I thank Mr. John Kierans of the Irish Daily Mirror and Mr. Gerard Colleran of the Irish Daily Star for coming to this meeting and bearing with us as we ran a little late this afternoon. This Oireachtas sub-committee was established following the referendum earlier this year on the Lisbon treaty. Its job is to examine Ireland’s future in the European Union. The Government gave the sub-committee four terms of reference. We have turned each term of reference into a corresponding work module. This week, we are focusing on the public understanding of the work of the European Union. In particular, we are considering the role of various bodies and organisations in influencing how people form their view of the EU. We spent a great deal of time yesterday and today talking to journalists from different parts of the media. We are pleased to listen to their opinions on the issues the sub-committee is dealing with. Mr. Kierans and Mr. Colleran will have ten minutes each. I will let them know when they have one minute left. Each of the groups represented on the sub-committee will then have ten minutes to ask questions. Anybody who has not spoken will then have an opportunity to contribute at that stage. I draw witnesses’ attention to the fact that members of the sub-committee have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. I thank Mr. Kierans and Mr. Colleran for attending this meeting.
Discussion with Newspaper Industry Representatives.
Mr. John Kierans
I did not have time to submit a complete written submission to the members of the sub-committee. I apologise for that. I have been very busy in recent weeks.
I will start with communication with the European Union, the European Commission and the European Parliament. As deputy editor and editor, communication between the Irish Mirror and the European Union is absolutely zilch. The only time we had communication with the Commission was on the Nice treaty, I and II, and the Lisbon treaty. A few weeks ago I received an invitation from the European Union to go to Brussels to meet Commissioner McCreevy and various others. Other than that, I have had absolutely no communication. Serious questions must be asked about how the European Union office in Dublin does its business. Decisions are taken every day that affect all our lives and we know very little about them. All we ever hear about is the barmy decisions. Newspapers refer to barmy bureaucrats, the reason for which is that the only news stories concerning the European Union we receive are sent to us by two news agencies — Dennis Newson in Brussels and the Central European News Agency. They tend to file barmy stories such as that on bent bananas. I could make up a story like, “The EU has banned people from walking their dogs near churches on Sundays in case the barking affects those who are praying”. This negativity emanates from Brussels. We do not receive correspondence, literature or e-mails from the European Union telling us what decisions have been made on any issue. The EU office in Dublin seems to be obsessed with communicating with The Irish Times, RTE and “Today with Pat Kenny”. Officials forget that 60% of the population read tabloid newspapers and they also listen to radio programmes such as “The Gerry Ryan Show”, “Liveline” and “The Ray D’Arcy Show”. The office, therefore, does not communicate in any shape or form with the people who eat their dinners in the middle of the day. There is a snobbish attitude in the office in Dublin.
With regard to the European Parliament, we only ever hear about our MEPs when they are running for office. They are elected, go to Strasbourg and are never heard of again. That is a common theme in every town, village and constituency. MEPs may argue differently but that is my view. I receive no communication from them. Only two MEPs have communicated with the tabloid press in the past few years — Mary Banotti and Patrica McKenna. Aside from this, there has been no communication. Questions must be asked on that front.
The sub-committee should seriously examine how the European Parliament constituencies work. Leinster has three representatives but nobody knows which part of the province they represent. One-seat constituencies should be considered for European Parliament elections. I live in Termonfeckin, County Louth, and if that happened, at least we would have communication from people in Strasbourg about what they do and what decisions they have made.
The view of ordinary people on the street is that the European Union is great because we get a load of money out of it. Whether we like it, they think that is all it is good for. One can ask people in any pub in any corner of this island what they think of the European Union and they will reply that Albert Reynolds and Dick Spring did a great job in getting €8 billion. If they are asked what decisions have been made that affect our lives, they cannot say because they do not have a clue. There is a serious deficit in the public relations machine because there is not one. The European Union spends millions on public relations in this modern era and we do not seem to receive any information.
Serious questions must be asked about the Lisbon treaty. Most of the major political parties decided to support a "Yes" vote and campaigned for one but a number of fundamental errors were made. Fianna Fáil decided to put the picture of a local councillor on every referendum poster, which made it a political issue. They were associating local councillors or the Government with the treaty as a way of campaigning for next year's local elections. Unfortunately, it backfired horrendously because nobody cared if Mickey Joe Maguire in a Mickey Mouse constituency was in favour of a "Yes" vote. In addition, the political parties left it to the Commission to issue the literature delivered to every doorstep. The literature was absolute gobbledygook, the greatest load of crap that was ever written in the history of this State. Nobody could understand the treaty when they read it, including the Taoiseach. Nobody could understand the language used in the literature put through the doors and, therefore, they voted "No".
I understand from informed political sources that after Nice I was defeated the Taoiseach took a decision to employ a wordsmith to rewrite the literature being put through the doors. It cost €8,000 to translate the gobbledygook in the Nice treaty into a language we could all understand. That did not happen with the Lisbon referendum, which was a major fundamental mistake. It was total nonsense. People did not understand it and, therefore, they did not believe it.
Other issues that arose included the misinformation being put out on the airwaves by the "No" side, for example, absolute nonsense such as "Your sons will be conscripted to an EU army", which was total rubbish. Nobody on the "Yes" side dismissed these issues. During a general election campaign, the Opposition has a public relations machine to put out spin and discount spin. The Government does exactly the same. However, on this occasion the "No" campaigners were able to go on the airwaves and use other media to make wild allegations that were not discounted by the "Yes" side. Unfortunately, many people believed all this rubbish.
We also were not helped by interference by other states. I refer specifically to the President of France, Napoleon himself, Mr. Sarkozy, who interfered in the campaign with three days to go with his big stick saying if we did not vote "Yes" we should be sorted out. His Foreign Minister also made a number of interventions, which were totally unhelpful. The British Government did not help us by making noises about the corporation tax rate. Prime Minister Brown said the rate should be at least 20% in Ireland. The people of Ireland are clever, intelligent and well educated and they know the economy is crucial. They knew 12 months ago we were heading into a recession while the Government was telling us nothing was wrong and the property market was great. They knew what was going on on the street. They knew if the corporate tax rate was increased from 12.5% to 20% the American multinationals would pull out of this country and many jobs would be put at risk. They were alarmed by that.
They were also alarmed that Ireland would lose an EU Commissioner. It was suggested at one stage that we could share our commissionership with Britain and that went down like a lead balloon with people on the street. The outside interference did not help. Mr. Sarkozy should have kept his mouth shut and he should have stayed out of it. The Germans should have stayed out of it. The big stick will not work with Joe Voter.
Mr. Gerard Colleran
I submitted a document.
It was circulated to everybody.
