Gerry Adams
Question:17 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has any plans to meet with the new Spanish Prime Minister. [37289/11]
View answerTuesday, 13 December 2011
Questions (32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56)
Micheál Martin
Question:18 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail the nature and content of all documents regarding the reform of the EU and the eurozone which he has circulated to other Heads of State or Government since March. [37366/11]
View answerMicheál Martin
Question:19 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on his discussions with President Van Rompuy. [37367/11]
View answerMicheál Martin
Question:20 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if it is his intention to publish his proposals for reform of the EU and eurozone in advance of 9 December. [37368/11]
View answerMicheál Martin
Question:21 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on preparations for the next EU Council meeting. [37369/11]
View answer
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:22 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if there has been further progress in his attempts to meet President Sarkozy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37393/11]
View answerRichard Boyd Barrett
Question:23 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the agenda for the meeting of EU leaders on 9 December 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37394/11]
View answerRichard Boyd Barrett
Question:24 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised the question of protecting democracy in Europe in the context of proposed treaty changes at the meeting of EU leaders on 9 December 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37395/11]
View answerRichard Boyd Barrett
Question:25 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised the contrasting approaches and outcomes of Iceland’s methods of dealing with the economic crisis as against those being pursued in the eurozone at the meeting of EU leaders on 9 December 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37396/11]
View answerRichard Boyd Barrett
Question:26 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if tax harmonisation was part of the treaty changes envisaged for the EU at the meeting of EU leaders on 9 December 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37397/11]
View answerRichard Boyd Barrett
Question:27 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised the issue of the mandate and role of the ECB within the eurozone at the meeting of EU leaders on 9 December 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37398/11]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:28 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his priorities at the next EU Council meeting on 9 December. [38440/11]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:29 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has been in contact with the President of France or the German Chancellor in relation to the propositions they have agreed for the modification of the EU treaties. [38441/11]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:30 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the issues that he prioritised at the EU summit meeting on 9 December 2011. [38564/11]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:31 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the issue of changes to the operation of the EFSF was discussed at the EU summit meeting on 9 December 2011; and his approach to this issue. [38565/11]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:32 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if proposals for treaty change were discussed at the EU summit on 9 December 2011. [38566/11]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:33 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the approach that he took to proposals for treaty change at the EU summit meeting on 9 December 2011. [38567/11]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:34 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the issue of fiscal discipline was discussed at the EU summit on 9 December 2011; and the approach he will take on that issue. [38568/11]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:35 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the role of the ECB within the eurozone was discussed at the EU summit on 9 December 2011; and the approach that he adopted on that issue. [38569/11]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:36 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contacts he had with Chancellor Merkel or President Sarkozy in advance of the EU summit meeting on 9 December 2011. [38570/11]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:37 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contacts the Government has had with the President of the EU Council, Mr. Hermann Van Rompuy, on the issue of treaty change in advance of the EU summit on 9 December 2011. [38571/11]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:38 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the visits abroad he has planned in the time ahead. [38572/11]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:39 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings with other leaders he has planned in the time ahead. [38573/11]
View answerMicheál Martin
Question:40 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he attended any bilaterals at the Council meeting of 9 December; the issues that were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39755/11]
View answerRichard Boyd Barrett
Question:41 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he has discussed the Irish budget 2012 with his counterparts at the European summit meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39782/11]
View answerOral answers (50 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 to 41, inclusive, together.
I attended the European Council in Brussels on 8 and 9 December. As I will be making a statement to the House tomorrow, I will confine myself to some brief remarks about the meetings.
Discussions at the Council were dominated by the overall economic circumstances in Europe with a particular view to overcoming the crisis currently facing the euro area, including President Van Rompuy's interim report on strengthened economic governance in the euro area, including the possibility of limited treaty change. We made important progress, both on firewalls and budget discipline, two key elements of the package for Ireland that I had highlighted ahead of the meeting. We agreed to bring forward the entry into force of the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, to July 2012 and to reassess the overall ceiling of the EFSF and ESM of €500 billion in March 2012.
