Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting in Brussels on 18 to 19 June 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24670/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
European Council Meetings.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the details of the bilateral meetings that he has held on the margins of the June meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24671/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the June 2009 European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24768/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the official visits abroad he plans to make for the remainder of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24928/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Summit in Brussels on 18 and 19 June 2009. [24930/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Brown; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24674/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together. I attended the European Council on 18 and 19 June in Brussels. As I will make a statement to the House later today, I will merely give a summary account of the proceedings.
The European Council took several important decisions on future financial regulation within the Union with the aim of protecting the European financial system from future risks and ensuring that the mistakes of the past can never be repeated. Ireland fully accepts the need and indeed the urgency of putting in place the proposed new system. There was also a discussion on the European economic recovery plan and on employment in particular.
In respect of climate change, the main goal of the Council was to ensure a comprehensive and effective agreement at global level later this year in Copenhagen. With that goal in mind, last week's discussions and conclusions move the Union's position along so that we can continue to provide leadership in the international negotiations. It will be necessary to return to this issue at our October meeting. The Council also discussed illegal migration.
From an Irish perspective, the key focus of the Council was gaining agreement on the legally binding guarantees to respond to the concerns of the Irish people. I am pleased to tell the House that we secured the guarantees that we required on tax, neutrality and ethical issues. I am obliged to the leaders of the Opposition parties for their support for the Lisbon treaty. The 27 Heads of State and Government also agreed that these will become part of the treaties by means of a protocol. The Union also reaffirmed the importance of workers' rights and public services. We had already reached agreement that each member state would retain a Commissioner, and that was re-confirmed last week.
The outcome from the European Council is of huge significance to Ireland. Since the referendum last June, our objective has been to address the concerns expressed by the people. I believe that these concerns have been addressed. On this basis, I will recommend to the Government that we return to the people to seek their approval for Ireland to ratify the treaty. I expect that the referendum will take place in early October.
The guarantees we have secured make it crystal clear that Ireland remains in control of its own tax rates; Irish neutrality is unaffected by the treaty, for example the idea of conscription or a European army is nonsense; and the protections in the Irish Constitution on the right to life, education and the family are not in any way affected by the Lisbon treaty.
I had several discussions with Prime Minister Brown over the course of the Council, which focused on Ireland's legal guarantees. I also had discussions with many of my Council colleagues during the Council including Prime Minister Fischer, President of the European Council, about those guarantees.
In respect of my travel plans for the remainder of 2009, it is my intention to attend the British Irish Council on 13 November in Jersey. I will also, of course, attend the remaining European Council meetings in October and December.
I was happy to attend in Brussels with the leaders of the European People's Party, EPP. All the prime ministers were there except the Belgian Prime Minister who had to attend a state visit from the King of Jordan. All those leaders were very much in favour of supporting Ireland's case for the guarantees that were promised last September. I was happy to see at the conclusion of the Council meeting that our European counterparts delivered on these guarantees.
There was never any intention of changing the Lisbon treaty. People who voted ‘No' say there has been no change in the treaty but there was no intention of so doing. I never favoured the reopening of the ratification process in other countries. The conclusion of the Council meeting creates much greater clarity in the matters of concern to people, the ethical issues, European defence and security, taxation, conscription and so on, including workers' rights. That leaves an opportunity for all the parties that support the treaty to campaign in such a way that people can be fully and comprehensively informed when they go to vote about what is and is not in the treaty.
Did the Taoiseach invite any of the leaders of our EU partners to visit Ireland before October, either in respect of the broad question of co-operation with Europe or specifically of matters of interest to Ireland?
I thank Deputy Kenny for the part he played in ensuring that our colleagues and his colleagues in the EPP political grouping of prime ministers and leaders were helpful and supportive and understood what Ireland sought. I agree that the clarifications and confirmations we received have legal effect. They are not simply the interpretations of 27 member states but are a form of Council decision which gives legal effect to what is intended in the treaty in respect of the issues and areas of concern that Ireland raised.
The texts provided are the ones we sought. They were agreed to and are given the legal effect of a Council decision and there is an undertaking to attach a protocol to the next accession treaty in the European Union when a further enlargement takes place. That will give full treaty status to that decision. No eminent person or lawyer with knowledge of international law or the law of treaties doubts for one moment that the confirmations, clarifications and texts of the legal decisions that we have obtained and which will become a protocol in due course have the same status as the treaty provisions. That is so without doubt or impediment.
