JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union) díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Nov 2008

Discussion with Foreign Minister of Finland.

Chairman

I welcome Minister Alexander Stubb, Foreign Minister of Finland, and thank him for joining us in our deliberations this afternoon. He is aware of the background to the sub-committee which was set up to look at Ireland's future in the European Union, in the context of the Lisbon referendum result. Already we have had some of his colleagues from the Finnish Parliament appear before the sub-committee to explain the Finish parliamentary model in relation to European affairs. One of the issues we are looking at is how the role of our Parliament can be improved on European matters. We are grateful to Mr. Stubb for appearing before the sub-committee and would be grateful for his comments and observations on the situation and, as a Minister, on what systems he believes can be put in place to allow citizens understand Europe more and allow the parliament to operate more effectively with the European Union. I thank him for giving of his time.

We have quite a rigorous system in terms of allowing our work to happen because we have given many days to these sessions. I invite Mr. Stubb to speak for approximately ten minutes.

Mr. Alexander Stubb

Perfect. Thank you. Ten minutes is a lot. I used to be in the European Parliament which gave me two minutes, in the Finnish Parliament I get one.

Chairman

That is something from which we could learn.

Mr. Alexander Stubb

You know how it is. The Finns fall silent in two languages usually. We do not speak that much, that is why we are short.

I thank the sub-committee for the invitation. When I left Helsinki at 5.35 a.m. Irish time, I felt I would be ready for this in the afternoon and I am. If I may be allowed, I wish to raise five points I think could be helpful for the debate and the final report. The first is an observation that the European Union is in a constant mode of treaty change. For the past 25 years we have either prepared, negotiated or ratified a new treaty. This can be seen as a continuation of events since 1985 with the Single European Act which was followed by the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam treaty, the Nice treaty, the constitutional treaty and then the Lisbon treaty. In this process there have always been problems of one sort or another but at the end of the day those problems have been solved. If I have one key message today it is that this problem needs to be solved together. In a sense, I am a little bit of a sad case. I wrote my PhD on flexible integration, the possibility for different member states to do different things at different times. My final thesis was very simple, that is, the idea of co-Europe can always be used as a threat but at the end of the day one will never end up using it. That does not mean we should steer away from flexible solutions of sorts. For me, there are no flexible solutions to this one. It will be a common European solution.

We are faced with three key challenges. I will not dwell on this because members know the details very well. All challenges are linked to the treaty. The first challenge is enlargement. Will we be able to cope, institutionally, without an increase in qualified majority voting or an increased role for national parliaments or the European Parliament? The second challenge is climate change. Will we be able to implement the decisions taken by the Heads of State in the so-called 20/20 decision without the Lisbon treaty?

The third challenge is our role in the world and Common Foreign and Security Policy and our way of promoting what I call soft power. Will we be able to be a bigger player on the world stage, as we are on trade and aid, in traditional foreign policy without the treaty?

Why do I think the Lisbon treaty is good? Members have probably seen 120 arguments on this but I will give three more. It increases democracy within the EU by giving a stronger role to national parliaments, more power to the European Parliament and strengthening the subsidiarity principle. It clarifies our system. One could argue that the constitutional treaty was clearer but the Lisbon treaty is not bad. It clarifies by giving us a clearer division of competence. We have not been able to say what the EU does and what it does not do. It increases the efficiency of the EU by increasing qualified majority voting, by giving the EU a legal personality, which facilitates the negotiation of international treaties and by establishing a president of the EU and a foreign minister for the EU. I say this as a representative of a small state. When Europe speaks with one voice, it is in our interest. When we are split it is always the big states who run the show. It is as simple as that.

I come from a geographically peripheral state that is similar to Ireland in ways, such as size, experience, having a big neighbour, and being militarily non-alligned or neutral. Our experience has been the same. The EU Presidencies run by Ireland have been very good, not least the latest in 2004. I have worked as a civil servant and as a MEP. Coming from a small state, it is in the interest of small states to have strong institutions. Anything that happens outside the institutions is to our disadvantage. We are not in the game of the big states. If something happens in the G8 or G20 without the EU, our voice is not heard. The WTO is an excellent example of an institution where, if Europe speaks with one voice, small states' voices can be heard as well.

