The first item on our agenda is an exchange of views on issues of current interest in the European Union with members of the France-Ireland Parliamentary Friendship Group from the French National Assembly. We are also joined by His Excellency Frédéric Grasset, French ambassador to Ireland. Nous sommes très heureux et honorés de pouvoir vous souhaiter la bienvenue. Nous espérons que vous profiterez pleinement de ces jours en Irlande et que vous en feriez une utilisation très feconde. Nous vous cedons la parole en anglais, si vous le voulez bien. I now invite the president of the group to make a submission. Our custom is to first ask questions and then engage in discussion.
France-Ireland Parliamentary Friendship Group: Presentation.
Mr. Yves Deniaud
I thank the Vice Chairman for his friendly welcome. The traditional friendship between France and Ireland provides good opportunities from time to time to exchange opinion on common issues.
My first question is on the future of Europe. The French people rejected the treaty for a constitution for Europe. What is the Irish position on this? Will Ireland hold a referendum? How does Ireland see the evolution of Europe? The question was debated at a meeting of the European Council last week. However, no solution was put forward. How does Ireland believe we can improve the European institutions? Ireland played an important role during its Presidency of the European Union and it succeeded where the Italian Presidency failed. We hope the talent of the Irish will help us on this occasion. Perhaps the Irish will help the French understand because at present we are not convinced.
I thank the president. The Irish position is that a referendum on the constitution will not take place until the period of reflection is concluded. Like many politicians, we are concerned that specific leadership should be given on this issue and that a clear time line and an indication of what we, as politicians, are deputed to sell the people should be made to us. At present, it is not clear where we are going. There is a feeling among some politicians that the period of reflection is a period during which we are asked to play with our toys while the leadership makes the big decisions.
Regarding improvement of the institutions, in Ireland we have a slightly different form of democracy from France. It is more direct, as we do not operate a list system as France does. My impression is that the political classes here have greater proximity to the people. Perhaps we are more responsive to the feelings of the public. As a result, we have a strong connection with Europe because we explain and re-explain to the people what it is about.
Our experience during the Nice treaty referendum was that people lost interest in the project and the direction it was taking. We had to redouble our efforts. It is not only an issue of the European institutions but also domestic responses to those challenges. We must make national parliaments more relevant before we begin to lecture the European Union on its failures. That is my impression and response to the questions. Do other members also wish to respond?
In response to the first question, we have a unique system in that when a referendum fails, we wait for a while and we put it again. We are of the belief that time heals all ills. I attended a meeting of national and European parliamentarians in Brussels recently where this issue was discussed. The general feeling is that there is no rush, as we are not going anywhere. The mechanisms which govern the rules are unwieldy but with a little patience and tweaking of the constitution, we will get it through eventually.
Like other members, I welcome the delegation. I congratulate the French people on their decision to oppose the constitution. Unlike other Deputies, my view is that it should not be ratified or put to the people. The problems are the underlying concepts of the constitution itself. It would be an affront to any democracy in the European Union if it were to be put a second time to a people who had already rejected it. We argued that case in Ireland when we were asked to put the Nice treaty a second time.
There is quite considerable opposition in this country to further treaties in the European Union, further integration and loss of sovereignty of national parliaments. That opposition has grown at each European referendum. Many people want the European Union to develop as a partnership of nations rather than be dominated by groups of nations. The world has suffered domination in various forms, whether through imperialism or colonialism. That is in the past and we are building a new world which should be based on partnership.
Ireland has many historical connections with France. The French have given revolutionary support to Irish republican thought and I hope that will continue into the future.
I am interested in attitudes towards the future enlargement of the EU and, in particular, the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. I am also interested in the question of the free movement of workers, which has been a major issue at meetings of this committee when we deal with the topic of immigration in Ireland and how Ireland and some other countries have stood out from the rest of the EU in allowing free movement of workers. What is the experience and the attitude of the French in that regard?
Mr. Deniaud
With regard to asking the French people twice about the same issue, two precedents have been set in the European Union. First, Denmark did it with the Maastricht Treaty. The Danes originally voted "No" and then they voted "Yes". Ireland also did it with the Nice treaty. Our parliamentary delegation is composed of people who voted "Yes" and "No" in the referendum but we all agree that it would be a very difficult scenario for France and the French people to envisage. If the question were asked today, the answer would be exactly the same. It would be "No". The solution can only come through an amendment to the text.