The Council agreed that the requirement for private sector involvement, PSI, be removed from the draft ESM treaty. This was one of the specific issues I raised with President Van Rompuy and Chancellor Merkel in advance of last week's meeting, and I am pleased that it has now been agreed. This is very good news for countries such as Ireland, which are trying to get back to the financial markets at as early a stage as possible.
To further increase the economic firepower available, euro area member states are to consider, and confirm within ten days, that they will provide up to €200 billion in bilateral loans to the IMF. We are also looking forward to contributions from the international community.
While the question of the ECB's mandate did not arise, I very much welcome its recent decision to make unlimited three-year loans to Europe's banks at low interest rates. This should have a real impact in moving us beyond the current crisis phase.
On economic governance, we reached a political agreement to strengthen our rules to ensure greater stability in the eurozone, building on the Stability and Growth Pact. Euro area member states are now committed, as a rule, not to run structural deficits above 0.5% of GDP, and will write such a provision into their national laws. A member state in breach, in partnership with the Commission, will have to engage in a process to get back on track within a given timeframe. The significant progress being made by Ireland through implementation of its programme was again recognised by partners.
In my contribution, I set out for colleagues the uniquely onerous burden the Irish people are carrying as a result of the steps we have taken to recapitalise our banks. Specifically, I asked at the Council meeting that facilities that now exist — for example, through the EFSF — be made available to assist in making this burden more manageable. Colleagues gave me a receptive hearing and, together with the Minister for Finance, I will be pursuing the issue in the period ahead. I am confident we will be able to make positive progress in a way that makes a real difference for Ireland.
What we achieved last week was a political agreement. Work will now be taken forward on how to give it legal effect. I am, of course, disappointed that it did not prove possible to reach agreement on a way forward for all 27 parties. I regret that certain member states will be outside the new arrangements and that we must now proceed by way of an intergovernmental treaty outside the EU treaties.
There is a great deal of complex legal and technical detail to be filled out by March, when we will return to the matter. We will study the legal implications of what has been agreed very carefully, including whether a referendum will be necessary in Ireland. For now, it is simply too soon to say. However, the House can be assured we will do whatever is required to ensure that Ireland can ratify the new agreement.
For the reassurance of the House, I can confirm that last week's political agreement does not include any provision on corporation tax. The position in that regard and the Government's firm position remain unchanged.
The European Council tracked progress under the Euro Plus Pact in which 23 member states, including Ireland, participate. The meeting also followed-up on the issue of energy, last discussed by the European Council in February of this year. In addition, enlargement issues featured, and the signature of the Croatian accession treaty took place in the margins of the meeting. The European Council also agreed conclusions on Iran, Syria and Afghanistan.
I have on several occasions outlined for the House how these meetings are prepared. President Van Rompuy circulates the proposed agenda and draft conclusions are prepared. These are generally discussed in several fora, both political and official, ahead of the meeting proper, and Ireland engages very actively as part of the process, sometimes orally at meetings and sometimes by way of written comments circulated to all member states. Ireland is well represented at these preparatory meetings and our views are known and understood.
In addition, ahead of last week's meeting I wrote to President Van Rompuy to outline a number of concerns for this country. I developed those points during my interventions at the European Council meeting. I also spoke to him and to the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, prior to leaving for Brussels. As the House will be aware, I also met Chancellor Merkel on 16 November, ahead of last week's meeting. I also ensured that the President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso, was fully briefed.
With regard to my future travel plans, I will attend the European Council meetings in March, June, October and December of next year and any other meetings arranged in the interim. Work is ongoing between my officials and those of French President Sarkozy to arrange a mutually convenient date on which to meet in the new year.
I had an opportunity to meet the Prime Minister-elect of Spain, Mariano Rajoy, at the EPP meeting which took place last week in Marseilles ahead of the European Council. I congratulated him on his election and indicated that I look forward to working with him in the future. On the basis of substantive business interests, I will also evaluate carefully the need for any further travel plans as we begin our work in 2012.
Finally, Iceland is not a member of the euro or the European Union and, therefore, its economic situation did not arise at the recent meeting.
As just over 90 seconds remain, I ask Deputies to put short supplementary questions to the Taoiseach and we will try to get a reply.
