The House will resume on Question No. 1. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 are being taken together.
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed).
EU Summits: Supplementary Questions.
Supplementary Questions to the Taoiseach in respect of Questions Nos. 1 and 2 on the Order Paper of today in accordance with the Order of Dáil Éireann today.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he has received the agenda for the June 2008 summit of EU leaders; his priorities for the summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14620/08]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the June 2008 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17128/08]
Earlier I read the following reply:
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I have received an annotated draft agenda for the meeting of the European Council on 19 and 20 June which covers the ratification and preparations for the implementation of the Lisbon treaty; freedom, security and justice issues; the western Balkans; and external relations, including the "Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean".
This draft agenda predates the referendum here last week. The result of the referendum will, inevitably, feature significantly in our discussions. I will formally advise my European Council colleagues that the Irish people have rejected the proposal to amend our Constitution to enable ratification of the Lisbon treaty.
The members of the Council, who negotiated and agreed the draft treaty, and who agreed to a number of specific provisions to address Irish concerns in that process, will wish to understand the reasons this rejection has occurred. In my discussions with my colleagues, I will be stressing that the people have spoken and that the Government accepts the result. I also will emphasise the need for all of the EU and its member states, not just Ireland, to reflect on what such a vote means and to play their part in working together to examine the possible ways forward.
As to their wish to understand the reasons for the result of our referendum, I will, to the best of my ability, reflect the range and depth of the debate and the main issues which featured in it. I will stress it is far too early yet to draw conclusions but that the Government will take the time required to take stock of all the elements that may have contributed to the outcome. I also will stress the need to consider what has happened and its implications in a calm, constructive and collective manner. I will underline that there can be no question of hasty answers or quick fixes.
Above all, I will stress that we now are entering a process of extensive consultation both domestically and with our EU partners. I will welcome the initial message of solidarity that was apparent at the meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council yesterday. I also will take the opportunity to restate to the Council my views that the vote does not mean Ireland is turning away from the EU or that it implies a desire to stand aside from engagement with our EU partners.
I express my disappointment at the result of the referendum, but the votes were cast and counted and the verdict was given, and that must be accepted and respected. I want to ask the Taoiseach a number of questions arising from the referendum. This decision has sent reverberations around the European Union and beyond. We do not want to end up with a two-speed Europe, where some countries go off in front and others are left behind. From that perspective the Taoiseach has a serious problem. Will he not suspend the business of the House today so that we may discuss this matter? We should put everything else aside after Taoiseach's Questions and have an all-day discussion in which every Member can deliver his or her views on this.
Hear, hear.
One thing I did not hear people say during the campaign was that Ireland should pull out of Europe. Under the proposed Lisbon treaty the opportunity exists for any country to do so. Clearly, there is a disconnect between Government and the Irish people in so far as Europe and its workings are concerned, as highlighted in the Dáil last December by the Taoiseach's predecessor when he said that the issue of water charges in respect of schools was a direct consequence of the EU water directive, which it was not. There is a myriad of reasons that people voted against the treaty, some of which were related to the manner in which Ireland has implemented directives, whether 1,300 sections in a cross-compliance form or whatever. The Taoiseach knows that as well as I do.
Is the Taoiseach prepared to deal with the disconnect as regards the implementation of European directives between the Government and the Irish citizens? No matter what happens in the future, that lingering attitude will remain unless it is dealt with. Will the Taoiseach ask his Ministers to look at the manner in which they are implementing European directives in so far as the Irish citizenry is concerned?
How many Heads of Government has the Taoiseach contacted since the referendum results were announced? There was a genuine concern among many of those who voted "No" about the future and progress of Europe, how far it should go etc. Clearly there is a need for Europe to reaffirm what the European project is about, its future, where we are headed and what this means. The Taoiseach should say to his European counterparts that there clearly is a need for a reaffirmation of what the European project means. The Lisbon treaty proposed that Council meetings be held in public which would deal, in part, with the disconnect, but that disconnect exists between our citizens and Europe and that must be spelled out by Heads of Government. How many Heads of Government has the Taoiseach spoken to since the referendum or has he been in contact with any of them in view of the European Council meeting on Friday?