The question of the enlargement of the EU to include Romania and Bulgaria has already been decided and will not be changed. Romania and Bulgaria will join the European Union. However, with regard to further enlargement, we now have new constitutional provisions in France requiring that any future EU enlargement after Bulgaria and Romania be put before the people, through consultation by referendum. In the current climate, if the question of further enlargement were posed, the French people would say "No". This is irrespective of the fact that other nations are already at the door, such as Turkey, the Ukraine or others.
Given the result of the last referendum, it is likely that any new referendum on enlargement would be rejected. There has been some debate about Croatia, with some in favour of its accession and others against it. The prospect for Croatia has not yet been decided.
I join my colleagues in warmly welcoming the delegation. France is a very important partner for Ireland within the EU. It is our fifth largest European trading partner and has an enormous impact on Irish tourism. A large number of French companies are located here, employing approximately 10,000 people. Similarly, many Irish companies are located in France, providing employment there. There are close links between the two countries. The cultural and religious links between France and Ireland go back a long way.
I had the pleasure last year of celebrating my 40th wedding anniversary in the Irish College in Paris. The President, Mrs. McAleese, officially opened the college and a great occasion was had by all.
The links between our countries are very important. The French people had a democratic right to reject the EU constitution. Naturally, we were disappointed because, after the failure of the Italian Presidency, the Taoiseach worked very hard to devise a constitution acceptable to all member states. However, we must look to the future by working together to meet both national and international interests. If each country protects only its own interests, we will make no progress.
Today's meeting is very important for us. Links have been established between our countries at presidential and ministerial level but we should also develop contacts at parliamentary level. Even though the delegation's visit is brief, I hope it will get some insight into how we can co-operate for our mutual benefit.
I welcome the delegation. Ireland has long had friendly relations with France, so it is good to meet a French delegation on any occasion.
The European constitution presents us with real difficulties. Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty on the first occasion and later approved it on a second vote. Ireland voted for the Nice treaty after first rejecting it and went on to establish the Forum for Europe. However, neither the Netherlands nor France is prepared to vote again on the constitutional referendum. While there are valid grounds for this decision in that a future referendum is likely to be defeated, we are left with no way forward. The rejection of earlier treaties by Ireland and Denmark was a problem which concerned only those countries, but the rejection of the constitution by France and the Netherlands is a European problem.
The Heads of State were running around like headless chickens at last week's European summit. There was no leadership or direction in the meeting and the only decision made was to enter yet another period of extended reflection. We have been reflecting since the last summit in 2005 and will continue to do so until June 2008, after which European elections will be held. It is unlikely, therefore, that anything will happen before 2010. France demands an amended constitution, whereas Ireland claims fully to support the constitution but will not declare a date on which to hold a referendum. Everybody is sitting on the fence, waiting for something to happen. While they are waiting, will the European project begin to stagnate? What will happen to enlargement?
Is anybody conducting an audit of the efforts by member states to bring the European Union closer to the people? As far as I can gather, states have done very little in that regard over the past 12 months. The democratic deficit and lack of confidence in the EU result from the absence of a structure for bringing its institutions closer to the people. The electorate has rejected the advice of the political, trade union and church establishments on the constitution and other treaties.
The problems with the constitution threaten to introduce a period of paralysis. No progress was made in resolving the problems at the summit meeting of the Heads of State and it has been left to Germany to put together a plan over the next 12 months.
Mr. Jacques Brunhes
I thank the Chairman and committee for welcoming us to Ireland, the Dáil and the Seanad. I thank them for the quality of their welcome, which is in the tradition of friendship between France and Ireland and of Irish hospitality.
I would like to offer a personal opinion. We are in a crisis. Earlier I heard somebody say that time heals everything. If we thought so, it would be enough to wait and do nothing, but that would be a failure. The "No" vote in the referendum in France or other countries was not only owing to a lack of explanation and pedagogy. We would be wrong to think that all we need is better explanation to ensure a Europe that would be accepted by the people. We must understand why the constitution was rejected.
