we had two by-elections in south Tipperary within 12 months. The first by-election took place on a Friday and was won by Deputy Seamus Healy. The subsequent by-election, 12 months later, was won by the then Senator Tom Hayes, which was expected. As that poll was held on a Saturday, turnout increased substantially. I believe there is a better prospect of enhancing voter turnout on weekends. If we are serious about getting the electorate to vote, voting should be over a day and a half such as all day Saturday, half day Sunday or vice versa. We must be a little different in this regard and I would like to hear the delegation’s views on this.

We are getting a little bogged down with the victory of the eurosceptics in these elections. Looking at the local election results, one could say there was a politics-sceptic victory with the big block parties rejected. The eurosceptic results were not a huge sensation across Europe as economic conditions had impacted. We have seen all of this before.

It was obvious that the aspect of the European elections concerning the European Commission presidency did not take off here. No one went to a polling station to vote for a candidate because it would determine the choice for Commission President. Some years ago, former Taoiseach, John Bruton, proposed the Commission President should be directly elected by the citizens of Europe. This was also official policy of my former party, Fine Gael, as it was passed at a party Ard-Fheis. Should the lead candidates for the Commission presidency present themselves before the citizens of Europe?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Why is there so much scepticism about Europe? Why are so many people anti-European? Why is it more popular to be anti-Europe than pro-Europe? In the middle of the last century, it was necessary to be pro-European in a new embracing way in the aftermath of the Second World War. That challenge has gone and economic challenges have risen in their stead.

The European Union has been demonised by individual member states for domestic political purposes and reasons of political expediency from time to time. We can analyse as much as we like after that but that is the way it goes. There has been a huge welter of anti-Europeanism in the UK for some time, for example. Why is that so? Europe is seen as admonishing with EU administrations imposing add-ons of a punitive nature whenever the European Commission or institutions see fit. For example, the main factor associated with anti-Europeanism in this country is probably penalties and fines for non-compliance with EU regulations on climate change, carbon emissions, fisheries and agriculture. These are fines for regulations that were accepted by our Administration. The theory is that Europe is imposing these on us. Europe does not impose any regulations but merely sets out the general broad agenda, proposes a directive which is then decided by member states. A member state can accept, reject or amend a directive. For example, conservation orders and turf-cutting regulations are all lumped together by people who blame the European system for them. To my mind, these claims have undermined the concept of the modern European Union to an extent that is dangerous.

Replacement candidates for European elections should be voted for as well.

Chairman

Does the Deputy mean in by-elections?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

No, on the day of the European election. This would give the people the chance to decide who a replacement candidate would be.

How do we address the problems now arising in the European Union? If we the people of Europe continue in the direction in which we are headed, we will see an end to the Europe which we inherited at the beginning of this century. This would be a sad development. It is inevitable this will happen if we do not get in front of the issues perceived to be causing concern which are alienating Europe from the people. We have spent much time making Europe more relevant and part of the people. It has reached over the national administrations to deal directly with the people, which is not such a good idea. We need to address those issues.

Why are so many people anti-European? Why is there a growing number of people vehemently indisposed towards the European concept? Why do we allow legislation to pass, albeit coming from Brussels but originating from our own national institutions, which then comes back to bite us on the tail and generates antipathy towards the European Union?

We distance ourselves from them and say we cannot have that appalling bureaucratic system. We have to join up all the systems and the thinking and try to return to where we were in terms of encouraging European people to take possession of Europe. Each member state has a duty to take possession of the European project. Once they move away from taking ownership of the European project, for whatever reason, the project will die.

Chairman

I thank Deputy Durkan for that contribution. We raised this topic at the COSAC meeting last week, as we had agreed to raise it on the Deputy's behalf.

We have ranged over many subjects, some of it very relevant and some of it perhaps not so relevant. I will leave it up to our guests to decide on which questions they answer. I suggest that Professor McElroy will start the discussion.