Mr. Gerard Colleran
I will take that as read but I will reiterate a few points. I thank the sub-committee for receiving us. I am not sure how newspaper editors can assist but we need to know how we have arrived at this point. In the comfortable parliamentary bubble in which Members exist, they need to realise there is an almost complete breakdown of trust between the people they are supposed to serve and themselves. There is massive growing disaffection not aided in the run up to the referendum by a very long and tiresome goodbye to a Taoiseach who was a lame duck and who was injured. There was the late start to the "Yes" campaign. Another key negative aspect to this was the entirely impenetrable document put before the people. There was a series of unforced errors from the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Commissioner, Mr. McCreevy.
Ordinary people depend on their political servants to get on with the job they otherwise cannot do. They have busy lives to lead, roofs to put over their families' heads and bread to put on the table. They expect politicians to get on with the job. Since Independence, politicians have created a marvellous edifice of which most people are proud. When confronted with the Lisbon treaty referendum, however, they witnessed the political establishment in complete disarray.
No defined personality emerged from the document. Not alone were the politicians confused, as evidenced by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Commissioner, Mr. McCreevy, but so too was the rather contrived independent Referendum Commission. One only has to recall the performance of the commission chairman in one of his public demonstrations about his knowledge of the document.
In my submission I referred to one confusion relating to the commissionership. Having discussed the matter with many officials in Europe, it appears to me that the Lisbon treaty allowed the opportunity, with the unanimity of all member states, for the retention of the Irish commissionership. This was never clarified in any document. The so-called independent Referendum Commission stated in its explanatory document on the treaty we would lose our commissionership for five of a 15-year term. That does not square with the actual nuts and bolts of the Lisbon treaty. God help us if that is the type of information that is being disseminated on behalf of the people in a so-called independent fashion.
Members of the Oireachtas must realise the people of Ireland made the right decision. Members better get their heads around that because the people do not make a wrong decision. Demonising people on the "No" side is entirely the wrong approach. There was a touch of that going on at the sub-committee's meeting yesterday.
There is no real appreciation of the level of disaffection in the broader community towards the activities engaged in and policies emerging from the Houses which are affecting people's lives. We have had broken promises, U-turns, gravy trains, ministerial salaries and pensions for people who are not yet 65 years of age while the rest of us must wait and the enormous crisis in the health services. All these factors formed the background to the calamitous result, as might be perceived by the "Yes" side, in the Lisbon treaty referendum.
The Irish Daily Star is a local newspaper which does not have to answer to a telephone call from a foreign news organisation. We make up our own editorial policies as we go along. We decide on editorial policies on the basis of the best interests of the people I serve, our readership. We supported the Lisbon treaty referendum but with a bit of a heavy heart. It was not well demonstrated to us that it deserved support. I urge the sub-committee to take this background on board as a well-meaning and goodwill presentation of the reasons for the referendum result.
The great difficulty about Europe is that it is a cerebral issue and has never become one of heart. Unless Europe becomes an issue of heart to the people of Ireland, as well as an issue of mind and pocket, it will never integrate itself into their lives, minds and hearts. We need a long-term, systematic and programmatic approach to encouraging the notion of Europe in all of us.
The best example I can refer to is the Ryder Cup and the celebration of being European that it gives us all. We could not care less whether Miguel Angel Jiménez, Padraig Harrington or José Maria Olazábal sinks the putt that wins the cup; we are still cheering for our side. Do we know what side we are on in other areas such as the arts, history or the natural environment? That has not been integrated into our consciousness at all. Europe has so much to offer — multiculturalism, fantastic language opportunities, arts, history in all its many facets and the natural environment. We know more about the national parks in the US than we do about those on the European continent.
The Irish Daily Star has 500,000 readers, whom we believe were largely ignored in this campaign. It is like the 1970s and 1980s when priests and the hierarchy were lecturing people attending their churches and missing those outside. The majority of people do not read the broadsheets, often referred to as quality products. They are not quality products. The quality products are those freely chosen by people in every newsagent every day. One cannot say they are wrong because they are exercising free choice. Some 500,000 readers cannot be bad.
The key question the European project must confront is where it is heading. I give myself some credit as a reasonably intelligent individual and citizen of this Republic but I do not know where it is going. Mr. Alan Dukes described it as a train that has left the station. I never got him to tell me at what station it would stop. We cannot expect the people of this country to continue on this ill-defined journey on a trust-us basis because there is no trust. The political capital has been spent. We need definition. I urge the sub-committee to take this on board.
On the morning after the referendum result, The Irish Daily Star believed there should be a re-run of a referendum. If there is to be a new referendum, let there be a new document. Let there be whatever is required to address the concerns of taxation, the commissionership and militarisation, a larger issue than people think. Clarity is also important. The Millward Brown survey after the referendum found that 42% of people voted “No” because they did not know what they were voting on. That is a key constituency which must be addressed in the next referendum.
I thank the speakers for their contributions.
I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. It has been an interesting discussion. I read the tabloids all of the time and I read all of the newspapers. They do a good job in presenting entertaining information in an interesting way, whether it is on the soaps and celebrities in which we are all interested no matter who we are, or on the serious issues of the day. Mr. Kierans's family has a major commitment to journalism, particularly in my part of the country and I acknowledge this. Had he moved south instead of north of Drogheda he might have been touched by my canvassing which resulted in a "Yes" vote in the Meath East constituency. His brother lives near me.
I was struck by what both witnesses stated about the Referendum Commission and we must examine it. Major mistakes were made by the Referendum Commission in the literature and explanations provided to people. The text of the treaty which Mr. Colleran put forward in his paper on the Commission feeds into the argument I had yesterday with Caroline Simons. I felt she did not read what Mr. Colleran quoted and Mr. Colleran is correct to state it was misquoted by the "Yes" side.
If two tabloid editors of good and long standing tell us that the Referendum Commission did not do its job properly we must take it seriously. They are in the game — and have successfully proven themselves within it — of presenting information that is intelligible to everybody and interesting to people and, as was stated, is read by many people and by more people than read the broadsheets.
I also welcome Mr. Colleran and Mr. Kierans. Mr. Colleran stated that people made the right decision and he is correct based on what was presented to them and how the campaign was carried out. As people who supported the referendum we must put up our hands, be honest with the people and state we did a bad job, we did not sell it properly, we did not have a clear idea as to why people should vote "Yes" and we ended up defending against the reasons people should vote "No". After the great success that the European Union has brought to Ireland since 1973 we sold a poor message.
While I take this point on board I want to ask the witnesses if, after our deliberations here we own up to this, address the concerns raised about neutrality, taxation, ethical issues and the other issues which arose during the campaign, and we are in a position to get a declaration from our colleagues in the European Union so we can present the referendum to the people again, in their opinion would it enjoy the support of their readership?