EU law is implemented in Ireland in compliance with legal requirements. We do all we can to make it as simple and proper as possible. It also must meet the principles of accountability and must be fair and proportionate. The whole idea behind the Lisbon treaty was to delineate more clearly those areas of competence that were exclusive to the institutions, those that were mixed and those that could be dealt with at national level. There was an explicit treaty provision regarding the question of proportionality and subsidiarity being a fundamental part of how the European Union would work in the context of the treaty being ratified but we are not now in that position as we rejected it in a referendum last Thursday. It remains a continuing issue, however.
Trying to ensure the European Union is seen as more relevant to the lives of our people and how it has a direct effect on them is a continuing challenge. It is one issue that affects the political culture here as well as is in other member states. It varies from country to country but none can claim to have cracked that particular nut adequately to anyone's satisfaction. That is an ongoing matter.
I spoke to the President of the European Commission, the French President, Mr. Sarkozy, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker. I will speak to several other Heads of Government tomorrow.
The issue was dealt with at the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting yesterday. As is the norm, the general initial discussion and assessment took place there in preparation for the forthcoming European Council meeting. I will deal with the issue in a formal way at the Council meeting, but no decisions will be taken on Thursday. Obviously, we will have to outline a process of engagement with colleagues and the European institutions as to how we can bring this matter forward. My primary responsibility is to formally bring to the attention of EU colleagues the outcome of the referendum result and that the treaty has not been ratified in Ireland. I will also draw their attention to Ireland's wish to remain fully engaged in the European Union, to be part of its processes and to find a process of engagement which acts upon the solidarity that has been demonstrated by EU colleagues to this country in view of the non-ratification of the treaty as a result of the referendum result.
There is no immediate quick-fix solution available. There is a serious political and legal situation that must be examined and discussed. Those are the facts of the matter and any suggestion to the contrary would be to minimise the position.
This is not a 26-versus-one situation, this is a group of 27 countries with a set of objectives and principles to be achieved. The beauty of EU treaties to date has been that they have been able to accommodate a very broad range of views, cultures and positions from different countries and governments. In the Taoiseach's discussions with the Commission President, Mr. Barroso, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and the French President, Mr. Sarkozy, did any of them indicate a willingness for or comment on a full renegotiation of the Lisbon treaty? Will the Taoiseach comment on the report in the Financial Times today of the likelihood of explanatory protocols being produced by the Heads of Government meeting in October, dealing with the issues of real concern as expressed by the Irish electorate in Thursday’s vote? This report states that the French in particular are anxious to move on and that explanatory protocols will be produced by October.
I note reports today of a media survey carried out by the European Commission as to the reasons Irish people voted against the treaty and their concerns in so voting. Has the Government any intention of carrying out an in-depth analysis in order to determine as accurately as possible that range of concerns? Will the Taoiseach comment on the Referendum Commission? I do not mean any disrespect to the eminent persons serving on the commission but there were a number of moments which did not help the treaty campaign in terms of explanation and objectivity. Should a group of eminent independent experts be appointed to negotiate on behalf of all sides with persons who were involved in the "No" campaign? This would be a negotiation on the alternatives which these people proposed but which need to be fleshed out, such as their views about the future and connectivity and so on. Given the majority vote against the treaty, it is obvious there are concerns across a broad spectrum of the population. It would be feasible and proper to tease out what are the concerns of some of the groups and persons involved in the "No" campaign. Does the Taoiseach envisage a situation where either the persons assigned to the Referendum Commission or some such body could deal with these concerns and discover whether there is flesh behind some of those ideas? The Taoiseach will be aware that many bogus ideas were put out. Such an examination might be helpful in the process.
We respect the rights of other countries to ratify this treaty in their own way, just as they must respect the decision of the Irish people in the way they voted. Where does the Taoiseach envisage the real crux happening? We do not want a two-speed Europe and nobody has expressed the intention of leaving the European Union. What will be the Government's position if the other 26 member states ratify the Lisbon treaty and then look to the Taoiseach for the Irish position? Where will the Government be situated before that point arrives?