Professor Gail McElroy

I thank the Deputies for their broad-ranging input. In no particular order, and I will not answer all the questions, I will start with the question on the role for the national parties, which Deputy Hannigan mentioned.

I would be concerned going forward given the fast-tracking of legislation and even though national parliaments have been empowered under the Lisbon treaty that the timeline for input from the national parliaments is very tight and the move towards more informal trilogue agreements means that despite the theoretical input from the national parliaments, in reality national parliaments are not particularly strengthened in the decision-making process.

Chairman

In spite of the reforms of the yellow card process?

Professor Gail McElroy

Possibly, yes. Of course, the issues have gone to the sectoral committee and this may be a loss to the Dáil. The membership of the European Affairs committee are very interested in Europe and are passionate about it but perhaps it is not the top of the agenda of the legislation going to individual committees, but that is a debate for another day.

Every time the European Parliament elections happen, we have a conversation on the citizens disengaging from the process. There never was some glory time when the citizens were heavily informed and deeply passionate about the European Union. There was a permissive consensus, if anything, that broke down about 20 years ago. Deputy Durkan touched on many of the reasons that we have become more Eurosceptic. It is very convenient to blame Europe. There is a great deal of blame-shifting by national parliaments. Decision making is incredibly complex, as members well know, in the European Union and most citizens are not that interested in getting their head around the nature of the relations between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament, co-decision, co-operation and assent. It is very complex. This is problematic.

There is a role for the media. It may be a chicken and egg scenario in that Europe does not get coverage in the media in most of the EC countries. Some of the Scandinavian countries are better at covering it but they are becoming more Eurosceptic. It is not clear if the people are uninformed because the media does not cover it or the media does not cover it because the people do not care about it. It is a case of dual causality. Perhaps if one really wants to engage people then the Erasmus Plus and Socrates Plus programmes offer a move toward that. Some of the more successful arrangements for making people passionate about the European Union, are the daily interaction. People need to be reminded of the advantages of the Schengen Agreement, the eurozone and those kinds of issues. Much of the legislation coming out from the European Union is very technical and it is very hard to get people interested in lawn mower noise or bendy bananas, that is not an issue - but it is one that the British media went with.

There was some comment on the electoral system and we could spend all day speaking about the electoral systems. Certainly it is a factor that almost two thirds of German MEPs are returned, given the closed list system where the party gets to rank the candidates and there is not that degree of shifting. If I were to suggest one simple change as a way of changing the electoral system for the European elections in Ireland, it would be to increase the district magnitude as it would make it more proportional to have the country as one entity. One would lose the geographical connection, but we have lost it. Members have touched on the fact that the geographic connection is no longer there. With an 11 seater constituency one would approach better levels of proportionality. Three seater constituencies are problematic. The magic number is five or six for district magnitude. That would be one option. I am not sure but I do not think it would require a constitutional change; however, I am not a constitutional lawyer. I think it would be an easy change and would lead to greater proportionality.

On the question of branding of the candidates, there was some branding on the election posters, but it was definitely in a much smaller font than that of their political parties, such as the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil names. Deputy Byrne touched on this point, however, people are not aware of the groupings in the European Parliament. They have no clue and they do not care which parties the MEPs are in. That is not confined to Ireland but is replicated across the European Union. The European elections are second order elections, they are protest elections, people are voting on national issues. It is an old chestnut. One cannot force feed people information and to be interested in European elections. To some extent the switch by an Irish MEP to another party has given some coverage, to the remarkable fact that more than 150 national parties from the 28 member states managed to coalesce into seven or eight groups. Did the MEP have a mandate to join the ALDE group? Probably not, most people who voted for him did not know what group he was in.

Switching is very common in the European Parliament. It is not so common for British MEPs although there have been incidents of British and Irish MEPs switching but it is very common for the French and Italians. There are bizarre situations that half of the French from one group will be in different groups in the European Parliament and that is perfectly acceptable. It has not been the Irish tradition, and this is perhaps very controversial, in that one can have different parties from the same country in the same group in the European Parliament, even if they are on opposition and government benches. The Italians are famous for that. It is unlikely to happen for British or Irish parties but it certainly is an option.