Our philosophy has been simple. We must find common solutions to common problems and the best way to do it for small states is to sit around the table where decisions are made. The best argument I heard came a few years ago from a Belgian ambassador who explained how small states should act in the EU. The Belgians have been there from the beginning. He said that a small state usually comes up with a good idea, then goes to a bigger state and asks what it thinks about the idea. The big state responds that it is not so good. Three months later, the small state goes back and says that it has adjusted the proposal since it was last discussed. The big state then says that it is quite interested. The small state waits another three months and offers the original idea and the big states will grab it. One must be around the table where decisions are made. One must be flexible, must work and must be at the heart of Europe, not trying to work the so-called rejection game. Ireland has been one of the central players inside the EU. Ireland has punched above its weight many times while in the EU.

My final and fifth point is about communication, because the Chairman asked me for my comments on how to narrow the gap between the citizen and the European Union. The first thing is to avoid the blame game. The European Union is a very easy spitting cup — everything that is bad happens in Brussels and everything that is good is thanks to the member states or the capital cities or, as I told the Minister for Foreign Affairs, everything that happens in Dublin is bad and everything that is good happens in Cork. That link is always there and it is so easy to demonise the European Union.

I was following the Irish debate on the Lisbon treaty and also the debate in the committee yesterday and there was a certain process of demonisation and this happens all over Europe. We have to be really careful because if the European Union is put down on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and then we go to church on Sunday and say that the EU is really good, then the response will not be positive. I am not saying we should start doing EU propaganda but I think we can and should give the European Union a little bit of credit where credit is due.

I will give two recent examples, one is Georgia and the Georgian crisis, where European soft power and foreign policy worked. We brokered the ceasefire, we brokered peace. The second example is the financial crisis. I would hate to see where we would have been without the European Union and certainly without the euro. We have to try to find common solutions but we also must be able to communicate the European Union a little better.

This is what I wanted to say by way of a short introduction, first, that we are in a constant process of treaty change; second, that we face a certain set of current challenges such as enlargement, climate change, CFSP; third, the reasons the Lisbon treaty is good; fourth, why small states benefit from the system and why our experience in Finland is similar to the Irish one; finally, to stop the blame game and see the positive developments of the European Union.

Deputy Joe Costello

I welcome Mr. Stubb. His contribution was succinct and precise and he has learned that discipline well in the European Parliament and in Finland.

What is the current view in Finland of the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty? What does Mr. Stubb see as the way forward? He said the solution must be a common EU solution but we have been asked to come up with some part of that solution. If Finland was asked to come up with some part of that solution, what positive suggestions would Mr. Stubb make as Foreign Minister? As Finland is a small country, what is its view on each country having a Commissioner?

Mr. Stubb spoke about communication and his presentation was excellent. I am not sure if any EU member state has been totally successful in presenting the European Union and its institutions to its citizenry in an effective fashion. The survey analysis seems to show that the Nordic countries have succeeded better than most of the other countries and that Ireland is in the bottom half. I ask him to give the committee the benefit of Finland's success in that respect or to discuss to what degree Finland has been successful. If a referendum were to be held in Finland, what success could be expected?

I refer to Mr. Ganley's intentions of establishing a European-wide party to campaign in the elections. What support would he receive in Finland? Would he be likely to have candidates? Is there a strong eurosceptic view there? Finland's neighbour, Denmark, experienced similar difficulties to ours regarding referenda. How would Mr. Stubb assess Denmark's solution to its problems?

Mr. Alexander Stubb

I thank the Deputy for his questions. The first was on the Finnish view of Ireland's rejection. As I said, our view is that we need to find a common solution. From the beginning I have said we will not leave Ireland alone. I will not get into the threatening game of talking about exclusion from a core European Union, which is a little absurd. It is a little like a nuclear weapon; one can threaten but never use it. If there was a core European Union, I would want Ireland to be in it because it is one of our most constructive, progressive and pro-European member states. It is the kind of country everybody likes to see at the heart of the European Union. Therefore, we need to find a common solution and do not need to put unnecessary pressure on the situation but to find a solution together.

What is the way forward? It is very difficult to say. The first stage was to let some time pass by and make the analysis and engage in some serious reflection. That reflection has taken place in Ireland with the research results, analysis and discussions that are beginning to emerge on the consequences of the referendum result. At the same time, there have been two major crises in Europe, the war in Georgia and the financial crisis. I have no magic solution. The members know as well as I that some of the areas highlighted are linked with the number of Commissioners, taxation, ethical questions and neutrality. They are rather traditional, but usually there is a creative way out of it.