I have tabled 13 questions and I do not consider this to be an adequate response to them. My first question pertained to the peace process in the Basque country and the majority of the remaining questions concerned the summit. We develop working relationships as we come to know the people with whom we work. I took note of what I understood the Taoiseach to say this morning in response to my questions about the letter——
Deputy, please.
——he received from Mr. Van Rompuy. The note that I——
Sorry Deputy, that does not relate to your original questions.
The Taoiseach has revisited this issue three or four times.
I am going to have to call time. The other Deputies will not get a chance to ask their supplementary questions.
I tabled 13 questions.
I know that but I cannot do anything about it.
Can we revert to them?
No——
How do we straighten out this issue when the Taoiseach accuses me of misrepresenting——
The Deputy has to ask a supplementary question relating to his original question on foot of the reply given by the Taoiseach. This is Question Time and the rules apply to everybody.
I am allowed to set out the context and I tabled 13 questions. Why on earth would I bother to put down 13 questions if I am not going to be allowed the opportunity to——
The Deputy did not table questions in relation to this morning's meeting.
With respect, I asked specifically about the letter to Mr. Van Rompuy.
That is not about this morning's meeting.
I know but we discussed it this morning.
I cannot deal with this morning's meeting.
The Taoiseach stated that I misrepresented what he said but I did not misrepresent him.
The Deputy can deal with that matter in a separate way but other Deputies also want to ask supplementary questions.
I am under duress.
Deputy Martin tabled five parliamentary questions and Deputy Boyd Barrett tabled seven.
I ask the Taoiseach, in any upcoming meetings with the Spanish Prime Minister, to raise the issue of the fledgling peace process in the Basque country and request that he follow the example of dialogue set here in order to bring a resolution to the issues inherent in that conflict.
It is unfortunate that as a result of the way Question Time has panned out we have no opportunity to follow up on the 25 parliamentary questions we asked.
I agree.
Perhaps we should change Standing Orders to allow a mechanism for resubmitting them for next week.
Tomorrow.
We will have some chance tomorrow. I ask the Taoiseach to explain clearly to the House why he signed up for a deal, the full implications of which he had not studied. Did he raise the issue of Irish bank debt? I understand he sought a commitment from European Heads of State to the effect that there would be no private sector restructuring of sovereign debt but the proposal appears to involve all debt, including Irish bank debt. The letter he sent to Mr. Van Rompuy asks that Irish debt be re-engineered, with the objective of reducing interest rates and lengthening the timeframe for repayment. Has the Taoiseach given any consideration to having elements of that debt waived or put to one side given the extraordinary steps the ECB and EU institutions have asked Ireland to take to protect the eurozone in advance of the establishment of the European facilities?
It is sovereign debt.
Why did he agree to push ahead without the British Government on board? Did he not see an opportunity to support the British in terms of not needing another treaty? That was our position before the summit. He stated in the Dáil on numerous occasions that he did not think a new treaty was needed because we could do a lot within existing treaties. The fiscal rules do not go to the core of solving the eurozone crisis. Re-financing sovereign debt is the real question and the summit has failed to deal with that.
The Taoiseach rightly condemned Fianna Fáil for crashing our economy and forcing us into the hands of the EU-IMF troika but does he not agree that the proposed deal will institutionalise what he rightly describes as the loss of our economic sovereignty? We will lose democratic control over our economic affairs for perpetuity. There will be centralised, Stalinist control by the European Commission and the ECB over national economies and ordinary people will be disenfranchised.
Was there any discussion about the summit being the umpteenth attempt to come up with some sort of crisis resolution mechanism? Days, if not hours, after the conclusion of every previous summit the solutions began to unravel because the beloved markets decided they would not work. The bottom line problem underlying this pattern is that the austerity programme is crippling growth and even the markets realise a solution will not be found while the European economy is contracting. This proposal will set in stone an economic austerity agenda which will have the same effect.
Was any mention made of the contrasting fate of Iceland? I do not suggest that Iceland is perfect but it took a different response to the crisis and even the IMF praised its decision to allow its banks to fail. It did not reduce expenditure on the welfare state——
It did.