On the question of what Brian Crowley, MEP, got from the ECR, I cannot speculate on that but by it becoming the third largest group there will be funding advantages.

Chairman

When the posts of the vice presidencies and other positions are up for grabs, presumably -----

Professor Gail McElroy

Absolutely, the chairmanship of committee and when reports are being allocated because it is a d'Hondt system.

Chairman

There may be additional facilities, such as cars and drivers and so on.

Professor Gail McElroy

Not so much. One might get better offices. With the funds one gets, one can justify a larger administrative staff and those sorts of things. What MEPs want is the chairmanships, reports and plenary time because that is where one will, to some extent, get media coverage. Plenary session is not where the action happens; if one wants to influence the legislation, one does not go to Strasbourg when they are voting on it. That is way too late, all the action has happened prior to that.

How can we boost turn-out for the European Parliament elections? We are doing a good job by holding the elections on the same day as the local elections. Holding the elections at weekends definitely increases turnout by a couple of percentage points. Sunday elections in particular seem to be beneficial but we should not berate ourselves too much, as we achieved a 52% turnout. If one takes out the countries with compulsory voting, although compulsory voting is not really that punitive in some of the countries, we are doing reasonably well, although it dropped from the previous time.

The Spitzenkandidaten did not capture the public imagination but oddly, with the negative coverage now, it is getting some play in the media. Is there any such thing as bad publicity? It will be interesting to watch what happens in the next couple of days. It seems that the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, S&D, will back Jean-Claude Juncker and in exchange Martin Schulz gets to continue to be the European Parliament President for the first two and a half years of the legislative session. He will probably be an EP candidate down the line. The big story is the consensus and agreement going forward between these two parties. There are issues on which they are divided, being a centre left party and a centre right party. One issue to watch will be the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The S&D are more sceptical about it. That will also be a big divisive issue for the European Conservative and Reformist, ECR, Party.

Chairman

And GUE.

Professor Gail McElroy

The ECR have brought in one of the new parties, the Alternative für Deutschland, AfD, which are pro increasing relations towards Russia and are very much against the transatlantic relationship. That will be a big issue on the agenda going forward. There will be the usual talk of reform and all of these sorts of things. I will now hand over to Ms Suzanne Lynch.

Ms Suzanne Lynch

I will start on that final point. One of the things I did not touch on is the new issues for the next five years. We all know that water charges featured in the debates on the European elections. Obviously that has nothing to do with the European Parliament. We are one country out of the 28 member states and there were different issues on the doorsteps in other countries, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP. We are quite aware of the TTIP negotiations in Ireland and the farming lobby is quite strong on this issue, but in Germany and Austria it was an issue on the doorsteps. The German people are very aware of this agreement and very against it. I am generalising slightly but Angela Merkel brought it up with Obama at the G7, referring to chlorinated chicken. An Irishman will be leading these negotiations for the EU over the next five years. It is a significant issue and definitely there must be more public awareness of it. In one of our own media outlets, a Deputy was reported as speaking of the positive benefits it will have for business in Ireland. One would not be having the same conversation in Germany, Austria and countries like that.

I know from talking to journalists there that it is a huge issue.

Immigration is another issue that explains the Eurosceptic vote. It is not an issue here to the same extent. People might feel uncomfortable about the reality that it is a huge issue. If one turns on a current affairs television programme in France, it is likely that one will see people talking about Islam and about immigration. I recently visited a refugee camp in Bulgaria that is accommodating immigrants coming in through Syria. This is a huge issue in Greece. Approximately 90% of immigrants come in through Greece. Immigration will be a huge issue during the forthcoming Italian Presidency of the European Union. We seem to be missing this in Ireland.