There is no formal arrangement with any Heads of State or Government to visit Ireland between now and the referendum. Colleagues have indicated that they are prepared to help in any way that is deemed appropriate. In a discussion over dinner about the nomination of Mr. Barroso as President of the Commission I said that for the tenure of this Commission all of us engaged in politics, whether as leaders of parties or Heads of Government or State need to visit and engage more with each other on the European agenda, to bring to the attention of their national electorates the importance and relevance of the European Union in their day to day lives. We need to develop a political narrative here as in other member states that would engage the citizenry of Europe to a far greater extent than has proved possible. In our case, we had local elections at the same time as the European elections and we would all agree that the turnout for European elections was far higher as a result.
The basic point to be made generally, as we have done previously when discussing European matters at Question Time, is that we need to build on the all-party committee's work and the clarifications that emanated from that process of discourse, discussion and political thinking. It brought a great degree of clarity and political nous to addressing the issue.
The European Union was given an opportunity to show solidarity with the Irish people in respect of the decision that was made last year and it worked at its best, which in many respects kills off the argument about a European Union that seeks to impose on Ireland things it does not wish to have. It is far better to recognise that smaller states' interests are considered. It is true that the basis upon which we were able to move forward was that there would not be a re-ratification of the Lisbon treaty in other member states. This was the sole condition that enabled them to assist us in trying to bring clarity and confirmation to the issues of concern of the Irish people. That being said, the fact that we will obtain a protocol in respect of these concerns and this decision is indicative of the full solidarity that has been displayed and the spirit of generosity and consensus that is part of the modus operandi of the European Union working at its best.
The Taoiseach can rest assured that the Fine Gael Party will do all in its power to work towards the successful ratification of the Lisbon treaty by the Irish electorate and I say that in the broadest sense that we can assist here.
Yesterday, the Taoiseach indicated that the Bill would come to the House the week after next. What is his intention with regard to establishing the referendum commission which will have the task of dispensing accurate information to the people? How does the Taoiseach see that being resourced and how soon does he expect to receive an answer from the High Court with regard to the chairperson?
On previous occasions, I have stated that the sectors in Irish life who were concerned about the Lisbon treaty are still sore because of their perception of how directives have been interpreted here. The classic example is that of fishing, where Ireland has interpreted a directive in a way that requires a criminal charge to be applied for even the most minor indiscretion — and I stress "minor". All other countries of the Union have an administrative regime for minor indiscretions. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe produced a Private Members' Bill to deal with this and the best legal advice available to us stands up.
The Government should consider providing the Oireachtas committees which deal with European affairs and European scrutiny a remit or mandate to examine at least some of the directives where we know difficulties were created to see whether it is possible to implement them in a more common sense or flexible fashion without losing the intent or import of what they state. I do not mean all of the directives because there has been a river of them. This would be beneficial from the Government's point of view. I know from personal experience that various sectors throughout the country had difficulties and people told me they could not vote for the treaty on the previous occasion because of their perception that red tape was strangling business. In the interests of dealing with these concerns, will the Government examine this matter? This would allow us to deal with the genuine concerns of people and have this problem eased so that when they go to vote, these obstacles will have been removed from their thought process.
In the event that Ireland approves the Lisbon treaty the fact that we are to have reviews of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy will allow us to look to the future in a way that we have not been able in the past and at the potential that will exist over the next 20 years with the rise in world population and the quality of what we can produce here, and the opportunity that exists for the fishing interests in terms of the review of the Common Fisheries Policy.
With regard to the referendum commission, the process has begun with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government writing to the President of the High Court asking for the nomination of a High Court judge as chairman of the referendum commission. On receipt of this, the commission will be established in line with precedent. There is a provision in the Estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs for expenditure on a commission for a European referendum this year. It is hoped that the commission will assist in providing objective analysis and interpretation of the meaning of the treaty in a way that will be helpful to the electorate.