Reference was made to a new document but we hear from our colleagues in the European Union that they are not interested in renegotiating the Lisbon treaty. There is no appetite for renegotiation because they have been at it for the past seven or eight years, they are fed up with it and they do not want to go there again. What does Mr. Colleran mean by a new document? Is it renegotiation or finding a solution to sort out our concerns in Ireland?
I am concerned that Mr. Kierans received no correspondence from MEPs or representatives in the EU. This is incredible. The European Commission and the National Forum on Europe came before us and I asked them what contact they had with editors of the various newspapers and the managers of every radio station in the country. We were told that communication took place. If the editors of two major national newspapers received nothing, it flies in the face of this and it is a matter we must take up.
Mr. John Kierans
There was communication during the Lisbon campaign and during the Nice campaign but at all other times there was no communication in any shape or form. I cannot even state who is in charge of the EU Commission in Dublin because I have never met or heard of him or her. I do not know who are the PR people. They have never telephoned me.
Advertising should be in all newspapers.
Mr. John Kierans
Absolutely.
It should not be in only some of them. The referendum affects all of the people in the country. We will take this point on board.
Mr. John Kierans
With regard to advertising, serious questions must be asked about the television advertising campaign for the Lisbon treaty and it should be examined. Can anyone here remember it? I cannot and if I went into Hanlon's pub no one there would either. However, they would remember Sally and the way she might look at you from the Harp advertisement 20 years ago.
Does Mr. Kierans not remember the half people?
Mr. John Kierans
No. They will remember the Guinness advertisement and the lights coming down. These are really clever advertising campaigns. The advertising campaign for the Lisbon treaty was not clever.
It certainly did not provide information.
Mr. Gerard Colleran
Let us be clear about advertising in newspapers. No one should advertise in newspapers unless there is a return. I would not advertise in newspapers unless there is a return. Why should I expect my tax euro to be invested in this direction? However, there is a return. The Millward Brown research concluded that while 33% of those surveyed considered the Referendum Commission booklet to be valuable or somewhat valuable, double this number regarded newspapers as valuable or somewhat valuable. Was this reflected in advertising or other types of publicity through newspapers? I do not think so. I do not want taxpayers' euro to be put into newspapers per se. Put it into the best mechanic to get to the voters.
Mr. John Kierans
The target audience.
Mr. Gerard Colleran
Do it in a way which is sensible. There is a better chance of talking to the converted in other products. Target where it is most efficient.
With regard to Deputy Flynn's question, stop treating the people of this country as fools. Do not try to pull the wool over their eyes again. It seems we have not learned from the two referenda on the Nice treaty and the Lisbon treaty campaign. If we return to the Lisbon treaty, and I expect this to happen because there are compelling reasons to address the issue in the interest of our participation in the fantastic European project, it must be with something legally binding. I am not a treaty legal expert but we cannot come back to an ad hoc “it will be alright on the day” approach and assurances. We need something in the document which is legally binding. It seems the political will in Europe must be there to satisfy legitimate Irish concerns on the key issues which emerged in this referendum.
If this is not done and the political elites and establishment, supported by some of the qualities, come back and urge people in a certain direction the next time, the greatest damage will be done to the European project because it could be turned down again.
I will not take up too much time because the issue has been well covered. I welcome our two guests, Mr. Kierans and Mr. Colleran. Since Deputy Byrne indulged in a little local politicking, I will recognise the contribution Mr. Colleran has made to local media prior to going to a national level through his involvement with The Clare Champion and the Kerry newspapers. Knowing his background, when he speaks it is from a position of strength because he understands the people and his audience as, I am sure, Mr. Kierans does also. We must take on board the comments they make.
I would like them to help us with the notion of the European project and the vision for Europe, rather than the technical nature of the treaty. During the debate many people became knowledgeable or involved in the conversation about the technicalities of the treaty. In the quest to become bar room lawyers, discussing what one article meant and its import in the context of another, some of us lost sight of what the European project was about. To some extent, we also lost sight of the notion of a reform treaty. Many did not know what it was we were seeking to reform and what the base level was.
Will the delegates offer guidance on how we can generate content, through the print news medium, that will enhance the general level of understanding of what the European Union is about? Mr. Kierans has made the important point that we have tended to see it merely as a cash cow. That is how we politicians sold it. We never spoke about our business in the European Union, unless we were bringing home €1 billion or €8 billion. That was all that was relevant and that is what we sold. The delegates probably understand the audience better than we do. Will they advise us on how we should package the information, the areas on which we need to focus and the issues upon which readers are willing to focus? It is important to recognise that people have a small window when it comes to politics. They are interested in the day's events, what happened in the local courtroom or in the Oireachtas today or yesterday. Interestingly, because yesterday's meeting of the sub-committee became a little feisty, it received coverage in some newspapers and other sections of the media.
Mr. Gerard Colleran
The European project has an immense amount going for it. One cannot talk about the positives only on the eve of a referendum. It must be an ongoing, longitudinal project, day in, day out, in arts, schools, education, social affairs, labour, languages — the entire spectrum of human activity. That is not the case. We all know what the Booker prize is but if there is a Booker prize in Europe, I do not know about it.
As I said, there is an opportunity to create a spirit of team-building in regard to the European Union. I am not blaming the Oireachtas, but it could do more in this regard through the national Parliament and the European edifice in Brussels. I observed in my presentation that anything negative coming from the European Union got the living daylights kicked out of it in the Oireachtas, while anything positive was due to the efforts of national parliamentarians. This may be inevitable but it is not in the interests of the European project. It is too late to begin talking about the positives on the eve of a poll.
We should take a 30-year perspective. The mood music must be a reminder that the European project has kept conflict off the Continent since 1945. We saw what happened in the 1990s. I remember perfectly well that on the day the Clare hurling team was in the process of winning a massive Munster final victory against Limerick in Thurles, one of the happiest days of my life, a massacre of untold savagery was taking place in Srebrenica. We know what we are talking about when we talk about calamitous events. We must sell the negatives as well as the positives. In other words, we must point to where we have come from. That is not happening because we are almost afraid to mention that war has effectively been kept off the Continent for half a century because of the European project.
We must fight for the European project if we want it to survive. We cannot always depend on it surviving on the basis of how it impacts on our pocket. Have we used the marvellous opportunities available for language learning? Has the Oireachtas encouraged six months of deep immersion in language courses for classes throughout the island? No, it has not. Where are the programmes for arts and sports promotion? Do we give the Union the benefit even when such initiatives are in place? We would want to get real if the Union is worth fighting for.