If French and Danish people said "No", it is because they have experience of Europe. They experience it daily. This Europe is problematic for democracy, national sovereignty, unemployment and free competition with no distortion. All this is in a situation of great inequalities. I will give two examples. Last month I was at the Franco-German commission in the Bundestag, an important body, with our president, M. Jean-Louis Debré. In the Bundestag I heard German MPs talk about growing inequalities, the increase in poverty and unemployment problems. This morning in the Dáil a Deputy mentioned the deepening of inequalities in Ireland. Ireland was greatly helped by Europe. Although its economy was transformed thanks to Europe, people suffer from inequality. If we parliamentarians do not solve these problems of citizenship, sovereignty, liberal economy and the free movement of workers, we will not have a solution for Europe.
Mrs. Odile Saugues
I thank the joint committee for its welcome and for allowing this debate among parliamentarians. I will add a few words to what my colleague, Mr. Brunhes, said. Committee members will understand that we are politically close.
The French people who said "No" to the constitution are not anti-European and will not accept such a label. We were accused of being disorganised but any disorganisation resulted from the fact that enlargement happened too quickly. I am a socialist and have heard other MEPs accept that argument. Today we have problems and tensions that are apparent to all. Perhaps we did not think deeply enough about the issues, but it would not be a solution to re-serve the same dish with different ingredients.
Social problems and the free movement of workers were mentioned. They are important but it is also important to talk about them. I am in charge of transport issues. We want free competition with no distortion in that domain but we are not playing under the same rules, social or fiscal. We must all use the same tools and weapons. There is no shame in saying that everything went too fast but we can think again and retry. Perhaps it is a bit of a mess at the moment and it may be our fault. We tried to force the constitution on the French people, thinking they were not able to make up their minds themselves. We gave them only a brief explanation but I was very surprised at the level at which they had thought about the issues. Debates took place at the lowest level, because people wanted to understand. As representatives in a democracy we must also recognise that.
Europe will not happen if citizens and workers are not at its centre. Those who said "No" may accept amendments to the text but we need to ease their suffering. We can present different arguments but certainly cannot return to the French people with the same text.
Madame Saugues said that the people thought very hard about the referendum, yet were concerned that enlargement took place too quickly. The treaty has nothing to do with enlargement. If they thought so deeply about the treaty and it was properly explained, what was unacceptable?
I am delighted to be present today. I am a member of the France-Ireland Parliamentary Friendship Group and today's lunch with other members gave me a great opportunity to interact in an informal way with them, and to learn their feelings on enlargement. Very often one gets much more from such informal discussions than from formal ones.
What, in the delegates' opinion, was the kernel of the problem that made the French people reject the proposal in the referendum? We have heard about inequalities, border security and other implications of membership of the EU. However, there must have been one key issue to cause the "No" vote.
Bienvenue en Irlande à cette réunion aujourd'hui. Je parle un petit peu de français mais je ne comprends rien — je ne comprends rien en anglais non plus. Je regrette que je suis en retard. Je pose un question en anglais — c'est peut-être la deuxième fois qu'on l'a posée.
The delegates said the treaty might require amendment, but which are the most pressing areas in that regard? Our experience with the rejection and subsequent adoption of the Nice treaty illustrates that unless politicians in favour of the treaty, in this case the constitution, are prepared to work very hard to achieve a positive result it is very difficult to do so. I am not sure that commitment was evident in the countries where the treaty was rejected. The delegates also made the point that the issue is much more complicated than a question of being pro- or anti-European. Domestic issues get tied up in the debate and become extremely important, and the exercise can become a referendum on the government rather than on the European treaty.
Social Europe, workers' rights and human rights are greatly enhanced by the treaty, which represents a consensus view. I find it difficult to understand how it can be put together again, having taken so long to achieve that consensus, which balanced the interests of member states.
I refer to issues concerning enlargement and migration. Ireland has come from having very little inward migration to a point where the number of people here who are from other countries is now at the European norm. That happened very quickly. Because our economy grew so rapidly we required those people to come here to work, and they are very welcome. It is possible to absorb rapid migration successfully if the economic circumstances are favourable, to the extent that, following enlargement, we were able to accept workers from the new member states when some other countries could not do so. That has been a beneficial experience.