With regard to the proportionality of the implementation of directives or regulations, regulations have direct legal effect and directives require to be transposed into national law. The principle of proportionality is important as is the need for the transposition to be consistent with the directive. I cannot speak on any specific directive that it is being implemented, but stress-testing for proportionality many of the directives that are being implemented would be an ongoing work programme for the relevant committees of the House and would be of great service to the Oireachtas and the Executive. It would be a matter for the chairmen of the Oireachtas committees to decide how this would be done and it would certainly assist the democratic process.
To make a general point on voting "Yes", the Lisbon treaty contains an innovative provision on enhancing the role of national parliaments which is new and different from previous treaties of the Union. It gives a new and formal role within the EU to national parliaments as all proposals for EU legislation will be forwarded to them for their consideration. National parliaments will have a period of eight weeks in which to vet proposals and offer opinions on them and if enough national parliaments object to a particular proposal, it can be either amended or withdrawn. Any national parliament can block moves to increase the number of policy issues that can be decided by majority voting. The role proposed for national parliaments in the Lisbon treaty is a real innovation. For those who are concerned about the need for the principle of proportionality to be given practical effect in the implementation of European legislation in national law, a "Yes" vote for the Lisbon treaty improves that prospect because the new role given to national parliaments in the treaty provides them with a real opportunity not only to give their views, but a sufficient number of parliaments can impose their will to amend or withdraw proposals they find objectionable.
Much commentary has been made on arguments presented by people from the "No" side in the course of the Lisbon treaty debate last year, some of which I, and a number of the Taoiseach's colleagues, roundly rejected at public meetings because I did not agree with them. However, equally, wrong and false assertions were made by the "Yes" side. I will clarify one assertion. Voting "No" to the Lisbon treaty does not mean we are voting "No" to the European Union and the consequence of voting "No" is not that Ireland will be pushed out of the Union any more than we faced that prospect following the rejection of the first Nice and Lisbon treaties. It is important that people have confidence in listening to the arguments going forward to participate in the referendum, which the Taoiseach signalled will be held in early October, that they know exactly what they are voting about. It is about the Lisbon treaty and what that implies for Ireland's sense of its place in Europe and of how Europe will manage its affairs going forward and not about Ireland's future role in the Union.
Can the Taoiseach also confirm that when the people are asked to vote on the referendum in October, it will be on exactly the same treaty that was presented to them last year without a single comma or full stop being changed in the text of the treaty and without being altered in any way? Deputy Kenny confirmed this earlier when he stated: "There was never any intention of changing the Lisbon treaty." Does the Taoiseach accept that people like me who took a "No" position on the treaty as presented last year feel he and the Government have not in fact sought any change to the treaty, despite what I and many people believe was a clear and unequivocal statement from the people in the referendum campaign and result?
Following the European Council meeting, we have the promise of a protocol on neutrality, taxation and what many would describe as ethical issues. How will this promise become a protocol? Will he outline exactly how that will translate into a protocol? It has been stated it will be attached to a future accession treaty. Which accession treaty? When does he expect the treaty to be presented? Will he confirm that the protocol will not be attached to a treaty and, therefore, will not be legally binding until after the people have voted on the Lisbon treaty for a second time and we will not see a protocol attached to a treaty in advance of the second request of the Irish electorate to pass judgment on the treaty?
We all recognise EU law provides that all states must ratify a treaty before it comes into effect. In Ireland's case, the view of many people across the country who have watched the unfolding events since last year is that the Government did not respect and, indeed, abandoned, the decision of the electorate last year. The Taoiseach has disagreed with this and defended his position stoutly over the period since.
I ask the Deputy to conclude or the Taoiseach will not have time to reply.
I did not realise there was a time——
There is not but if the Deputy wants a reply, I suggest he shortens his question.
Of course, I would like a reply. I was not conscious of a time limit applying to Taoiseach's questions. It had not been indicated to me previously in the House.
The Deputy cannot impart information when he is asking questions and the Taoiseach must be given time to reply.
I am asking questions. Perhaps they are not the questions the Ceann Comhairle would like but they are questions nonetheless that are as equally valid as any others presented in the House.
All I am trying to do is ensure that the Taoiseach has an opportunity to reply.
Surely it was not only the Government's right but duty to have followed through on the people's decision on the Lisbon treaty by setting it aside and entering the process of negotiation to come forward with a new and fresh document, which was what the Irish electors instructed the Taoiseach to do. How does he answer the fact that this is not what he has done and, as Deputy Kenny said, that was never the intention either of Government or Opposition parties who supported his position on the treaty?