Data protection is another issue that could have implications for us. Germany is really interested in it. The revelations about Snowden will impinge on the EU-US trade talks as well. This could have implications for Ireland down the line, given that we host many Internet companies. Many of them have their European headquarters here. This issue will be one to watch in the next five years.

I would like to mention another matter that is potentially worrying for Ireland. Olli Rehn, who is the outgoing Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and who played a crucial role in the Irish bailout, will have an even bigger role now that he has been elected to the European Parliament. Obviously, he is extremely experienced. Two weeks ago, he told a breakfast briefing in Brussels, which was organised by European Movement Ireland, that corporation tax and aggressive tax planning were an issue on the doorsteps when he was campaigning in Finland.

Chairman

This could be an issue.

Ms Suzanne Lynch

This is going to be an issue in light of the hue of the new European Parliament. Even the right-wing parties are economically nationalist and anti-globalisation. We are into this whole issue. The investigation into tax in Ireland and two other countries, which was launched a few weeks ago even though tax is not within the remit of the European Union, is setting a precedent that Europe can get involved by examining different tax structures. It has to be said that this issue is by no means confined to Ireland. There is now a focus on patent boxes. Nine countries, including Britain, are being investigated for the use of a specific technique that allows companies to pay less tax on activities involving patented inventions. Some of these issues will be on the agenda in the next five years.

I was interested to hear what was said about the consensus between the EPP and the S&D. They said in the press release they issued yesterday that they hope "to find a lasting solution to the crisis not based on the policies of the past". This might be a bit optimistic for some people. I envisage that there will be a new discussion about the policy of austerity. Last weekend, Francois Hollande held a mini summit of left-of-centre leaders, including the Italian, Austrian and Danish premiers, at which they decided to back Jean-Claude Juncker. It appears that Italy, in particular, is pushing for greater flexibility on the debt and deficit targets set by Brussels. Ireland is talking about providing for cuts of €2 billion in the budget in the context of the rules imposed by Brussels. That conversation is also taking place in other countries, including much bigger countries like Italy and France that are under big pressure to meet their debt targets. The Italian debt-to-GDP ratio is huge.

Perhaps all of this can be seen as positive in the sense that the European Parliament is more likely to hold the Commission to account for its economic policies, many of which were launched as crisis mechanisms. It seems that all parts of the European Parliament are hoping to shift the emphasis away from fiscal consolidation to investment. When Herman Van Rompuy circulated a letter to leaders before Thursday's summit setting out the priorities for the next five years, he spoke about things like public disenchantment with the EU, the need for renewal and the need for investment. That could be a kind of trend we see over the next five years as a way to connect with the proportion of voters who are disillusioned.

I think we will all agree that people in Ireland did not vote on the basis of the spitzenkandidat system, even though Jean-Claude Juncker was elected in Ireland. It was a big issue in Germany, however. I know German and Austrian journalists in Brussels who are heavily in favour of this system. It has been suggested that this is because Martin Schulz is German and Jean-Claude Juncker is fluent in German. One can imagine that we would probably have been a bit more engaged if there had been an Irish candidate. The system was also backed in France, where Francois Hollande was a strong supporter of Martin Schulz. Some of the bigger powers are behind the spitzenkandidat system. I suppose it is only natural. Given that we have just 11 of the 751 MEPs, Ireland is lucky to continue to have huge influence in Brussels. The big issue at the moment for the east European countries is Russia, Ukraine and gas. Obviously, we are geographically far removed from it. This will be a big issue for many countries in the next five years. Issues like energy and foreign policy could end up becoming the crucial centre of gravity in EU decision-making in the years to come. They could replace the economic story. Our MEPs who are starting their new five-year terms will need to have views on all of these matters. These issues - not water charges, unfortunately - will be to the fore in the coming years.

Chairman

On behalf of the committee, I thank Professor McElroy and Ms Lynch for attending today's meeting and answering our questions. It has been a very informative meeting. The committee has a number of items to discuss in private session.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.16 p.m. and adjourned at 3.20 p.m until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 3 July 2014.