Deputy Costello asked me specifically about the number of Commissioners. It is no secret that Finland was of the opinion that one Commissioner per member state would have been a better solution. Paradoxically, we are in a situation where under the Nice treaty we cannot have one Commissioner per member state. However, with the Lisbon treaty there is a door open for that interpretation. It is too early to say whether we can achieve that and while nobody wants to open a Pandora's box, I argue that it could be an element of the full package.

Deputy Costello asked me about communication. It is not an Irish problem but a Europe-wide one. It is kind of the Deputy to refer to the Nordic debates on European affairs, but in many ways one could say we have failed in that debate because the Nordic countries are, per capita, a little more sceptical about European integration than Ireland. Here the level of support for the European Union is rather strong.

I try to talk about European affairs in an interesting, straightforward and easy way. I could stand here and discuss the latest decision of COREPER I which deals with the directive on the odometers of two and three-wheeled motor vehicles, together with the European Parliament in the process of co-decision, which used to be Article 189b. There might be a Second Reading; we will see what will happen in conciliation. One can always give the spiel on European affairs but that is probably the most unsexy thing one can do. One can say much more simply, for example, one is making a Vespa in County Cork and its odometers must work in Italy as well as they do in County Cork. One needs to communicate about European affairs. As I said, the blame game is serious. We saw it here in the campaign and we can certainly see it in what members referred to as "our neighbouring country" in a rather sceptical Anglo-Saxon media. I have a special place for it in my heart because I happen to be married to a Brit and I follow the media closely. We must be careful about what kind of stories we run on Europe.

A question was asked about Libertas and eurosceptics. Having been in the European Parliament, my argument is that the best way to have an influence is to sit in the bigger mainstream groups — for instance, the EPP centre-right group, the liberal group ALDE or the Party of European Socialists. They are the ones who have an influence on the bigger legislative packages. Would there be an echo in Finland? There is a eurosceptic party called the True Finns, so if Libertas is liberal enough to take on the True Finns there might be an echo there. However, the True Finns would go into the party with Nigel Farage and the UK Independence Party, and I do not know what Libertas thinks about that.

The final question was about the Danish opt-outs as a solution. As I said, I was sad enough to do my PhD on this particular subject. If we look at secondary legislation in the European Union, we will see that up to 1983 there were about 250 cases of flexibility, while up to 2000 you could probably treble or quadruple that number. In other words, the Swedes are allowed to sell snuff, there are transition periods in particular cases, the Danes get an opt-out on defence, and so on. My argument is that it is not necessarily to the benefit of a state, especially a smaller state, to have an opt-out. It is much more beneficial to have an opt-in. The Danes are considering getting rid of the opt-outs because they know it is not nice to be excluded from the table. The euro is a great example. One of the reasons Ireland punches above its weight is that it is in the euro group.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I welcome the Minister, Mr. Stubb, to the committee. I heard him speaking at an OSCE meeting at the Parliamentary Assembly in Kazakhstan.

Mr. Alexander Stubb

Oh my God.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

It is good to hear him speaking again. He is very welcome to Ireland.

Ireland has always regarded Finland as an ally of sorts because it is seen as a militarily non-aligned or neutral country. However, people in Ireland are not sure to what extent our status resembles that of Finland, so I ask Mr. Stubb how he would define Finland's status in terms of security and defence.

Do Finnish people understand the concerns of the Irish people, particularly about the security and defence provisions of the Lisbon treaty? It seems from the examination carried out by the sub-committee on the Lisbon treaty and the Irish public's reaction to it that there is a concern that Ireland, a supposedly neutral country, is becoming integrated into the security and defence structures of the European Union and that in doing so its neutrality is being eroded.

We have already signed up to participate in battle groups and the rapid reaction force, and under Lisbon we would agree to increase our military capabilities and unreservedly support the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. We would also sign up, in supporting the Lisbon treaty, to the solidarity clause, the mutual assistance clause, and the clause on the eventual framing of a common defence. Does Mr. Stubb think the Finnish people understand the concerns of Irish people that by making all these commitments our neutrality is gradually being eroded? Do Finnish people have any similar concerns with regard to the status of its security and defence policy?

