I thank the Chairman for the introduction, which fully describes me as head of the European Commission representation in Ireland. I am delighted to have been invited to this joint committee meeting on the review of the constitutional referendum process. I have been following the committee's deliberations closely. The discussions so far have examined the existing arrangements for the referendum process, with particular attention paid to the three principal judicial decisions and their resulting interpretation by the stakeholders involved. These interpretations have led to a multifaceted process which, by the nature of the conditions required to call a referendum, is not frequently used and can, therefore, be complicated for all of the actors involved, and for the electorate, to negotiate. This has ramifications for the ratification in Ireland of future European Union treaties.
In my opening remarks I would like to refer to questions relating to sovereignty and the European Union. The Lisbon treaty has, in many ways, pushed the boundaries of the current system and I note that this has been referred to frequently in the committee's deliberations so far. The Irish Constitution was drafted some time before Ireland's accession into the European Economic Community in 1973 and the relevant articles were designed to ensure the validity of the Constitution. They sought to guarantee that this validity would be protected and that any amendment to the Constitution could only occur through a national referendum. Since 1937 there have been 28 proposed amendments to the Constitution, the majority of which have been based on short and relatively concise textual changes to its contents and provisions. The issues at hand were, at times, socially contentious but, compared with some of the recent EU referenda, were somewhat less complex regarding the decision-making process required of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the electorate.
Since 1972 there have been seven referenda on European treaties. The EU has developed, our involvement in it has increased, due to closer integration, and we need to reap the benefits. Issues to be considered in these referenda have increased exponentially. When voting in referenda on EU treaties we must now consider issues of national and European importance which requires the provision of considerably more information on the subject matter with each referendum. In short, we are dealing with a far larger playing field and need to address this appropriately.
We must also reflect on questions of sovereignty as this is a very complex and contentious area of law and reality. I have always believed that membership of the EU affords Ireland, and all member states, greater and more amplified sovereignty than could be conceivable for a nation state acting in isolation. In the context of membership, I have never been comfortable with notions of giving up or ceding sovereignty. While I fully recognise that changes to Ireland's constitutional order are matters for the people to decide, I am not sure that the concept of sovereignty, in the context of the European Union, has been fully considered. I hope the committee gives this matter consideration in the course of its deliberations. I believe it is more than a merely theoretical or legal issue; the question goes to the very heart of the relationships member states have with each other. The pooling and sharing of sovereignty in clearly defined areas has amplified our individual and collective sovereignty within the EU and beyond.
I now refer to the letter I sent you recently, dated 17 November, enclosing a copy of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, BCC, decision on radio advertisements. I refer, particularly, to the decision of the BCC on a local radio messaging campaign which the Commission representation conducted in 2006. These were a series of messages developed in the context of a "going local" initiative to talk directly with citizens. The purpose of the advertisements was to alert citizens to the different sources of information on European matters and to highlight the existence of a freefone telephone number where they could address any question on European Union issues. We prefaced each advertisement with a rapid fact about the Union, and a total of 11 different messages were delivered across the local radio network. Following a complaint to the BCC that these were of a political nature, we, as the European Commission, pointed out to the BCC that we were not a political party and did not contest elections. We said we were anxious to inform citizens of European Union matters, something which almost everyone, including all the governments of all member states agreed we should do, and that all the messages we delivered were established facts designed to inform citizens about the workings of the European Union and alert them to the rights conferred by European Union legislation. The BCC took the view that the messages were of a political nature and, therefore, contravened the ban on advertising aimed towards a political end.
This matter should prompt consideration of the legislation governing broadcasting in this State. If all of the member states agree that citizens should be informed on European Union issues it seems at variance with that objective that legislation should be interpreted to exclude the European Union and one of its institutions from delivering information in the most efficient and effective ways available. At the very least, a more comprehensive definition of "political" should be considered in the context of advertising, specifically in the broadcast media.
I would not like to be interpreted as suggesting that this decision constrains the European Commission from advertising, on radio or otherwise. However, the wide-ranging interpretation of the BCC as to the role and remit of the European Commission is at variance with our remit under the treaties establishing the European Union. The decision, potentially, impedes the general public from receiving information about the Union.
On communicating Europe and how that can be done, it has become clear that the Irish public may not be fully of the role and ambit of the European Union. It is clear that there is a significant information deficit between the Irish people and the European Union. This is so in many other, if not all, member states of the Union. This must be addressed so that Irish and European citizens can make informed decisions regarding European affairs in the future. I noted that Professor Michael Marsh, in his presentation to the joint committee on 25 November, stated that we know less than the average European on European Union affairs and that press coverage on such affairs is lower in Ireland than in other member states. This is impeding us in making fully informed choices regarding our role in the European Union. During her address to the Sub-Committee on Ireland's future in the European Union last month, the European Commission Vice President, Margot Wallström, said a solution to this dilemma needs the engagement of Irish people, families and individuals, who felt they lacked information and understanding about the Lisbon treaty. It also needs the engagement of women and young people, who the polls show felt alienated and unsure, and the socially excluded, who felt they did not have a sufficient stake in change. In the absence of clear information and communication, ill-informed or not fully informed concerns and fears will take root and grow.
The European Commission believes that reaching a solution must involve improving the current systems of communicating Europe and conveying what benefits Ireland's Union membership brings, as well as establishing what membership means to Irish citizens. It also requires that we explain how the Union works, the roles of the institutions, voting arrangements, the use and benefit of vetoes and where they apply, as well as Ireland's position on different EU policy issues. This means reaching out to wider audiences and using all media formats available, from radio and television to the Internet. To identify what needs to be done, we need to listen and respond to people's concerns.
Whatever the format, we need to communicate in easily accessible language which people can understand and to which they can relate. Increasing people's understanding is largely a matter for domestic policy, particularly in the education sphere, but we in the European Commission are ready, willing and able to assist the State's education sector as required. We have a great deal of pedagogic material and a variety of educational content for both teachers and students, which should enable us to take a long-term approach.
There is a more immediate need to communicate what we do on a day-to-day basis and what concrete action we are taking on specific policy initiatives. The communications endeavour must be a partnership arrangement on the part of the Commission, the European Parliament and member states. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs signalled, in the coming days the Commission will sign a memorandum of understanding on communicating in partnership with the Irish Government and the European Parliament and that will provide a stronger basis in the future for our joint communications initiatives.
I thank the Chairman and members for their attention. I am available to answer questions and to provide any other information they require.
