I thank the Chairman. I have a submission that is rather long but I will get through as much as possible in the time available to me.
I have worked in Brussels for the Irish Examiner for seven years, during which time I have covered two treaties, the Nice and Lisbon treaties, and the subsequent referendums. My job as Europe correspondent mainly revolves around the European Union. I see it as reporting to readers of the Irish Examiner on what is happening that affects their lives. My role here is not to give the sub-committee arguments for or against the Lisbon treaty or the European Union but as a journalist, I am in favour of telling the people the facts and letting them decide for themselves.
Reporting on what happens in the European Union is difficult because, first and foremost, very few understand what it is. This is compounded by people's inaccurate perceptions that get in the way of them understanding much of what is happening. To try to explain needs more space than the 400 words I have to write a story. For instance, who really knows what are the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the Court of Justice, not to mention the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, COREPER 1, COREPER 2, and working groups?
When I want to talk about a department of the Commission, can I really say the Directorate General and be confident I am not losing the reader? This is before we get around to the Presidents of the Commission, the Council — which changes every six months — and the Parliament. When I refer to a summit of EU leaders, I wonder whether readers understand that this is not an august body of people which inhabits a spot in Brussels, or if they realise it is a meeting of equals that includes the person whom they have elected to lead the country. Similarly, if I write about the Council of Ministers or refer to Finance Ministers from the member states, do they know that this is not a Brussels quango but includes the Irish Minister for Finance sitting as an equal at a table with his colleagues? When I write about the European Commission, do people think it is an all powerful body, frequently out of control and with which our powerless little Government does battle now and again to defend our interests or get money to which we are entitled or stop it battering us to death? The evidence from the Lisbon treaty referendum suggests they do not know the facts, which suggests a public education campaign would be useful.
There are no equivalents of the EU institutions in the Irish system. The Commission is not the Civil Service, the Parliament is not the Dáil and the Council is not the Government. Perhaps a simple graph showing how the institutions relate to one another would be a good start, but this on its own would only tell part of the story. What makes sense of much of the European Union is the role of the Government and the Permanent Representation, the missing links in public understanding. The Permanent Representation with its 90 civil servants is based in Brussels. The hundreds more civil servants who travel there regularly and others from the Garda Síochána and the Army play their role. Those members of civil society frequently involved in Brussels meetings are known by just a few. The sub-committee will know how the Permanent Representation operates but saying its role is to "influence" and "represent" and be "closely involved" might suggest it is outside the action while, in fact, it is an integral part of the European Union and where Irish representatives have an equal say around the table. Ireland is a small country and our Permanent Representation of 90 civil servants is tiny compared to the 900 or so that the larger countries have. I agree we have to save our ammunition and find our allies, like any others operating in a group.
The other piece of vital information that is frequently missing is on the role the Government plays. The member state governments rule the European Union, including the Commission, even though it is often portrayed as an independent body answerable to nobody. All of the Commission's proposed legislation has to be approved by the governments and the Parliament and can be amended and changed as they wish or ultimately dumped. The result of people not knowing about the Government's role is that they have no way of judging what is happening on their behalf at EU level. Therefore, the perception is that the European Union is a monster breathing fire at Ireland. When one considers the evidence, it is easy to see why they might think this.
I ask the sub-committee to consider some examples. On water charges, when agreeing this issue, the Government exempted domestic houses but did not include schools. The Commission stated the Government could return to the issue and exempt schools but the Government declined and blamed the European Union for the charges on schools. On the bank bail-outs, it was pointed out to the Government that the bank guarantee scheme was not in line with EU competition rules and some officials were sent to Dublin to work it out. This disregard of the rules was considered so serious that both the French and German leaders referred to it as something that must be avoided if we were to get through the economic crisis together. Rather than taking responsibility, the Government encouraged the public perception in the Seanad and elsewhere that we had been unfairly treated.
On the disclosure of passenger name records to the United States, the Joint Committee on European Affairs was critical of this decision and stated there was a danger of the European Union of moving towards a surveillance society, but a former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is on record as saying that whatever information the Americans wanted, he was happy to give them on the basis that they were allies. This week the Minister for Transport was prepared to give even more information apparently in one-to-one negotiations with the United States.
On the temporary agency workers directive, trade unions were up in arms over the failure to agree to these measures designed to protect workers and the Government was very reticent to admit it was objecting to it. With the British, it delayed it for a long time before signing up to it, but not before alarming trade unions and workers and giving the impression that the European Union was ready to work against their interests.
On justice issues, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform decided that the non-EU spouses of EU citizens should not be automatically allowed to join them in Ireland, that they would first have to live for a number of years in another EU country. This does not apply to US citizens. The Department briefed the media on this issue and produced statistics that showed there was a significant number of suspect marriages. It instanced the unusually large number of Latvians marrying non-EU citizens. The European Court of Justice found that Irish law interfered with the fundamental EU principle of freedom of movement and that if there was a problem with sham marriages, the Government should deal with it but not by interfering with this core EU value.
On fishing, fishermen said they would vote against the Lisbon treaty because the European Union was doing nothing to help them. At the time the Government was late in submitting its operational programme to draw down €42 million in EU funds. At the same time, while making plans to provide funds for fishermen in difficulties over the big increase in fuel charges, the Government wanted a 100% rather than a 30% contribution from the European Union.
On stem cell research, Irish campaigners thought it was a case of being for or against embryonic stem cell research and celebrated when Ministers could not agree. In fact, it was about putting in place guidelines and the disagreement meant that no guidelines for funding were agreed.
On the environment, Ireland has the second highest number of cases in the European Union for infringements of Government legislation. Legislation negotiated, agreed to and signed by the Government designed to keep water drinkable and waterways healthy was either ignored, not enforced or transposed incorrectly into Irish law. When the Commission took action through the courts, the Government's approach was to fight it. An EU expert said Ireland's usual response was to fight such cases when the money and time doing so could have been used to right the situation, which it is eventually forced to do by the courts.