Mr. Stubb mentioned the importance of the use of soft power by the EU. I agree, and I think the EU has been a good example of how effective the use of soft power can be at international level. Would Mr. Stubb have any concerns that if the EU is to develop, consolidate or strengthen its security and defence policy to a greater extent as proposed in the Lisbon treaty, it will be using soft power to a much lesser extent? The availability of hard power will mean there will be less inclination to resort to the use of soft power. Will this undermine the support of citizens for the project? Many Irish citizens support the project because they see it as a peace project that has delivered more than 50 years of sustained peace on the European continent. If young European citizens came home in body bags from increasingly dangerous missions abroad public support for the European project might be seriously undermined. Is Mr. Stubb concerned about the lack of democratic oversight of decisions relating to participation in military offensives abroad? One of the issues that has been highlighted regarding the Lisbon treaty is the lack of involvement of parliaments, national and European, in decision-making on this matter.

Does Mr. Stubb feel the close link between the European security and defence policy and NATO is a good thing? Looking to the future, is it a disadvantage that the European security and defence policy is so closely integrated with that of NATO? Will European and American interests always coincide as closely as they have in the past? Would greater independence for the European security and defence policy be desirable?

Mr. Alexander Stubb

I thank the Senator and will try to take the questions together as they all related to security and defence.

How does Finland see itself in the EU framework? To put it bluntly, we do not consider that our EU membership and commitment in the Lisbon treaty present problems regarding our military non-alliance. In the past 15 years, Finnish foreign policy doctrine has evolved from traditional neutrality to a status of military non-alliance to a government programme, approved last year, which says Finland is a country that does not belong to a military alliance. Areas such as battle groups, capabilities, Common Foreign and Security Policy, the solidarity clause, mutual assistance and common defence were mentioned and they do not contradict the basic line of traditionally neutral states like Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Austria. We can all live within this context.

Regarding mutual assistance, I remember, as a civil servant in Naples, Italy, in 2003, when Article 42.7, then Article 40.7, on mutual security guarantees was placed on the table. The foreign ministers of four countries got together around the table and those countries were Ireland, Finland, Sweden and Austria. We added a phrase saying that the measure must be in line with constitutional arrangements in each country. In that sense we have breathing space to decide whether we want to participate in the mutual assistance clause. The question was asked: "has neutrality been eroded by this?" The answer is absolutely not.

I was asked whether we understand Irish concerns on defence. We do, because we have had a similar discussion. It may not be as vibrant as discussion in Ireland but we have a discussion every time so-called sensitive issues are on the table. I entirely agree that the EU is really about soft power. I do not think that more defence elements will lead to greater focus on hard power in the EU; it remains the peace process it has always been.

To simplify things, the difference is that Europe has tried to promote peace, security, stability and democracy through peaceful means for the past 60 years. I do not refer to the colonial period. It won the Cold War without firing one shot. It won because liberal democracy combined with a social market economy beat authoritarian communism and a regulated economy hands down. After that, we became so sexy or appealing that everyone wanted to join, including central and eastern Europe and Turkey. This is the soft power aspect. Enlarging to include Turkey may prove a case in point. It is an extremely important strategic decision, which has implications for the development of democracy in Turkey, that has been taken because we are on soft power. If there are dangerous missions involving body bags, every member state can decide every time in which operations it wishes to participate. It is up to the discretion of the member state and its parliament to take that decision. No one forces anyone to participate in a military operation. That is quite clear. In areas such as the Congo or Chad, where Ireland is one of the largest contributors, where some member states do not want to participate, then they do not. I do not think there is a lack of democratic oversight in military operations. If the EU was a federation, the European Parliament would have a say on where these troops come from but it is not. It goes through national parliaments.

The final question is on whether the link between the EU and NATO is good. My take is that it is good that the two organisations co-operate. From a European perspective, we should admit that Ireland, Finland, Sweden and Austria are in a minority. Some 21 or 27 EU states are members of NATO, comprising 95% of the EU population. If there is a possibility for Finland to participate in some of the crisis management operations through the Partnership for Peace, if we can get information and increased security in Europe, it is welcome. In the next few months and years, we will see France moving much closer to NATO and European defence being in the background.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I will share my time with Deputy Flynn. I welcome Mr. Stubb. Finland is a very beautiful country and I have been there once.

Mr. Alexander Stubb

I hope it was during the summer.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

Yes, long nights on the streets of Helsinki.