Mr. John Kierans
Most Irish people still see themselves as pro-European Union. There is not a great anti-Union swell as there is, for example, in the United Kingdom. One can draw an analogy with the leaving certificate student who knows he or she must do the homework. In the case of this referendum, the student did not do the homework. I am of the view that people in Ireland see themselves as partly European and that many are very proud of what has been achieved in Europe. My colleague, Mr. Colleran, made an important point which was hardly mentioned in the course of the campaign, namely, that Europe has primarily been at peace for 50 years, with the exception of what happened in the Balkans and in our own country, which, thank God, is now sorted out.
It is a question of what it means to be European and it relates to the lack of awareness of the positive aspects of European Union membership. People see what goes on in Brussels merely as a layer of bureaucracy, with faceless officials on huge salaries who do not communicate with us. This is particularly so in the case of senior people within the Commission. One need only look at the recent performance of some Commissioners who have come across somewhat like dictators. For example, in regard to the Government's guarantee scheme for the financial institutions, the relevant Commissioner — the French lady whose name I cannot recall — claimed it could not be done, rattled some sabres and had a little rant. These individuals must lose that air of dictatorship. People are interested in being European, but they do not like being dictated to. This is something that we as a nation must address with our European colleagues. I do not believe for one minute that we as a nation ever dictate to anybody. However, the big guns in Europe have been doing a lot of dictating and this absolutely rubs people up the wrong way.
I thank Mr. Kierans and Mr. Colleran. Much of what they said resonates with us. Mr. Colleran may have used the word "cocoon" or something to that effect in reference to the Oireachtas. This amazes me because — apart from our time in the Dáil and the Seanad, when we are effectively cocooned — we are out there dealing with ordinary members of the public for the remainder of the week. That is what most of our work involves. We are grounded in practical and pragmatic issues. Even as politicians, we often perceive a gap between ourselves and the concept of the European Union.
The greatest difficulty, referred to by Mr. Colleran, is the question of what direction the Europe Union is taking. This is something that must be identified by all member states. It is an issue I have raised with what might be called the "elites". There is a view that some of the larger states may know the direction in which they are going, but that is not true for us. It is importance that there be clarity in this regard. Following on from the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam treaty and the Nice treaty, there was a degree of wariness when people heard that a constitutional treaty was being devised. Some began to question where it would all end. Many reasons have been put forward by those who voted "No" but a significant factor, as far I am concerned, is that people were anxious that there be a pause in progress, because they were unsure of the direction in which they were headed. This may not emerge in tangible terms in surveys and so on, but it was an overriding aspect of the concern about the treaty.
Hanlon's Corner's loss is Termonfeckin's gain and I am sure Mr. Kierans's flowery language is missed at night in the pubs of Phibsborough. He may have to tailor his narratives in Termonfeckin. He referred to the lack of communication from the European Union. How does one communicate with the editor of a newspaper? We politicians issue many press statements about the European Union which we dress up as best we can to make them interesting. However, most of them never appear in the newspapers. Does Mr. Kierans have a large bin in which they are deposited? Should we telephone him and outline the information we wish to convey? How do we communicate with editors in the first instance?
Mr. Kierans referred to not receiving any public relations funding. Was that in the context of including advertisement in the newspaper? Did his newspapers receive any of the money allocated to the Referendum Commission? The readers of both publications are neglected by what may be referred to as the political or European elite. There is no doubt about this and it is something that must be addressed.
Mr. Kierans claimed that some of the misinformation was not refuted but instead allowed to be repeated time and again. It is not my intention to enter into conflict with the delegates because we could be here all day, but I am of the view that several of the claims were refuted but that this did not resonate with the public. The difficulty for us on the "Yes" side is how to deal with this.
To deal with some of the points mentioned by Mr. Colleran, I asked Mr. Cathal Goan of RTE and his colleague, Mr. Good, if they had received the impression there was arrogance on the "Yes" side. They said they had not. However, I believe there was arrogance on that side; I must admit it with my hand on my heart. Perhaps our guests could elaborate on this. Perhaps they do not feel free to do it about a generalisation but I believe there was arrogance and a patronising and condescending attitude on the "Yes" side. We must learn from this. Our guests talked about humility. There must be some humility on the part of those who are trying to sell the European project.
In defence of the Referendum Commission — I hope the sub-committee will take a clear message from this in its proposals — the timeframe it had to deal with the matter was too limited. That is the fault of the Oireachtas. The legislation must be changed as the commission needs more time. I do not fault it. It only had a maximum of 90 days, during which time it had to be appointed, established and become involved in the issue. It was caught out on aspects of the Lisbon treaty at public meetings, although it is such a complex treaty it was easy to catch somebody out.
The Irish Daily Star advised that if people were still in doubt they should vote “No”. Mr. Colleran gave a passionate description of the European Union and painted a narrative of it that did not necessarily tally with the Lisbon treaty. Did he include that narrative in his newspaper? If he did not, perhaps he should. It is a good, passionate narrative that would resonate with all classes of readers, be they A, B, C, D, E, F or G. I hate referring to classes of people by these titles. Mr. Colleran has said the issues he mentioned the morning after the referendum are still applicable. What is the role of the editor in this? Take the example of taxation. It was clear in the treaty that the issue of taxation required unanimity. The corporation tax rate is within our remit; the evidence the sub-committee has received to date is clear about this.
Mr. Colleran also mentioned what happened on the day Clare won the Munster final. I remember that day well, although I was not at the match. I was at the match the year before when Limerick beat Clare. I was delighted Clare won. The concept of EU battle groups grew from the events at Srebrenica. My Sinn Féin colleagues talk a great deal about increased militarisation but I see increased militarisation and the European Defence Agency as a pooling of resources that will ultimately lead to less spending. If the forces of an EU battle group had been available to it at the time, the European Union would have been in a position to stop the slaughter in Srebrenica. The United Nations did not have the resources, the remit or the inter-operability to stop it. While "increased militarisation" appears to be a bad term, I consider it as a positive that will assist in creating world peace. The Irish troops in Chad are far more comfortable than the troops we had in Lebanon 20 years ago. They are better resourced and equipped. They have operated with other nationalities and feel far more comfortable in their environment.
With regard to the Nigerian lady who was to be deported — I cannot recall her name — and whose deportation was put on hold to await a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, does Mr. Colleran believe this has an impact on Irish people's view of the European Union? Do they see it as interfering with our immigration policy?