The Deputy has raised many issues and I will deal with them as best I can. With regard to any reports about what might be likely to happen, these are speculative by their very nature since no meetings have taken place yet. The European Council is meeting on Thursday and it will begin rather than finalise a process of consultation. These are speculative opinions being expressed which are the responsibility of those who make them and the best of luck to them.
The second issue raised by the Deputy is the analysis of the result. We will conduct our own analysis of the situation and take whatever soundings are required to compile a fair analysis of the reasons for the outcome and to take account of the reasons people voted "Yes" or "No". We need to see the full picture.
The Referendum Commission acquitted itself well throughout the campaign. Some issues were raised concerning a press conference and certain questions were asked which did not get an immediate answer. Obviously, the commission was insisting on getting an accurate answer out, providing it was to the best of its ability at that time. In fairness to the Referendum Commission, its objectivity has never been in question. It performed its functions to the best of its ability, in line with the mandate it had. I do not wish to engage in any criticism whatsoever of the Referendum Commission.
As regards speculating on how this process will proceed, I cannot anticipate that other than to say that we want to work constructively and engage in a way that will hopefully help us to resolve the problem if we can. The only way one can get to that point is to assess the outcome of the result, discuss the various options with them and find out from them their view of the situation. That must all come into the equation. That is the issue with negotiations on this or any other treaty, or any political or legal agreement — one negotiates to the point where one finds an accommodation that is acceptable to all. It is not the ideal for any one party or set of parties, it must be something that is agreeable to all. That is the basis upon which one tries to proceed. Obviously there is no point in speculating on any of that at this stage. Let us take this step by step, recognising that there is a complex issue here which remains to be resolved. We know what the overall legal position is in terms of the assent of all parties to the agreement being required for it to come into effect. We know that a discussion must now take place. We have to listen to the views of others and we must set out our views as best we can gauge them in terms of what has occurred in the past week, the outcome, how we would like to proceed to get a process in place and engage. Until all of that happens, it is frankly premature to talk speculatively about where all of this will end up.
At the outset, I would like to commend not only those who had the conviction and courage to say "No" last Thursday, but also all those who participated.
This is Question Time, Deputy.
It is important to note that there was a major turnout, which is something to be encouraged. I note the Taoiseach's responses to the earlier questions and his commentary over the past few days. Having noted his reference to respect the outcome of the referendum decision next Thursday, will the Taoiseach confirm that he will act in accordance with the democratically expressed wish of the Irish electorate last Thursday? If he has determined them at this point, will he outline what steps he proposes to take, or envisages taking, in order to proceed with a project that will hopefully deliver a better deal not only for Ireland but for Europe as a whole?
Does the Taoiseach share my concern at the remarks of European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, that the remaining ratifications should continue to take their course? Does the Taoiseach see in that comment, and in the commentary of others in Europe, a two-tier approach already in situ? Back in 2005, the rejection of the constitutional treaty by the French and Dutch resulted in an end to the process and it was never put to the Irish people. Why would the decision of the Irish electorate last Thursday be viewed or treated any differently within Europe to that of the French or Dutch electorates? Does the Taoiseach propose to affirm the Irish electorate’s equality within the determination of any treaty proceeding in line with that precedent?
The point about Mr. Barroso's remarks is they suggest that the initial intent, namely, a partnership of equals, is no longer the reality. Does the Taoiseach agree they were in stark contrast with the remarks made by Commissioner McCreevy yesterday when he indicated the people's verdict must be accepted? The Commissioner was quite comprehensive in that respect and I and others here at home and, I hope, elsewhere interpret them as being in stark contrast with the remarks of Mr. Barroso. Will the Taoiseach advise the House as to where he stands on these apparently conflicting positions?
As the Taoiseach faces his first Council of Ministers meeting later this week, will he outline his approach and intent and the disposition he proposes to take? Does he not accept that what he was dealt last Thursday is a strong hand to move forward not only in the interests of the Irish people but reflective of the concerns that are mirrored in each of the other 26 member states? In some of the longer standing states within the European Union the numbers, percentage wise, who share the concerns expressed by the Irish people last Thursday are at least comparable.