Mr. Alexander Stubb

No details, please.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

My local soccer club, Drogheda United, was playing there in the UEFA Cup.

The Finnish people are interesting and unique people and have played a good role since joining the EU not so long ago. It has been suggested by various people before this committee, including some yesterday, that it is possible for the Irish Government to completely renegotiate the Lisbon treaty. What would the Finnish response be if an Irish Minister said that we wished to renegotiate the treaty entirely? What would be the view of Mr. Stubb and his colleagues?

I was going to speak about neutrality but Mr. Stubb has addressed it in responding to Senator de Búrca. In Ireland we feel we are the only ones with the Holy Grail of neutrality. We are not aware that other countries are non-aligned militarily. For perception purposes, would it be better if the five non-aligned countries could meet more often or hold conferences on the issue? Maybe that is not necessary because it is not an issue in practice.

A number of wild claims have been made about the Lisbon treaty in this country such as that three year old children could be locked up in prison. One of my constituents told me when I was canvassing that she had been told her passport would be taken away from her if she voted "Yes". It is fortunate I met her and I persuaded her to vote "Yes". Another constituent told me she believed the Lisbon treaty was an example of the European Union showing its aggression to the wider world. I wonder if these claims surface in Finland and if they are treated seriously by the media or any political party there.

Mr. Alexander Stubb

I thank the Deputy for his questions. The first was about renegotiation. I would see it as a very difficult option. I am not saying this solely from a personal perspective in that I have a negotiator's trauma because I was involved in the Finnish negotiating team for the Amsterdam and Nice treaties and was at the constitutional convention as a civil servant when I was in the Commission and then on the Finnish side at the Intergovernmental Conference. Any discussion of institutional questions and power between member states as in votes at the Council or the number of Commissioners or power between the institutions as in the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament or seats in the European Parliament usually ends up in an unfortunate bloodbath because each and every nation state tries to drive its own interests. It is always a traumatic experience. The Nice treaty was probably the most traumatic and I was there in the middle of the night. I do not think one ends up with a better solution at the end of the day. I belong to the category of people who are nostalgic about the constitutional treaty but this is not an option and not on the table any more because we have the Lisbon treaty and we have to live with that reality. To go back and reopen the whole package would be a little unrealistic.

The person who was here yesterday and to whom the Deputy referred called for a short and snappy constitutional treaty. All of us who have followed the discussion on European integration for years on end know that we have tried this many times. The first part of the constitutional treaty was nice and neat in 49 Articles but this is not the United States of America or a federation. If the person in question who suggested this option is a federalist, that is fine, but I assume he is not. Renegotiation seems to be a non-starter at this stage.

The second question was on neutrality and Cyprus. We talk about our experiences but one must remember that our neutrality has very different traditions. Irish neutrality has been different and emerged in a period in time when it was very useful for the country; it has become part of the Irish identity. Sweden has been neutral for a couple of hundred years. Finnish neutrality was something we had to fight for throughout the Soviet era, especially in fighting with the Soviets in World War II and in its aftermath. It was, therefore, pragmatic. There are other types of neutrality in Austria, Switzerland and Cyprus. The experience and means are very different.

The Deputy's final question was about wild reporting in the media. This happens everywhere. When I was an MEP, I had the opportunity to lecture in 84 high schools in Finland. Every Friday I went to schools to talk about European affairs and tried to gather interesting stories. I note there has been an interesting debate in Ireland on the abortion issue and the Lisbon treaty. To be honest, I am a bit of an institutional nerd but I would never be able to interpret the treaty that far to be able to talk about having to give up passports or locking up three year olds. We are all rational individuals.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

That last claim about locking up three year olds was made by a solicitor who was a member of the Libertas campaign and by the Libertas president.

Mr. Alexander Stubb

Did he ever pass the bar?

A Member

She.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I do not know; I asked that question yesterday.