Although Mr. Colleran might not be comfortable commenting on this, I was interested to read an article by Sarah Carey in The Irish Times this morning. As Mr. Kierans is open-minded, he will answer my question. In the article she spoke about the editor of the Sunday Times. Initially she intended to write an article in favour of the Lisbon treaty but when she attempted to do so — I can only take her at her word — not only could she not write it but she was told that nobody would be writing an article in favour of the treaty in the newspaper. I firmly believe in the freedom of the press. I have a difficulty with factual content that could be corrected but might not be. However, freedom of the press is wonderful. If I owned a newspaper and was its editor, my agenda would influence it. There is nothing wrong with this, once people are aware of what one’s agenda is. However, I have a difficulty with the Sunday Times when it masquerades as an independent commentator. I would love if Mr. Fitzgibbon could appear before the sub-committee in order that I could ask him about this. He appeared in the broadcast media. If somebody says a media outlet is anti-Lisbon treaty, anti-European Union or Eurosceptic and will take that line, well and good. However, I have a difficulty with the outlet when that view is not articulated. Do Mr. Kierans and Mr. Colleran, as editors, come under pressure from the owner of the newspapers and, second, their own opinions? How do they balance their opinions with trying to get a message out, dealing with readers and the common good? I must admit that if I was an editor of a newspaper, I would be inclined to sneak my own opinion into the content.
Mr. John Kierans
What was the Deputy's first question?
How do we communicate with the media?
Mr. John Kierans
It is very simple. Newspapers are easy to communicate with. Send an e-mail to the news desk or the editor, or one can telephone the editor or the news editor. We are in the story business and if somebody has a story, we are interested. It is simple. If we like the story, we put it in the newspaper and if we think it is a load of crap, we throw it in the bin. It is that simple.
The Fine Gael bin.
Mr. John Kierans
The advertising issue was not on the agenda with me at all.
The newspaper received no advertisements.
Mr. John Kierans
I think there were some advertisements from the commission in the newspaper but I cannot remember how many. Whatever advertising it deemed fit to put in our newspaper was up to the commission. It had the money to spend and it is up to the advertising agency to decide how to run a campaign. I am not making a big issue about it. My issue concerns communicating. This was not sold properly. The "Yes" side did not do its homework.
Did the newspaper receive advertisements from the Referendum Commission?
Mr. John Kierans
Yes, there were some advertisements in our newspaper from the Referendum Commission. My big issue with the commission concerned the literature put through doors. It was gobbledegook. People did not understand it. They probably just looked at it, did not understand it and threw it in the bin. If somebody does not understand something, they will vote "No". One cannot blame them for this.
Mr. Gerard Colleran
The Deputy raised the issue of taxation. Anybody can contact me at any time.
What was that again?
Mr. Gerard Colleran
Or an assistant researcher for Louth FM, for example, at 2 a.m.
We will not publish Mr. Colleran's number in our transcript. Otherwise, absolutely everybody would be able to contact him.
Mr. Gerard Colleran
Yes, unanimity is required on taxation. Why was there concern about it? This cuts to the issue I discussed — trust. People do not trust the political establishment.
With regard to militarisation, there was sufficient concern to tip the balance if the issue was tight. Our vocation is not to have militarised links with any of the great former colonial powers or current super-militarised entities. Many believe — it is probably the belief of a majority in this country — that our vocation lies in diplomacy and peacekeeping. It would be a grave mistake to go down the militarisation route.
With regard to the Nigerian lady, it will, if anything, play well for the European Union. I cannot understand why the lady concerned and her children will be expelled from this country in the first place. We have evidence that this poor woman's daughter died as a result of genital mutilation in Nigeria. I have not heard evidence that this is spurious. If it is true, I cannot understand why we should send her within 10,000 miles of that place. As an Irish person, I am ashamed of the possibility of that poor lady and her children being sent back to that sort of environment when they have an opportunity for a new life here. It is a great shame on all of us.
I refer to Mr. Murdoch and his great newspaper empire. The great thing about a democracy is that we are all entitled to check our prejudices now and again. It is what many of our grandfathers and grandmothers fought and died for in lonely wet ditches. It is the nature of things that newspapers are entitled to be prejudiced and to have views, and even Mr. Murdoch is entitled to his view. A benefit of indigenous Irish newspapers is that we do not receive a phone call from headquarters seeking to help us with editorial decisions. We only receive occasional encouragement to sell more newspapers. We operate on the basis that what is good for our readers is good for us. Unlike other newspapers, we do not operate on grand policies of upturning the European project, thanks be to God. Perhaps it would be a good idea if former, current and future Taoisigh desist from attending Christmas parties and other engagements associated with foreign media operations that act and have a malign influence on the country and that seek to undermine Ireland's best interests.
Does Mr. Kierans wish to comment?
Mr. John Kierans
I will comment on the proprietor issue. The Irish Mirror is owned by Trinity Mirror, a company based in the UK owned by shareholders comprised mainly of pension funds. With all business dealings and editorial decisions I am left to my own devices by my boss Ms Sly Bailey who is the chief executive of Trinity Mirror in London. She has always left it up to me to decide which way we go on certain issues in the country and what we believe is in the best interests of the market we serve. We advocated a “Yes” vote on the Lisbon treaty referendum, but provided balanced coverage to both sides during the debate, which was very important. In due course we made up our minds that we were in favour of a “Yes” vote and we still hold that view.
I thank Mr. Kierans. I call Senator Doherty. Does the Senator wish to share time?
I will be very quick as I am sharing time with Senator Doherty. I welcome the delegation and I thank it for the frank presentations. The opinion from all media representatives who have appeared before the sub-committee is that, generally speaking, the political campaign supporting the Lisbon treaty was pretty awful. As politicians we must accept this point. The message seems to be that clear information outlining why people should support the treaty was not available. There was no message inspiring people or encouraging them to support the treaty. The Millward Brown survey bore out this point, suggesting 42% voted "No" because they did not know what the treaty entailed.
However, the meeting is equally an opportunity for the committee to challenge the delegation. My perception of the tabloids or red tops is that they are instinctively anti-European, that they perceive Europe as a bogey man and that there is an anti-EU narrative. It is easy to criticise and caricature the EU, to suggest the Union is always telling us what to do and interfering with what should be national decisions. Does the delegation believe this is an accurate or fair perception? Does it believe The Irish Times and other broadsheet newspapers do their best to present and explain Europe in a positive light, and that the red tops are negative, anti-Europe and paint a particular picture of Europe that does not endear its readership to the European Union or, possibly, to supporting European treaties?
I accept the comments of the delegation on the need for a broad spectrum long-term programme of education in the workplace and through art, literature and tourism. One member of the delegation stated that the EU must speak to our hearts. This is true and it is through cultural events that the European Union and the sense of being a European citizen can grow. This represents a challenge for the EU and its national governments.
The delegation indicated the EU does not communicate properly with the tabloids, which is a real criticism. It stated that tabloid newspapers have a 60% share of the readership in the country. However, the EU seems to communicate only with certain types of newspaper, which is a big mistake. The Commission and other EU institutions should consider this matter. I agree with the view expressed about MEPs disappearing once they are elected. It is probably very difficult to avoid, as MEPs can get caught up in what takes place in Brussels with involvement in committees and so on. However, part of the MEP role should be about returning information to the country, informing people and acting as a conduit for information on what is taking place in Europe. This point must be made to those concerned.