Both the President of the Commission and our Commissioner spoke about accepting and respecting the decision of the Irish people last Thursday. There is a precedent. When the Danish people rejected a previous treaty, ratification continued in other states. The collective decision, which has already informed this particular treaty, was that each member state indicated it would proceed with a ratification process. This is what has been taking place over the past couple of years. We cannot question the wish of others to do this or to put their case in terms of what the treaty means for the future direction of the European Union when we expect them to respect our wishes. Respect is a two way street and one has to accept that.
On the Deputy's other question about going to the European Council meeting, while this is the first such meeting I will attend as Taoiseach, I have attended many European Council meetings.
I addressed the Taoiseach in his current capacity.
The position is that I will confirm to the European Council the outcome of the referendum, give our assessment as to the reasons for this outcome and begin a process of dialogue with our partners to determine what are their views on the matter and how we can go forward. As I said, the indications at the General Affairs Council meeting on Monday were that our partners wish to demonstrate solidarity to Ireland, respecting the decision but obviously trying to determine where Europe goes and how it develops from here.
All of us, including Deputy Ó Caoláin and his party, have been involved in negotiations. One does not get what one sets out to achieve at the beginning. One has to listen to the points of view of others and try to see if one can move from where one is to another position in a way that is agreeable to all. That is the point. Everybody can have a view about what the European Union is or is not but at the end of the day the agreement of everybody is required. This means entering into these discussions in good faith, with a view to trying to confirm what I understood everybody in this jurisdiction was claiming, namely, that we are pro-Europe and pro-European Union and do not want to be marginalised, isolated or disadvantaged in the European Union. My job, as Taoiseach, is to try to uphold our national interests and maintain our position in the Union, while recognising that the people made a decision last Thursday.
The position is that a number of states have yet to ratify and we do not know whether they will proceed with ratification and what the outcome of their ratification processes will be. However, let us say we end up in a situation where all of the remaining states have ratified and one has not. Has the Taoiseach taken any legal advice as to what our situation will be at that point in insisting that the treaty cannot be ratified? The worst case scenario is 26 states moving ahead on the basis of what is in the Lisbon treaty, perhaps calling it something other than the Lisbon treaty, and Ireland being left in a semi-detached situation. Has the Government received any legal advice in that regard?
What is the Taoiseach's assessment of the prospect of renegotiation of the treaty? For example, one of the issues which arose quite prominently was the question of the Commissioner. Is it possible to renegotiate a scenario where every state would have a Commissioner?
While there is much focus on what will happen with the treaty and the European institutions, a concern of many people is what will happen to Ireland's relationship with the European Union in respect of day-to-day matters. What consideration has been given by Government — I appreciate it has been a short time — to ensuring that when individual Ministers go to Council meetings to deal with matters such as agriculture, fisheries and the environment our interests will not suffer a collateral consequence? Everybody will say that we will not suffer such a consequence and will state our entitlement and position, but there is an unspoken concern that Ireland's influence in respect of day-to-day dealings with the European Union may now be in a different place than it was a week ago. What steps are being taken by Government to ensure that any such collateral damage is minimised?
Rather than force a vote on the Order of Business, can we set aside business today to discuss this issue? Obviously, it is a fundamentally important decision and there should be a full Dáil debate about the Lisbon treaty, its future and where we stand.
In respect of the point raised by Deputy Gilmore, the Taoiseach will be faced with the question of dealing with the commissionership before the end of the year. The Nice treaty required, and was approved on this basis, a reduction in the number of Commissioners below the number of countries unless the Heads of Government unanimously agreed some other position. The Taoiseach must form a view on this in the period ahead. It will come to a head before the end of the year and Ireland must have a view on the matter.
How does the Taoiseach propose going about consulting in terms of forming that view? People seemed to understand well that in voting "No" they were voting against the proposal under the Nice treaty, and at least bringing clarity under the Lisbon treaty, that every country would lose its Commissioner in strict rotation for a period. While Commissioners do not make decisions in the way the Council does, this was an important element of people's views in the campaign.