With regard to the question about the non-ratification of the treaty, the European treaties will be then based on the Treaty of Nice and previous treaties. It is an important issue for the Union because the Commission must be appointed. The tenure of the Commission expires in November and the basis on which it is to be appointed is a fundamental issue. Is it to be appointed under the Treaty of Nice provisions or under the Treaty of Lisbon provisions? That certainty must be brought to bear and, for that reason, Ireland intends holding a second referendum to facilitate how that is to proceed.
The next question raised by the Deputy relates to a "No" vote to the treaty having no effect. It has no effect on our continuing membership of the Union, as things stand, but to suggest there would be no practical political effects flies in the face not only of what one can reasonably contemplate or foresee in the future, but of what has been the experience in recent times. If Ireland wants to convey the point, as it can and should do, that it wants to be at the heart of the Union and to shape the events that will shape us, that we will work with others on how climate change and energy security are to be handled and how we will ensure that we are at the end of a pipeline and have energy security, that we will have common policies on agriculture, that we will have access to the Single Market and that we will be seen to be fully committed, energetic and enthusiastic participants in a Union that has brought undoubted benefits to this country, please be assured that the best way in which we can convince our partners that is the case is by voting "Yes" to the treaty to which we have all signed up.
If it is being suggested that one should vote "No" to remain at the heart of the Union and that by voting "No" we will maintain a position, goodwill will flow to Ireland and, in some way, Ireland will have been very helpful, despite the fact that our interests, objectively and empirically, favour continuing with the project on the basis of a consensus that has been achieved over many years of negotiation in which Ireland has been centrally involved and 90% of the treaty's provisions are based on a draft constitutional treaty that was negotiated during our Presidency in which all of our issues were protected, I am afraid that flies in the face of political logic.
The idea is suggested that after years of negotiation, Ireland is in the very same position while the will of the governments of the other 26 member states is expressed in the context of proceeding with a Union that reforms itself for the purpose of more effective decision making, of better Single Market provision and of protecting the rules that enable small states to compete on the same basis as large states in what is one of the most lucrative and important export markets in the world while we depend for our livelihoods on exporting 95% of what we create and produce and getting a price for it, thereby earning wages and creating jobs and investment as a result. Is it being seriously suggested that we can have all the benefits of membership while flying in the face of a consensus that has been painstakingly built up and constructed over many years? I do not believe that unless one is subject to a serious degree of political naivety, one can hold a position that suggests that our position is unchanged.
I agree that in legal terms the Treaty of Nice continues to ensure there is a European construct that will continue. However, the idea that Ireland is in the same position politically as a result of concerns which were expressed being taken on board by our colleagues in an effort to ensure the people's choice is respected is wrong. If the people vote "No" a second time to the Lisbon treaty, there will not be a treaty of Lisbon, with all the political consequences, whatever they are, that flow from that. None of those consequences would be positive for this country. How could they be positive for us? I do not believe they could or that a sound argument could be made in that respect.
However, it is not on that basis that those of us who support the European Union propose the people vote "Yes". It is because we believe it is intrinsically in our national interest so to do. All of the empirical evidence — economic, social, material etc. — of what has brought progress to this country has fundamentally been about the integration of the Irish economy into the European and wider global economy. That is the means by which Ireland has produced what it has produced in recent times.
Of course, there are aspects of the Union that are problematic and of course there are issues. No one could suggest that every aspect of its operation suits everybody. That is what compromise is about. On the national question, Deputy Ó Caoláin's own party has brought that insight to bear. Compromise is necessary for progress. Not all of one's objectives can be achieved, but the means by which they can be achieved can be retained in the context of building a consensus. The dynamic within the European Union is such that the objectives we seek from membership are not only possible, but in many respects are already available to us.
This country has benefited from experiencing the availability of the realisation of those objectives, not least the fact that we have moved away from an utter dependence on our nearest neighbour in economic and political terms to a wider vista of opportunity that has brought jobs and dealt with the historic problem of underemployment and under-investment in our country. Now, in the face of the major, unprecedented, economic and fiscal crisis that faces the world, Ireland, by being a member of a common currency, has available to it a zone of stability — a means by which we can survive this crisis and come out the far side with not only our freedom intact, but with the ability to manage our own affairs intact because we are part of this wider construct. Those are the realities of 21st century Ireland. Those are the realities we must contend and live with and through which we must survive.