——and it imposed capital controls to prevent money from fleeing the country. As a result, its economy is now recovering. It is on the path to recovery after doing the exact opposite of what Europe is demanding from Ireland. Was there any discussion on the need to find a radically different way of dealing with this crisis?
At the meeting in Marseilles, the person sitting next to me was——
The janitor.
——the new Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, who is to take up office on 20 December. As I do not speak Spanish and he does not speak English we did not get an opportunity to discuss the fledgling peace process in the Basque country but I will be happy to raise the issue with him. When I next have an opportunity to meet him he will have been duly appointed as Spanish Prime Minister.
In respect of PSI, the issue is to remove PSI from the draft ESM facility. We take the view that such a provision would be counterproductive for a country such as Ireland, which will emerge from a programme, as it would display a lack of confidence by would-be investors in the country. What I was talking about here was not a write-down of sovereign debt but a reconstruction of the bank situation with regard to the recapitalisation, which had taken place at very high interest rates, and an attempt to get that level of bank debt into the facilities that now exist with lower interest rates and longer repayment periods, which would be of great benefit to the Irish taxpayer.
I did suggest at the meeting, if the truth be known, when Prime Minister Cameron made his comments about a specific protocol for the protection of financial services in London, that perhaps the politicians should pause and discuss whether a compromise could be reached in that political impasse. Essentially, what the British Prime Minister seemed to be saying was that he would give consent to changes in the eurozone in exchange for a return to unanimity in respect of certain matters to do with financial services in London. Obviously, that was not achieved, and the 26 countries will move on.
I am due to speak to the Prime Minister this evening. As I said before, after and during the meeting, it is important from the point of view of this country that our nearest neighbour and largest trading partner, which came to our assistance with regard to bailout moneys——
A Deputy
It bailed out its own banks.
——will continue to be central to the European Union and the Single Market, of which the Prime Minister is such an advocate.
With regard to the question asked by Deputy Boyd Barrett, there was no discussion about Iceland, which is not in the European Union nor in the eurozone.
Neither are the 26 now.
That is not true.
Not according to Nicolas Sarkozy.
There was no discussion about it. It was not the treaty that caused the problem here. It was caused by reckless government and reckless banks, and until we achieve a situation in which that can never happen again and order is restored to our public finances, we are not going to have the engine of growth and development that we all want, whereby jobs can be created. It was a number of summits ago that decisions were taken, in respect of Greece in particular, about bailout funds and increased leveraging of the EFSF, which did not actually happen. The Deputy is right in stating that markets have no confidence in that. That is why, in this case, the focus was entirely on the crisis within the eurozone. I am glad, at least, that the decisions taken by the heads of Government are reflected in the introduction of the ESM, minus the private sector involvement, the firewalls in respect of the ESF, the ESM and bilateral loans to the IMF, and the extra unlimited facilities available to banks from the ECB at a low interest rate. When I rang the former president of the ECB, Mr. Trichet, about this in March or April, his view was that the ECB would not extend loans to banks or countries at low interest rates but that they would continue at an emergency level only. That has now changed. The signals from Mr. Draghi are that if the political process achieves clarity and decisiveness about what it wants to do about the eurozone and the euro, the ECB, in respect of its independence and its integrity, will consider that from the point of view of whatever decision it wants to make.
Until we get to a point at which the engine of our own economy is revamped, we will not be able to provide the growth in our economy — and therefore the job opportunities — that we want to.
The Government is killing it with austerity.
I would like to see pension funds and others invest here. We are told there are walls of money for investment, under proper conditions, in infrastructure and job opportunities in Ireland. That is why we have renegotiated with the troika elements of what we can do for investment. For example, in respect of the sale of State assets, the troika wanted all of that money to be used for debt reduction only, but they are now prepared to talk on a case-by-case basis about investment in jobs, growth and job opportunities in the event that the Government decides to sell a State asset or a portion of one, or takes equity in a State asset. I am living in the land of reality and considering practical outcomes. I am focusing on sorting out our own problems, which will not go away and which will only get worse if we leave them alone.
They are getting worse.
The central focus is on our people and on the ultimate challenge of this Government, which is to deal effectively with unemployment.
The only thing the Taoiseach got was that the bondholders would not be burned.
It is a burden.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.