Can we have a Dáil debate? How does the Taoiseach propose to go about consulting widely in forming his view of what Ireland wants to do in respect of the Commissioner position because that is an important element of the Lisbon treaty and it might not require a constitutional referendum in the way that other matters clearly do?
Will the Taoiseach note that Sinn Féin, to be helpful, is currently preparing proposals for consideration by himself and his colleagues on the next steps forward following the outcome of last Thursday's Lisbon treaty referendum? That action should be open to everyone in order to participate, help and guide as best each of us can. Going forward together is the correct way to address the challenges that lie ahead.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the real comparison in regard to Lisbon is not the previous Danish decision but the 2005 decisions of France and the Netherlands, given that 96% of the constitutional treaty was in-built in the Lisbon treaty proposals, and that we are not seeing parity of esteem and equality of treatment on which we should insist? I urge the Taoiseach to take the position that the Irish people's decision deserves not only to be respected but to be accepted in its totality.
As I said, no qualification has been put on acceptance of the decision. Ratification arises from a collective undertaking by the states at the signing of the Lisbon treaty to proceed with instruments of ratification in each state. Each state took on that undertaking. We took on an undertaking, as did other countries.
I make the point that respect is a two-way street. If one wants respect, one must accord it to others who are similarly engaged in a national process. What the Deputy is asking me to do is to say otherwise. The basis on which this ratification is proceeding arises out of a collective undertaking given by the member states at the time the Lisbon treaty was agreed.
It was there in 2005.
There is too much of that sort of talk. The situation arises specifically from an undertaking given at the time by the states to each other. I was simply making the point when the Deputy tried to make a comparison with another situation that there is another situation which I could say goes in the opposite direction. It is not relevant. What is relevant to the ratification process is the collective undertaking given by the states at the time of the signing of this treaty. All states are entitled to proceed along those lines. If we were not proceeding with our national process, the Deputy would ask me why we were not doing so.
That is not the case.
That is the situation.
On Deputy Kenny's question about where we go from here, we must have a discussion with colleagues. They have indicated to us that they will try to assist us if they can in regard to how we would like to proceed. We have to have that discussion, the outcome of which I cannot anticipate. The only thing I can reiterate is that the treaty cannot be ratified unless all states ratify it.
As we said during the campaign, there are consequences to decisions. If we voted one way, we knew what we were getting but if we voted the other, we did not know. What we know now is that we must have dialogue with others to see what emerges from it.
The question of the commissionership was one of the great falsehoods or great ironies of the debate, that is, the idea that if one voted "No", one would keep one's Commissioner. A provision in the Nice treaty refers to reducing the number of Commissioners once the EU reaches 27 member states. The process by which that will be done has not been agreed but that is stated in the Nice treaty. Our legal position in that regard was already established.
The negotiating achievement of the Lisbon treaty was to bring about a situation where the reduction upon reaching 27 member states would be deferred to 2014 and that if there was unanimous agreement thereafter, it would be possible to continue with the existing arrangement.
Let us be clear about this because it is a matter of public record. During our presidency of the European Union in 2004 I, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, as Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, said when the convention was established that we would like to see the retention of a Commissioner for each member state. We were always of that view but we came to a negotiated position. There were others who said we should reduce the number of Commissioners in the interests of the efficacy and efficiency of the Commission in order that everyone on the Commission would have a substantive job to do and that would be a better way. We ended with negotiations which sought to meet the requirements of those with different views on these matters. We ended up with an advance on the Nice treaty which was ratified by the Irish people. That is the truth of the issue. There is no legal basis for the claim in the misleading posters urging a "No" vote in order to keep our Commissioner. One thing we are sure of is there is a stronger treaty provision for losing a Commissioner now than if there had been a "Yes" vote. That argument was put a different way for other purposes and we will leave it at that. Negotiations are about finding an accommodation which meets the interests of all where possible.
What about the Dáil?
Otherwise there is no agreement. I am sure the Deputy entered negotiations on the political scene for a united Ireland. We did not end up with a united Ireland, but with the Good Friday agreement and we all have to live with it. It is not our ideal but it is the balance we have found.
It is a work in progress.
It is a work in progress, as is this treaty and many other treaties. Let us practice what we preach.
What about the debate?