It is time we had a debate about the sort of Ireland we want in Europe, not the sort of Europe we feel best suits Ireland. It is being part of a larger entity that gives us the prospects of success, not standing alone on the outside, half in and half out, wondering on the top of a legal pin whether it is this way or that way. The great benefit of what was achieved last week is that it puts to bed, for any reasonable or rational discussion, the non-arguments that have dominated the European debate in this country, for example the idea there would be conscription. I hear the Deputy say these are arguments with which he was never associated. That may be true for him. I do not doubt it if that is what he says. However, the "No" campaign in its various manifestations did not dissociate itself from those arguments. Its tactic was to pick and choose a bit here, a bit there and a bit everywhere else.
That is the truth and that is how the coalition of "No" was assembled, not on the basis of any internal coherence to respective positions. Some claimed Europe was not integrated enough, others claimed it was not sufficiently non-federalist, others suggested it undermined our basic rights, freedoms and constitutional protections and others said it imposed military conscription on our people. I know of canvassers from the Deputy's party who said that at doors in my constituency. I know them and know it was said. This did not come off the top of their heads. People work to direction. I know that happened because I spoke to the constituents who told me it happened, who had no reason to tell me otherwise.
I will not decide that is the litmus test of the debate, but it happened. While the Deputy quite rightly dissociated himself from that, because it had no basis in fact, there were others who did not and who used it, and suggested we might be part of a European army. That came from those who claimed to be part of a different army some other time. Let us get real here. What we want to be real about is that these protections provide us with the means to get on with the argument about which Lemass, Cosgrave and Corish spoke. Even at a time when they had differences, they spoke about the issues. They spoke about their ideology and what they thought was in the best interest of the people on the basis of agreeing, at least, what was in front of them. They did not engage themselves in the politics of confusion and obfuscation or in the politics of fear. That democratic debate was a healthy debate.
That was not unique to a "No" argument.
I believe there are two sides to this debate, maybe even three, but let us have a debate on the facts. If people have a view of the world that is different from mine, in this democracy they are entitled to articulate that view and seek support for it. However, let us at least have enough respect for our people to say what is not in the treaty and not talk about what is not in it.
That applies to the "Yes" side also.
What I am saying is, and I said this before the intervention of Deputy Ó Caoláin in my primary remarks in response to the many questions he asked, I do not believe everything is right about the European Union, but I do believe that on any objective analysis of the pros and cons of membership, we would need a very heavy weight on that side of the scales to get within even reaching distance of the benefits European Union membership brings for this country. This is on the basis of empirical objective evidence, the possibilities for the future and how we will cope with the problems we face currently, let alone the future.
We could not survive this crisis without our membership of the eurozone and the availability of resources from the European Central Bank. That has been a fact over the past 12 months. It is an unassailable fact of life. Does this mean in some way we have lost our sense of dignity or are beholden to anybody? Not at all. It means we are part of something bigger than ourselves. It means that membership brings disciplines, impositions and obligations, as well as benefits. Those disciplines and benefits have been for the betterment of this country and have brought us to where we are, with all our mistakes, failures and successes, with all the ups and downs of political life, successful or otherwise.
May I have a further opportunity to contribute?
I will try to return to the Deputy, but must allow Deputy Gilmore in next.
On the point made about the protocol, the protocol comes into effect when it is ratified by the states. That is why it is called a protocol. That is proof as to why it has full legal status. It requires ratification. One condition precedent was laid down by colleagues when I went to them after the rejection of the Lisbon treaty and explained as best I could, on the basis of what I saw, the reasons for the defeat of the treaty. They said they would speak to Ireland about all those issues, listen to our concerns, seek to accommodate them on one condition, namely, that they should not have to re-ratify or reopen the ratification process already completed in their countries. Out of respect for those countries, that was not an unreasonable requirement. They had ratified the treaty. This was in the aftermath ——
They had not all ratified it. Many of them only ratified after we made our decision.
Allow the Taoiseach to finish, without interruption.