Confusing the public is not always about being silent. Sometimes it is simply a matter of how a story is spun. As a result, certain stories involve just one issue. The Common Agricultural Policy is all about getting more money for our farmers. However, the headline, "Great news, the price of food just went up," is more likely than, "Great news, more money for farmers". A news story concerning agreement to overfish already imperilled stocks will more usually have the headline, "Fishermen win quota for next year".
Portraying the EU budget as a great waste of our money is another common theme. Frequently, it is based on the amount of money going to agriculture. Claiming half goes to farming ignores the fact that it is the only policy on which member states spend nothing because they have handed the money to the Union to distribute.
Robber Brussels is another news story that normally ignores the fact that the failure of the Court of Auditors to sign off on the accounts is down to the failure of the member states to ensure the rules were obeyed in providing money for projects. The Commission has the responsibility to see to it that they do. Great Brussels bureaucracy is another theme that lacks context. For instance, it is two thirds the size of the Irish Civil Service.
This leads to another question: what position does the Government take on issues in the European Union? Often nobody knows or, at least, not the ordinary person. Journalists are used to gathering information that is not easily available. However, getting the details from the Commission and the European Parliament is easy. They put most of it on-line for ordinary citizens to access in 22 languages. They include information on the consultations which take place, the submissions received and debates. Even lobbyists are encouraged to put on-line the details of who they work for and what they are paid.
For journalists, the problem arises when it comes to finding out what the Government wants. Sometimes it is happy enough with the proposals from the Commission. It can go along with whatever changes other EU governments and the European Parliament want to make. However, sometimes that is not the case and finding out can pose a major problem, with some Departments remaining more silent than others, even on issues such as the policies they opt into.
The issue of whether the European Union has democratic legitimacy arises frequently and is often raised by member state governments. Some years ago their answer to this charge was to incorporate local elected representatives and members of civil society into two advisory bodies. It was envisaged that this would allow views from the bottom up to filter through and influence the Commission in drawing up proposals for legislation. These became the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Regional Committee. They are full of good people from every country, including Ireland, who have been appointed by their governments. There is no way one can apply to be part of them and no voting required. Perhaps there should.
Some years later the issue came up again at a summit in Belgium when EU governments stated the democratic deficit was the reason the public was disenchanted with the European Union. To close this gap, they would stop debating the future direction of the Union and decide on a long-term strategy. This would be a new treaty and, to prove the Union could not be accused of lacking democratic legitimacy, they would set up a body comprising elected public representatives from every country, including the candidates, and have them devise the EU constitution. It was probably the only treaty in history drawn up by elected representatives from all parties, governments and the Opposition, with input an by civil society. Despite this, with the closely related Lisbon treaty, it is still stuck with the tag of lacking democratic legitimacy. The European Union is accused of being undemocratic, even though it is under the control of properly elected governments. They operate within the system of representative democracies where politicians are elected to take actions on behalf of the electorate on the basis that if the public does not approve, it will vote them out next time around.
How was Ireland perceived after the rejection of the Lisbon treaty? Initially, the main reaction was disappointment on the part of those who would have liked to see it go through. This was followed by shock and frustration when it emerged that lack of information, abortion, neutrality, corporation tax, Commissioners and army conscription were the reasons people had voted "No". To understand this reaction we must consider the campaign. EU institutions and politicians were warned by the Government not to become involved in the debate and felt frustrated when it became apparent there had been no real campaign in Ireland. The Government, during its six-month EU Presidency in 2004, came up with several compromise solutions that broke the impasse and had the EU constitution agreed. Despite this, it was not willing or able to defend or explain its close relative, the Lisbon treaty, to the electorate. The principal Irish politician involved in the conclusion of the treaty said he had not read it. While the Government and the IFA were having a stand-off, the colleagues of the much-disliked Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, got involved in the WTO issue and got the message across that Ireland does not have a veto over any final deal at EU level.
Finland, Sweden, Malta and Austria do not have any fears for their neutrality but, despite appending declarations to previous treaties, the Irish still do. Despite having a relatively high rate of abortions secured abroad and having made abortion lawful in the event of a mother's life being at risk it has secured a declaration saying the law will not be changed, unlike Malta, which retains a total ban on abortion. Few know that the Irish courts have urged the Government to legislate in this regard and that opinion polls show a shift in public opinion. With regard to tax, the veto remains, not just for Ireland, but most other countries want it too. Under the Nice treaty, some countries would lose their Commissioner next year, while it would not happen for another five years under Lisbon, but this fact was not relayed. With regard to the issue of conscription, there is no EU army, and three of the nine EU member states that have conscription are neutral countries.
Some countries encourage and help their brightest students to seek jobs in EU institutions — for example, by funding their six-month student experience — but not Ireland. Because salaries have improved so much here and the competition from the new member states is intense, the number of Irish officials may not be maintained in the future. Currently the heads of three of the 27 Commissioners' cabinets are Irish, as is the chief civil servant, the Secretary General of the Commission.
There are a limited number of state scholarships to the European College in Bruges, through which many of the most senior civil servants in Brussels, including from Ireland, have passed. However, the scholarships are few and exclude students with Irish language scholarships from their leaving certificate results, which see them through Irish universities but not Bruges. Citizens' summaries are now being produced by the Commission to make proposed legislation understandable to the citizen. It would be a good idea for the Government to make these available on its websites. Member states want to control the flow of information. They refused to join forces with the Parliament and the Commission to have a one-stop shop in each capital. Why would the Irish Government not agree to have such a one-stop shop in Dublin and work with the offices of the Parliament and Commission here?