I agree that Ireland should become one 12 seat constituency rather than an artificially divided constituency. Any given 12 MEPs from Ireland would represent the country rather than especially represent Leinster, Dublin, Munster and so on. In his document, Mr. Kierans stated that a new referendum must be based on a new document; can he elaborate on this statement? Is he referring to a fundamentally new treaty?
Mr. John Kierans
I think that was Mr. Colleran's point.
It was Mr. Colleran, I apologise. That is all, I will hand over to Senator Doherty.
I call the two gentlemen to respond first.
Mr. John Kierans
First of all, I will respond to the remarks about red tops and the suggestion that they are seen as anti-Europe. In this country The Sun and The Irish Daily Mail are anti-Europe and The Irish Mirror and The Star are pro-Europe. It is important to understand The Irish Times is not the bible of journalism in the country. The sooner that politicians in this building realise this fact, the better. The people I grew up among, with whom I live and who buy my newspaper every day do not care what the old lady of D’Olier Street says or thinks. She has no meaning in such people’s lives. It is only the so-called intellectuals in this country who can relate to The Irish Times. Ordinary people keep the country going. They work morning, noon and night and they commute for four hours every day. They rear children in three bedroom houses for which they have paid too much money, in some cases €400,000, based on advertisements published in The Irish Times. The Irish Times was more than willing to publish those advertisements and then it decides to dictate to us about various other issues. The Irish Times is not the bible of journalism in Ireland. The tabloids have far more influence and a greater readership and the sooner the politicians understand this, the sooner they can relay their message to the people.
Mr. Gerard Colleran
It seems the committee does not read the tabloids. That the committee beat up Mr. Vincent Browne does not mean it will get away with the same thing here.
I am not trying to beat up anyone.
Mr. Gerard Colleran
I am only joking, of course, but the tabloids are not anti-EU across the spectrum. The contrary is the case and I agree with Mr. Kierans in that regard.
It is very easy to communicate with the tabloids. We have an open door policy for everything, as long as it sells, as Mr. Kierans remarked. The situation has improved in recent weeks and months. Matters that affect consumers such as roaming charges will be represented in tabloids and any other newspaper.
Regarding the necessity for a new document it would be a serious error to return with a document that is not altered. What is the point? The people have said "No" by a significant majority. Do people not understand the meaning of the word "No"? It might not be to the liking of the committee, but that is the fact. I am not a legal expert on treaties, but there must be a legally binding codicil, or whatever it is called, associated with the document and there must be agreement on the controversial areas on which people voted. These areas have been clearly enumerated and there is no mystery surrounding them.
I welcome both guests and I thank them for very frank presentations. It is refreshing to have heard them having attended the sub-committee for several weeks. It is a different perspective and I welcome that. I appreciate that both newspapers called for a "Yes" vote in the referendum. As a member of Sinn Féin, I was on the winning side of the argument with the people. However, I must say that both newspapers must be commended for the fairness they demonstrated during the debate. They used different ways to get the message out there on both sides, by using celebrities and so on. They reached into the heart of rural communities and into the heart of ordinary people, by trying to simplify what was in the treaty.
One of the big problems with the Referendum Commission is that we have been dealing with a legal text. It is so convoluted and hard to understand that it was very difficult to provide a legal interpretation of it. We are hearing it again on this committee. We heard from Deputy Timmins about the corporation tax. In his piece, Mr. Colleran spoke about the refusal of the "Yes" side even to engage in the debate. We debated the issue of corporation tax on numerous occasions, yet we never said at any time that we would lose the right to control it. We said that the treaty contained a provision that would remove the right to have a referendum on the setting of corporation tax. That is in Article 48 of the treaty. This committee dismissed the existence of such a provision. We got legal opinion which confirmed that the right to have a referendum on corporation tax is gone. Unanimity remains, which means the veto remains, but a new Government can come in at any time. People do not trust their politicians for whatever reason, and they want that right to have a referendum. When we debated that with the Minister and with the "Yes" side, the argument was twisted and they spoke about the veto, yet nobody claimed the veto would be lost in the first place.
Mr. Colleran spoke about not pulling the wool over people's eyes. I firmly believe that politicians on this committee and others on the "Yes" side are in a state of denial of the outcome of the treaty. It has been clear from the beginning that a rerun of the Lisbon treaty has always been on the agenda. The terms of reference were all about paving the way to that. It will come before us again, along with some declarations dealing with some of what the Government perceives to be the major concerns of the public. How does Mr. Colleran believe the people will react to non-legally binding declarations that would supposedly clarify some of these issues? How does he think the public will react to the fact that our Taoiseach has never asked any of the other European leaders to renegotiate any of this? The Minister for Foreign Affairs confirmed as much recently on "Morning Ireland". How does he feel the public will react if the Lisbon treaty is put to them on a second occasion? I know he has spoken about the damage of a "No" vote on the second occasion.
Does a good citizen of Europe need to be a compliant citizen? A perception was created by the "Yes" side that to question Europe is to be anti-Europe. I question the Government in everything it is doing, such as its education cuts, agriculture cuts, and health cuts. That does not mean I am against the State. Just because one questions the direction of Europe does not mean that one is against Europe. That is the label that was tagged to the majority of people in this State. Has that done any long-term damage?
The "Yes" side keep on talking about a misunderstanding, whereby people did not know what was in the treaty and they got the wrong information. The same can be said for many people who voted "Yes". We saw in yesterday's opinion poll that some people who voted "Yes" incorrectly answered a number of questions on the treaty. There was misunderstanding on both sides.
The people on the "Yes" side are in denial because they keep thinking that if only they could convince others of the merits of what they believe, they would vote in favour of the treaty. They cannot understand that people have genuine concerns about militarisation. They have genuine concerns that we are involved in EU battle groups and that we contribute to the funding of the European Defence Agency. They are concerned that the Lisbon treaty allows for the expansion of the Petersberg Tasks. They have genuine concerns that we support EURATOM and nuclear energy in Europe. They have genuine concerns that we are handing over more powers. No matter how the "Yes" tries to convince them of what they believe, they will be pulling the wool over people's eyes unless they deal with those genuine concerns.
From everything I have seen since the rejection of the treaty, I have no doubt that the Government wants to rerun the referendum, with a number of declarations attached. This will more than likely be the outcome of this committee, from observing what the majority on it have said and done. That will be a great missed opportunity. The Irish people have an opportunity to deal with the issues out there. Even if the treaty were to be passed at the second attempt — I do not believe it will — we still have a very large section of society that will be very annoyed.