Mr. Alexander Stubb

It is kind of sad because such arguments under estimate the intelligence of the general public. I will give an example that was printed in a mainstream English newspaper called The Independent. My family frequently spends Christmas in England and my parents-in-law subscribe to The Independent. I had just come from a plenary week in Strasbourg where we had approved a few regulations and directives. I was reading The Independent in the morning when I saw the headline, “EU forces you to recycle dildos.” My mother-in-law looked over my shoulder and said, “Alex, what do you do for a living?” I checked the text and it referred to the directive on electrical appliances. That directive, which we had just approved in the European Parliament said if one buys an electronic appliance, such as a watch, toaster or mobile telephone, after using it one has the right to return it to the store where one bought it, and it is the job of that store to recycle that product. We did this because it is an environmentally friendly and consumer-friendly decision, but this headline was pulled from it. We must be very careful when we deal with European affairs and it is very easy to demonise. I will return to the point that everything bad comes from Brussels while everything good is thanks to the capitals. We have to be careful. I am a big fan of free speech. I am a raving liberal, but let us also use some common sense.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

I thank and welcome Mr. Stubb. I have not been to Finland and do not follow Drogheda United. I would like to ask about unanimity. All member states have to pass the Lisbon treaty for it to come into being, but the notion of renegotiation has been mentioned and we all know there is no appetite for it. What does that say about the principle of unanimity? Mr. Stubb referred to the constitution. When the French people rejected the constitution we ended up with the Lisbon treaty. That was the solution to that problem. Ireland is a smaller state and has made this decision on Lisbon, yet nobody is prepared to renegotiate with us. I would like to hear Mr. Stubb's view on that, as a member of a small state. Does he think it reasonable that people might be a little cynical about unanimity in the European Union?

In this country it has been an issue that due to the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Lisbon treaty, the European Court of Justice might make decisions that might impact on us. Was this a concern in Finland regarding ethical and moral issues like it was here? What sort of system of European scrutiny does Finland operate regarding the transposition of EU directives into Finnish law?

Mr. Alexander Stubb

I thank Deputy Flynn for those three questions. I will divide the first question on unanimity into two sets. The smaller issue is unanimity and qualified majority voting inside the European Union when we do secondary legislation such as regulations and directives. There the dynamic is usually such that at the end of the day one finds a compromise. It is very rare that one country is out-voted. Everybody is counting blocking minorities and majorities but everybody realises that there are specific national interests which must be taken into account. Qualified majority voting is good because it usually helps to push for a decision and if a country is blocking a decision it is usually a big state, not a small one. The more qualified majority voting we have, the better. That is on the micro level. Then we have the macro level — the intergovernmental conferences, the budgetary negotiations, reforming the CAP, the energy package. There is always an option to push something through, but it is very rarely done. The big question is intergovernmental conferences. Deputy Flynn asked whether it is not reasonable that people are a bit cynical when we can find a solution for France and the Netherlands — which are founding states, one of them large and the other medium — but not Ireland. Yes, one could make that argument. However, at the same time one could ask, as a counter-argument, what changed from the constitutional treaty to the Lisbon treaty.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

Very little.

Mr. Alexander Stubb

Very little. In terms of substance, I do not want to give a percentage, but that percentage would be very low. I understand the feeling and the sentiment. At the same time, we are all in this boat together. One could perhaps turn it around and say — this argument is also heard, although I do not think it is any better or worse than the one made by Deputy Flynn on unanimity, which is a good one — that Malta, for example, or Finland, with 5.3 million inhabitants, cannot stop a treaty which pertains to 485 million Europeans. That is the counter-argument. Then one could come back and say, let us not talk about unanimity but about unanimity minus X, or something like that. We have unanimity and we are in the situation we are in. Let us try to find some kind of creative solution. We have to do this together. That is my message on it.

On the ethical and moral issues, I do not think the European Court of Justice can start interpreting too much. There are already some issues in the pipeline — for example, divorces. Divorce laws in Finland and Sweden are very liberal — to put it bluntly, it is very easy to get a divorce, while it is less so in many other European countries. There is already secondary legislation in the pipeline which might have an implication for this. However, to say that the EU can decide on abortion or penal law or something similar is not true. It is just not there.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

Where does one draw the line? If it is possible to blur the lines on divorce, could it not happen——

Mr. Alexander Stubb

The line is very simple. The EU is based on competence given to it by the treaties. The treaties — that is, primary law — and secondary law are then interpreted by the ECJ. The ECJ has never been quick to interpret anything that has to do with traditional ethical or moral issues. The court is quite quick to interpret issues which have to do with the internal market, but not the rest.