Europe has been said to be the generator of the Irish economic miracle. It was certainly a help but was by no means the only factor. When our growth rate was between 4% and 5%, approximately one quarter derived from European funding, the rest being generated internally.
The delegation must be on its way by 3.10 p.m. Bearing in mind the time taken by translation and the right to reply to what is being stated, I ask the two members who still have questions to keep them as short as possible.
In my name and that of the Labour Party I welcome the delegation before the committee. I would like first of all to speak to my communist and socialist colleagues. It has been said that Europe has a problem in respect of inequalities and unemployment. I do not think Europe is the problem. On the contrary, it is the solution. In speaking about Turkey, some other members of the committee and I were able to visit that country two years ago. We saw there the commitment of the political leaders.
With regard to the decisions taken in France and the need for a new referendum on enlargement, will the issue survive? Has a permanent decision been taken on the matter?
We will take Deputy Mulcahy's questioning and the delegation can answer all of them together.
I apologise for being late. I watched most of the first section of proceedings on the monitor. I add my words of welcome. I will make a point that I have frequently made at meetings of this committee. In the last few years we have spent much time on countries in the eastern part of Europe and neglected somewhat our relations with near neighbours. There should be much more co-operation between the parliamentarians of Ireland, Britain, France, Spain and Portugal. These are our near neighbours, and we have had much in common throughout history and today. We should work harder on that.
I had the opportunity to meet, through the delegates' excellent ambassador, a representative from the French Parliament who was especially interested in discussing future options for the EU constitution. Other members of the committee also met with the special representative, and the meeting was very useful.
For me, France has always been at the intellectual heart of Europe. Given that the French people voted against this constitution, much of the solution to the issue must come from France and the Netherlands. France is capable of doing this. I do not think the French people would welcome a second vote on the same document. There must be some new thinking. The national parliaments could play a major role in such new thinking.
Mr. Deniaud
I will try to explain the reasons for the failure of the French referendum and will give my opinions as honestly as possible as a mark of respect for the other members of the delegation. The failure of the referendum was also a rejection of the government. At the time there was high unemployment in France and the French people were, basically, in a bad mood. However, there is a good deal more history relating to this issue. The Maastricht treaty was accepted by a tiny majority and for a long time Europe was seen by a certain category of French people as full of administrative complications.
One example of this may be seen in the case of hunting. There are many hunters in France and the European Union is deemed by them to create problems relating to the date of the opening of the hunting season. Hunting rights are close to French hearts because they derive from the French revolution. At that time only nobles were allowed to hunt and a peasant caught hunting on his master's land would be punished, or even hanged in the most extreme cases. This was changed as a consequence of the revolution. We can smile about this today but it is still very important. Europe, unfortunately, was seen as something limited to such problems.
Farmers also said "No" to Europe because they hate the paperwork that accompanies the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. We tried to explain to them that without the CAP there would indeed be no paperwork, but neither would there be any payments. They still voted "No" in the referendum as a mark of protest.
The people of France are afraid of companies relocating to foreign markets and higher unemployment. As the Chairman pointed out, this may contradict reality, as the enlargement of the EU had taken place prior to the failure of the referendum. We should, instead, embrace these markets for the employment they will bring.
There is also a technical reason for the failure of the referendum. The constitutional treaty is an enormous document and we made the mistake of adding to title one. Title one was only a discussion about the institution. It was an institutional amendment to give more power to the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the national parliaments that are closest to the people. It would have resulted in the citizens of Europe being heard, but the mistake was to add the second part on economic, agricultural and social policy. These decisions had already been taken, but somehow we wished to have them reconfirmed by adding them to the treaty. If only we had ratified the first part then the debate would have been on the improvement of European institutions. That debate would have been more pragmatic, realistic and focused on the improvement of how Europe functions, but unfortunately this was not the case.
I thank Mr. Deniaud on behalf of the committee for an interesting and robust exchange of views.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.20 p.m. and adjourned at 3.30 p.m. until 2 p.m. on 28 June 2006.