Mr. John Kierans
One of the bad points of the whole campaign was the attitude of Sinn Féin. It decided to make a political play out of the whole referendum. After taking a hammering in the general election, where it did not win the seats it expected, it needed to get out on the airwaves and decided to go down the road of a "No" vote. Many of the questions the Senator asked me are all very political, and I am not prepared to answer some of them. Sinn Féin members must look at themselves and figure where they stand on this. They cannot keep saying "No" to everything. Sinn Féin used the referendum to get their people on the airwaves to make political capital out the whole thing. They did not have the best interests of the country at heart.
The party called for renegotiation of the treaty. Everybody knows that will be very difficult at this stage and in fairness to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, he is trying to build bridges across Europe to get reassurances on issues that worry people. Examples include militarisation and conscription to any European army, corporation tax and the question of a Commissioner. He is doing his best to try to fight that battle. The people have spoken, but we are persona non grata in Europe at the moment. With the way the economy is going, we need as many friends as possible. Sinn Féin must take a hard look at itself and its members must ask where they are going on this treaty. They cannot keeping saying “No”.
One of the most damaging things to the "Yes" side was the poster of the proclamation used by Sinn Féin during the campaign, asking us not to give it all away and which was hung everywhere. Sinn Féin does not own the men of 1916, nor does it have the God given right to claim that the Proclamation of this Republic belongs to it.
I appreciate Mr. Kierans' contribution, but I completely disagree with him. I want to correct something of which he may not be aware. The Proclamation posters put up around Dublin and elsewhere were not put up by Sinn Féin. Our posters stated "No to Lisbon", and these were standard across the State. This was not a political opportunity for Sinn Féin. We have been consistent in our politics and on issues such as workers' rights, militarisation, neutrality and democracy. We have a long history in arguing such cases. Mr. Colleran may not be aware of and perhaps the newspaper has not covered our detailed document. Ours was the only party to provide in detail in a 32-page document the amendments we were proposing to the Lisbon treaty, including the words to be deleted or included in a document with which we believed the Irish people would be satisfied. That is our assessment. Therefore, I refute the claim that this was political opportunism. Mr. Colleran is entitled to his opinion but I do not agree with it.
Mr. Gerard Colleran
If he could see the thought bubble over my head, it would include something like, "Where was the Senator in 1970 and 1971 with his opposition to militarisation?" We could have done with it then. I have always been opposed to militarisation for as long as I have been convinced of the notion that we have a vocation for international peacekeeping. I find myself on the same ground as the Senator on the militarisation issue but very uncomfortable with it.
Whether a non-legally binding declaration put to the people a second time would win, who knows? The current economic environment may work in its favour. People are so scared about their jobs that they may be frightened into voting "Yes", even for the same document, but I do not know. I believe it would be a gross act of showing disregard for, and disrespect to, the people of this country if the political establishment believed that it had the right to turn around in a matter of months and throw the solemn declaration of the people back in their faces. It would be to the political establishment's shame. Therefore, I would encourage anything that is to be reworked — I believe it can be reworked — to bring into being legally binding declarations, or whatever would be so described, although I am not a legal expert. I personally made a decision on this, at about 55% to 45%. A lot of people like me who made decisions of that nature on a knife edge would oppose the political establishment if it were to come back with the same document without having due regard to and respect for the people of this country. I did not get the vibe during the campaign that the "Yes" side was saying anybody arguing per se in favour of a “No” vote was adopting an anti-European Union position.
I think most issues have been covered at this stage, but I have a couple of quick questions. Mr. Kierans and Mr. Colleran have made a valuable contribution which, as others have said, has been frank, honest and straightforward, as we would expect in an article in the tabloid newspapers. Many of the people with whom I deal read the tabloids rather than The Irish Times. I am not sure who said it, but can someone elaborate on the statement that 60% of the country reads tabloid newspapers rather than broadsheets? Are we talking about The Sun, The Irish Mail, The Mirror and The Star, in addition to the Sunday World? Mr. Kierans might give us an idea of his newspaper’s readership. I think he said it was 500,000.
I am fascinated by the question about the breakdown of trust mentioned by Mr. Colleran. Is he talking about a breakdown of trust in the entire establishment per se, or is he saying the electorate is disaffected with politicians only? Talking about the broad establishment, quite a number of pillars of society have been found to have feet of clay. They were presented as sacred cows, but the reality was somewhat different. Is that what the witnesses were referring to?
In the previous session, we received a strong presentation about the importance of advertising. It was said that, to some extent, one organisation advertised strongly in the media, taking out full-page advertising on the "No" side. Are the witnesses saying that the only body that advertised in their newspapers, or other tabloids, was the Referendum Commission? Did Mr. Ganley, for example, or the political parties advertise in either newspaper?
As regards contacts between newspapers and MEPs, is that something that is experienced across the board from the political establishment — that there is little enough contact? I would have thought that most of the e-mails that emanate to an inordinate degree from political parties go to all the newspapers. Perhaps there is a different way of filtering them.
What are the witnesses' perceptions of the way politicians conduct their business? In a previous dispensation, before becoming spokesperson on European affairs, I was my party's spokesperson on justice. I would have thought there was far more take-up on the statements I would issue in that respect, which I can well understand, than on European affairs. Is that simply because that is the type of business the witnesses deal with to a greater degree, and so an ordinary statement on Europe is not likely to be of major concern to their readers?
Mr. Gerard Colleran
On the issue of trust, many of the pillars have gone: the church; the Garda Síochána in certain respects, especially given Donegal and other disasters that have befallen the force; and, of course, Fianna Fáil is in a certain stressed condition, which would be the nicest way of putting it. The final pillar that still remains standing, thanks be to God, is the GAA. I do not think that has been damaged whatsoever — quite the contrary.
Was there not a drug case recently?
Mr. Gerard Colleran
No, that will not be an issue; it is completely and entirely innocent. That is just part of a more questioning society and people have to earn trust. The major section of society that we might refer to as the political elite, have gone out of their way to insult the people of the country. We have had amazing abuse of public funding, we have a disastrous position in health infrastructure, we had runaway house prices and now we are reaping the rewards. It was made worse in an otherwise difficult environment by the actions of Governments over the last ten years. So, yes, there is a breakdown of trust.
Europe is a difficult sell in our medium.
Is or is not?
Mr. Gerard Colleran
It is. Europe is a very hard sell in our medium, unless it directly affects the lives of our consumers, but so is politics. Politics is a very hard sell now. There were times in my youth when I could look at pages of political coverage in the Irish Press and the Irish Independent. Nobody reads that guff we see in a lot of the so-called “qualities” now. Who reads it, anyway? It is there just on the basis of being there. I do not mean nobody does so, but I suggest very few do. We carry advertising and we will carry advertising because we are a commercial organisation as well as a media outlet. We carried advertising for Libertas, for the commission, I seem to recall, and we also carried smaller advertisements for the various pro-Lisbon parties.
If I missed anything, I am sorry.