Let me answer that. The Lisbon treaty represented a consensus many years in the making, in which we were centrally involved during our Presidency. Great honour was brought to this country from the work we did at that time. When we rejected the Lisbon treaty we went back to our counterparts and explained the reasons for its defeat. Our colleagues said they would seek to accommodate our concerns, but they believed the treaty was fundamental, in terms of the enlargement of the Union for more effective decision making in the future. We brought our concerns back, they have accorded them the status they require and have ensured the bogus arguments are eliminated.
Let us get down to the real debate. That is what I invite. Let us have the debate. People are entitled to different opinions on this issue, but let us have a debate about what it is we are signing up to, not what we never signed up to in the first place.
Do not call them bogus arguments. Neutrality is not bogus. We want commitments on it. That is the problem with the "Yes" campaign.
We are dealing with questions arising from the summit meeting which took place last week. Like Deputy Kenny, I attended a meeting of the leaders of the labour and social democratic parties, which was held in advance of the summit meeting. I am very much aware that the conclusions which were reached at the summit meeting last Thursday were by no means a done deal and that there were significant difficulties in securing agreement and, in particular, securing agreement to have the legal guarantees attached as a protocol to a future treaty.
I hope the contributions I and the Labour Party made in our dealings with the leaderships of some of our sister labour and social democratic parties in other states were helpful to the Taoiseach in securing the agreement reached at the summit. I was very happy to do that because there are occasions when we have to put the country first and when issues of party political advantage, and the opportunism that sometimes goes with that, have to be set aside in the wider and better interests of the country. That was one of those occasions.
I welcome the outcome of the summit. The Labour Party takes the view that the Lisbon treaty, as it was presented, did not compromise our neutrality or tax position and did not override our Constitution in certain respects, and that is why we supported it last June. The legal guarantees which have been secured put beyond any doubt the concerns many people expressed during the course of the referendum. I am glad the issues have been put beyond doubt and will be enshrined in protocols. I also acknowledge that the agreement reached, namely, that if the Lisbon treaty is ratified each member state will have the right to nominate a Commissioner, is a significant change to what was before the people last June.
I have a number of issues arising from the agreement I want to pursue with the Taoiseach. In respect of the declaration on workers' rights, the Labour Party is very keen that those declarations and the commitments in the area of workers' rights, including those that are provided for in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, are given legislative effect in this State. What is the Government's position now in respect of the commitments given to introduce legislation arising from the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, and the subsequent amendment of that, and on giving legislative effect to the principles set down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights?
Another issue I want to raise with the Taoiseach is the appointment of the President of the Commission. As I understand it, the summit agreed to nominate the outgoing President, Mr. Barroso, for a further five-year term and it is intended that the nomination be put before the European Parliament for approval at its July meeting. The Taoiseach will be aware that the political family to which the Labour Party belongs in Europe is seriously concerned about that process. We are concerned about the neo-liberal agenda pursued by President Barroso in his outgoing five-year term and our wish is for that agenda to be at least amended.
There is a proposal, which I am sure the Taoiseach is aware of, that President Barroso meet with the respective groupings in the European Parliament, in particular the party of European socialists, to outline his proposed agenda for the next five years and that the Parliament would be given sufficient time to consider President Barroso's agenda and that the process of his appointment would not be rushed at the July meeting. Does the Taoiseach support that more considered approach to the reappointment of President Barroso, rather than what appeared to be coming from the summit, which was a very rushed approach towards his reappointment?
I thank Deputy Gilmore, as I thanked Deputy Kenny in respect of the grouping to which he is affiliated, for the work and clear exposition of the Irish position that they gave to colleagues, in terms of the value and worth of the guarantees we sought and the need to provide legal clarity and certainty on those in the interests of avoiding a re-run of issues in this debate. The Council decision itself has immediate legal effect and is of legal standing in international law. The commitment to a protocol in addition to that gives further re-affirmation or reassurance to people who may have had doubts or ascribed high importance to the issues that are the subject of the protocols and legal guarantees in the first place, as was outlined by the all-party committee which studied this matter in some detail in the aftermath of the last referendum.
Regarding the question of the workers' rights declaration, which was agreed at the June European Council meeting, the EU reiterated, as the Deputy will know, the high importance which the Union attaches to social progress and protecting workers rights and public services, the responsibility of member states for the delivery of education and health services and the essential role and wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest. The solemn declaration by the 27 member states of the EU underlines and highlights for all the value which the Union attaches to workers' rights and the provision of public services.