The Deputy's final question was about European security and national parliaments. I taught a course at the College of Europe in Bruges, together with Brigid Laffan — I was her student and then I ended up teaching together with her — on the involvement of national administrations. The system of scrutiny is very strong in Finland. For example, before I go to a foreign affairs meeting I go before the committee on foreign affairs and sometimes the Europe committee, or the Grand Committee, as it is called, to give the Finnish Government's view, and then they give me pointers which I bring to the meeting. When I come back from Brussels I give a briefing on what went on. That is the level of scrutiny we have. The national parliaments are very involved, which is a good thing. I must add, however, that our committee meetings are held behind closed doors.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

Is there a reserve?

Mr. Alexander Stubb

We have a parliamentary reserve, although we quite rarely use it. We have a reserve if need be. It is also quite a good negotiating tactic.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy and Mr. Stubb. I have two questions.

One of the things we are looking at is the effect of the Lisbon referendum result on Ireland's influence. According to some of the testimony we have heard, the ability of Ireland to negotiate quickly on matters that are important to us is limited because we have the treaty hanging over our head. As a person who is at the negotiating table, can Mr. Stubb give us a view as to whether this claim is correct?

My second question relates to the name of this sub-committee on Ireland's future in the European Union. If Ireland does not ratify the Lisbon treaty or a version of it, how will Finland respond? How will some of Finland's neighbours respond?

Mr. Alexander Stubb

On Irish influence, one must separate the stages. First, Ireland has been a member since 1973; it is a constructive country that has punched above its weight. The rules of the game in the EU are quite clear; if a country is considered a serious, trustworthy negotiator and constructive, especially as a small state, it will get what it wants. I assume that nobody claims Ireland has not done well as a member of the EU.

The second stage is that the treaty is hanging in the air. If I were an Irish Minister, I would reflect on it and realise it has an impact on some issues. One cannot qualify this, one cannot make an empirical assessment asserting that because the treaty has not been ratified certain things have not gone through. It is not that simple, it is a state of mind, in many ways: an unfortunate state of mind. It is easier to act when one has the other cards in one's hand. One can say "I have done the job already, help me on this". It is a game of give and take.

I was asked about Ireland's future in the EU if, hypothetically speaking, it voted "No" to the Lisbon treaty for a second time. I do not have a crystal ball and do not want to make that assessment. I can only give my personal assessment that I would be extremely sad. As I said before, I think Ireland's place is at the heart of Europe and that is why it must find a solution to the treaty dilemma, along with its partners in the EU. I am an eternal optimist and I feel we will find the solution at some stage. The crisis in Georgia and the financial crisis have given a new momentum and raison d’être to European integration. I hope this will facilitate us all in finding a solution to the Lisbon treaty issue together. Look what is happening around Europe: membership applications are flying towards Brussels, not least from countries like Iceland, and that is a good development. More countries like Ireland and Iceland are needed at the heart of Europe.

Chairman

I thank the Minister. Deputy Timmins has a question.

Deputy Billy Timmins

Briefly, to return to the scrutiny committee, Mr. Stubb mentioned that he could take a pointer from it. Can he elaborate on this? Has the Government a majority on that committee and is it bound by its decisions? Has Mr. Stubb ever changed his view due to the opinion of the scrutiny committee?

Mr. Alexander Stubb

I personally have not, as a Foreign Minister, but as a civil servant I was involved in negotiating the intergovernmental conference when clear instructions were given by the Parliament to the Government. On big issues, like the Lisbon treaty, the scrutiny committee works through a position paper from the Government to which Parliament responds. Parliament points out the areas in which it would like to see Finland's position changed and the Government makes the changes.

As Foreign Minister I have been asked to raise issues at meetings of Foreign Ministers and I have done so. For instance, I took a position on an Iranian group that was labelled as a terrorist organisation, which it was not. I act and react according to what Parliament tells me. Finnish EU policy is quite consensual and, in that sense, it does not matter whether there is a Government majority on the committee. We do not turn EU issues into Government and Opposition issues; we deal with the issues together.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Stubb for his response and his participation in the sub-committee's work this afternoon. It is much appreciated. We hope the rest of his trip will be successful. The sub-committee will suspend for five minutes before beginning the final module of its work. The editors of the Irish Daily Mirror and the Irish Daily Star will be in attendance after the suspension to talk about the public’s level of understanding of the work of the European Union.

Sitting suspended at 4.46 p.m. and resumed at 4.52 p.m.