Mr. John Kierans
In regard to politicians in general, at the moment our leaders have a terrible habit — this was very evident during the whole Lisbon campaign — of talking down to the people instead of talking to them. There is a very distinct difference between the two and it is something political leaders here need to take on board. All we need do is look at Barack Obama and his magnificent success in the United States Presidential election, where he did not talk down to the people but talked to them. There is a subtle but huge difference.
In many ways, when senior politicians talk to them ordinary people feel it is nearly as if "We know best". Unfortunately, people in our country will not accept that any more. They are too intelligent and will not just accept it is right. They will not be talked down to. Politicians need to start giving the people a little bit more respect.
On the issue of advertising, we took advertisements from the commission, there were some advertisements from Libertas and there could have been other advertisements from the "No" side but we just took them and published them.
With regard to communications, TDs do a far better job of communicating with the tabloids than the MEPs. I do not think it is a virus that has affected Leinster House. It just seems to be a virus that has afflicted all those people having a lovely lifestyle in Brussels, I am afraid.
I meant to ask whether Mr. Kierans would consider having a representative or a journalist in Brussels given the extent to which Brussels has an impact with regard to the legislation and decisions made there.
Mr. John Kierans
It is the cost factor. We are tabloid newspapers. We will give people information and we will entertain them. Unfortunately, many of the stories that come out of Brussels, the ones we hear about, would not really make it to the tabloids, although some of them would. There is a big cost factor in having a European correspondent, as such. I think The Irish Times still has one and the Irish Independent had one, although I do not know whether it withdrew from Brussels as a cost-saving measure. I could not tell the committee whether the Irish Examiner still has one there or not. Certainly, none of the tabloids have. We tend to rely on news agencies which operate out of Brussels.
There is no communication — certainly not with my newspaper — from the Commission or its PR machine here in Dublin or in Brussels. That is a major problem.
It is worth emphasising that when this sub-committee put together its work and decided how we wanted to engage with the people, who look at what we do, we placed an advertisement in both of your publications. This was a very conscious decision on our part because one of the issues we are considering is the need to engage the public in the project of the European Union and in Europe. This committee hopes to play a part in that process and make a small but important contribution to that debate. Therefore, a conscious decision made by all of us was that we would advertise in your publications in the same way, and with exactly the same advertisement, as we did in every other publication to ensure that everybody would have the opportunity to participate in this.
In terms of the work we do, my role as Chair of this sub-committee is to let everybody make their contribution. We want to hear what people have to say and then, hopefully, apply our terms of reference when putting together our report. One point I emphasise is that our terms of reference are very clear. We are not here to recommend re-running of a particular referendum or anything like that. We are here to consider our broad future in the European Union and discover what recommendations we can make, on which we can all agree, on how the role of the Oireachtas will be improved and on how the public understanding of the European Union will be improved, as well as to offer some views about where we stand now and where we could go in the future. This is an important public service and one we will complete by the end of next week. I hope when we complete it, we will then package it in a way that is of interest to Mr. Kierans and Mr. Colleran because I know it is of interest to the people who read their newspapers as I represent them.
I have two questions. First, both of you referred to the fact that we need to speak to the hearts of our citizens and voters. Do you have particular ideas regarding how this could be done? So many of the issues we are talking about within the European Union at present unfortunately do not lend themselves to this in the way we want. It would be good if you had any ideas in that regard.
Second, in terms of the communication being received from the institutions of the European Union, while I am very disappointed to hear what you said, I am also struck by the fact some of what has been coming out of the institutions of the European Union recently is more good news than bad. The issue of roaming charges is one example I would have offered. The role the institutions are playing in the financial crisis with which we are all grappling is another such issue. Has the coverage of these issues changed the way you cover the European Union, despite the fact you are not hearing anything from the Union about the work it does?
Mr. Gerard Colleran
In terms of winning the hearts of the people of this Republic for Europe, that will not be sorted today or tomorrow. I urge that an approach be made to sorting out a long-term project across the whole spectrum of human activity, from junior classes into the workforce, across the various career choices and into arts and sport — a kind of team Europe idea. I do not see any activity driving that. I suppose it is a bit late. This conversation about winning the hearts of Europe should not be in the context of an election. It should be in the context that it needs to be done. I have indicated my sentiments.
On communications, I agree with Mr. Kierans that there is effectively nil communication. I gave my number jokingly because most people who want my number have it — it is very accessible. We have a very open door. We operate on the basis of people bringing stories to us. We have been getting much more contact from Europe in recent months on the basis that the people there realise it is needed. This has been reflected in our coverage, not on the basis of our writing editorials to say "Cheers to Europe" but on the basis of our writing stories stating that people can now go to Spain or elsewhere more cheaply in terms of roaming costs. Europe needs to tell its story but it has been very bad at telling it in a way that is accessible to the people here. It is picking up and improving, but it could improve much more.
Mr. John Kierans
To win hearts, we must be positive about the good things happening and we must be very positive about things like the euro. At the end of the day, the euro has been pretty good for this country. Imagine the state we would be in as a country, bad and all as things are, if we were not in the euro. We would really be in dire places. People understand the euro. They love going away on holidays to Spain and France. Thanks to their prosperity over the past ten to 15 years, many ordinary people have second holiday homes in the sun. They love going out there and love the Mediterranean lifestyle. There are many good things about Europe they like and enjoy. We must hammer home the message about the good aspects of Europe, and there have been some welcome measures in recent weeks, including the crackdown on drug smuggling. The seizure off the coast was a major European Union co-ordinated effort and was another instance where Europe worked very well. Mr. Colleran mentioned the roaming charges. Decisions are being made but we must be told about them and then inform the people. All we can ever do is be truthful with the people, and we must be truthful with the people on the European question. We sold them a vision of the Europe we all want and believe in and I believe they will buy into that because people here are not as right wing as those in the United Kingdom where there is a deep anti-Europe feeling. That is not the case here. The referendum was lost because of the various reasons we outlined here. It was badly communicated, badly prepared, badly researched and badly sold to the people and if the people did not understand it, they had no intention of voting "Yes". It was as simple as that. What was the second issue?
Mr. Kierans has covered it. It was the hearts and minds question.
Mr. John Kierans
Was there a second question?
It concerned the good news stories coming out of the European Union, which he has just touched on.
Mr. Gerard Colleran
I wish the committee every success in its deliberations and urge its members to take on board some of the "broad brush" views. If they have any influence on the type of return to the people that may be envisaged, I ask them to make it respectful and in that way it may have a chance of being passed.
I thank both gentlemen for their contributions. They are genuinely helpful to the work we are doing and we hope to be able to show them the product of that work in the coming weeks. On behalf of us all, thank you for your participation.
We will allow our guests to leave and then deal with some private business for a few minutes.