As the Deputy is no doubt aware, the charter binds the European Union institutions in respect of how they abide by those principles and provide a means by which they can be judicially arbitrated upon by the ECJ in due course, if cases require it or people believe it is required.
Regarding domestic legislation, we have continued our update with the social partners yesterday evening, in terms of meetings the partners are having today. We reiterated our commitment to continue to work with them in the implementation of the legislative measures outlined in the agreement. They remain the policy of Government to implement. Some require finalisation and continuing discussion, but many are at an advanced stage, as the Deputy knows, and it is our intention to proceed with them in a timely and appropriate way.
Regarding the question of the appointment of the President of the Commission, it is important to clarify the situation. The process is where we indicated our intention, as Heads of State and Governments, to nominate Mr. Barroso. There is a consultation requirement, as the Deputy is aware, with the Parliament itself. Therefore, it is not a formal nomination at this point. Rather, it is a question of indicating the unanimous view of the Heads of State and Governments, including members of one's own grouping who are Heads of State and Government at the European Council who believe the overriding interest is to provide not just institutional continuity, but the continuing leadership of President Barroso at a time when so many major issues that affect the European Union project need to be addressed and implemented.
It is the strongly-held view of all Heads of State and Governments that we should indicate our support for him, so the consultation process now begins with the European Parliament in the knowledge that it would be our intention to nominate President Barroso and have their views on that matter. In regard to parliamentary procedures and in the context of parliamentary rights and entitlements, we all know it can develop into a party grouping-type of arrangement. It is important that President Barroso would enjoy the strong support of all groupings in the Parliament. There are approximately 234 members of the European Parliament who are outside the three main groupings, for example. It is important that the three main groupings should have a broad measure of support for the President of the Commission.
For my part, I would like to see that matter resolved quickly. I do not believe it is in the interests of the Union to do otherwise. There is no need for serious inter-institutional conflict in regard to this matter, although this can at times be generated in view of partisan positions being adopted. However, the broad leadership of the Council, within the Commission and in the Parliament itself should be such as to enable a degree of certainty to be brought to the Presidency of the Commission, which is what we are speaking about.
The Commission acts collegially in respect of the policies and right of initiative that it brings, and it is for the Council to decide in regard to policy matters at the end of the day. The Commission obviously also has an important role in protecting the integrity of the treaties and protecting the rights of all the member states. A strong Commission is in our interest and is certainly in the interest of smaller states. The inter-institutional balance is an important one, as the Deputy knows, and requires a person of considerable political experience to deal with the pressures that come to bear and the issues of the day that need to be addressed in a way that is consistent with the treaties while, at the same time, upholding the confidence of everyone within the various institutions, including the Council and the Parliament.
Any influence that can be used by the leaders in this House regarding the groupings of which they are members should be used to bring that issue to finality. I do not believe it should involve a contentious, drawn-out, conflictual situation. People need to look at the big picture. The question of the balance within the Commission is an issue that can be addressed. It is a matter for President Barroso to decide what way he wishes to build support within the Parliament for his prospective nomination. For my part and that of my Government, we would like to see his early confirmation as President of the Commission.
Although we are well over time, it is important that all voices feel they have been given a fair hearing. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
I appreciate that. I welcome the fact we have had this first exchange post the European summit without trading insults.
Absolutely. I enjoyed it too.
I would wish that this is the way the debate on this matter would proceed over the period ahead.
I want to refer to three points the Taoiseach made in the course of his contribution and to ask him to consider them. He made the point with regard to voting "Yes" to a Lisbon treaty "we have all signed up to" as it was put. Does he accept we have not done so? The Irish people have not signed up to it, although as the transcript will show, that is what he claimed.
The Taoiseach also stated that if the people vote "No" a second time to the treaty of Lisbon, there will be no treaty of Lisbon. We always believed we were equal members of the European Union and voting "No" once should have been adequate. Why is it that we in Ireland have to vote "No" twice — it also voted twice on the Nice treaty — for the Lisbon treaty, if that is the result to be, whereas for France and the Dutch once is sufficient, in order to revisit the actual texts, full stops and commas? Why are we different? Why is our membership not of equal status?
The first point I had asked the Taoiseach to consider in regard to voting "No" did not mean that we were going to face a situation of being pushed out of the European Union yet, while the Taoiseach in part acknowledged that in the course of his contribution, he went on to describe our situation post a second "No" to Lisbon as "half in and half out". That type of language only feeds the point I was trying to scotch from the outset. We are full members of the European Union and irrespective of how the Irish people decide on the Lisbon treaty a second time, we will remain full members of the European Union, not half in or half out.
In legal terms, that is true and I would not suggest otherwise. However, I am stating clearly that the idea that we make decisions that do not have political consequences or effects is the most politically naive view I have heard in this House, even from a person as experienced as the Deputy. There is no question——
The Taoiseach should not put words in my mouth.
Far be it from me to ever try to put words in the Deputy's mouth. I am not sure they would come out the same way as I put them in, in fairness to him.
The Taoiseach can be guaranteed of that.
One of the reasons I secured a protocol was to make sure we would not be having an argument about all this.
The point I am making to the Deputy is an important one. Our colleagues in the European Union want Ireland as part of the Union — they want us in and they want us to be part of a consensus. We helped to build the consensus. The Irish people rejected the Lisbon treaty and it is respected — the treaty cannot come into force unless the Irish people vote "Yes". The treaty is not in force today given the stated intention of the Irish people thus far and it will not come into force unless the Irish people vote "Yes". Therefore, the Irish people's view is respected.
The issue for the European Union is that this consensus position has been built up over many years. It is about making the Union more effective and ensuring that the Single Market is more effective, which helps us. We are all entitled, as democrats, to go back to the people on any issue. This is being done on the basis of providing the clarifications and confirmations that they required in respect of the concerns they expressed, as best as could be gauged from a very detailed analysis that was undertaken, and to which all parties here contributed, in an effort to synthesise, crystallise and bring forward a rationale and a comprehensive response in respect of issues about which clarifications were needed. There were certain views and people voted in certain ways because of what they believed. They were informed by people who campaigned and who, in their enthusiasm to have it defeated, over-egged the omelette. If there are people on the "Yes" side who do the same, they do not do a service to the people either.
I am being very clear and fair about it. I am saying that on the balance of convenience, on the balance of advantage and on the intrinsic and objective evidence that is before us, and also given the consensus it represents in Europe, the political significance that has been attached to it and the institutional reforms it will bring, which will bring more speedy decision-making that will be to our benefit in the long term, as has been our experience for the past 35 years, I do not believe a cogent argument can be articulated or presented that suggests it is in our interests as a people — not on the basis of other people's views but in our interests as a people — to vote down this treaty a second time. I honestly do not believe that to be the case. I am convinced of it.
For those who voted "No" in respect of those issues upon which clarification has now been provided — with a legal, full treaty status as is ascribed to other provisions — I hope it will be helpful to them to at least recognise that in coming to this issue again, it will be open for them to change their view, without being dismissive of the view they held before but out of respect for that view. It is out of respect for it that we went to the European Council, with the help of everybody in this House, so we could ensure the people were not under a misapprehension and there was not a misrepresentation of our position at the European Council in respect of those issues.
Those issues include neutrality, to respond to Deputy Finian McGrath, on which the proper legal interpretation of the treaty is outlined quite clearly for us. That position, let it be said, has been consistently respected by successive treaties of the Union, which refer to the specific character of military neutrality of member states. Some member states which in the past were part of that grouping are moving; for example, Finland is evolving its position in this respect, and this is also respected.
It is a question of diversity in Europe being respected. It is a question of where our economic and political interests lie, and where we can best guarantee and secure the future of our children, which is already under severe pressure with the problems we are facing. Do we really want to compound them further? Do we really want to send that message to the investment community across the world which has come here and created jobs, wealth and opportunities and say, "No, we have some reservations about this project and it is something to which we cannot enthusiastically subscribe"? That is the message sent by a "No" vote. It is not a cost free vote or a question of voting "No" and returning to discuss it another time.
These are major politically significant events. Bringing a treaty a second time is out of respect for the decision made before but it is also out of respect for the interests of the country that we put it to the democratic test again. Of course the people are sovereign and they will be sovereign on this issue too. However, we have an obligation to put the treaty again out of respect for our people and the interests we believe are involved.