On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, who has responsibility for European affairs matters. We are grateful he has come to give us an overview of the agenda for the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting. I call on him to make his presentation.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Discussion with Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I thank the Vice Chairman and other members of the joint committee to whom copies of my statement are being distributed. I welcome the opportunity to meet them to review the agenda for next week's General Affairs and External Relations Council which will be the first such meeting under the Swedish Presidency. With the permission of the Vice Chairman, I propose to give the committee a brief overview of the key items discussed at the June meeting.
Last month's Council which met on the Monday of the week of the European Council was an opportunity to prepare the ground for the package we secured to meet the concerns of the Irish people in the matter of the Lisbon treaty. Members will recall that while we had been conducting an intense round of bilateral meetings, the General Affairs and External Relations Council provided an important opportunity on the eve of the European Council to explain once more the importance we attached to the concerns of the Irish people. I record our appreciation for the receptive manner in which our European partners responded to these concerns. This is a point well worth emphasising. If there was ever an example of extraordinary solidarity between 27 nations, it was that shown at the June European Council. The concessions and guarantees we were given are very real. Deputy Treacy who proceeded me in this portfolio will recall that extremely passionate views are held across the European Union, not merely among the large member states but also among their small and medium counterparts, on the issue of the retention of Commissioners. The concession we obtained is worthwhile and will prove beneficial not just to Ireland but to all other member states. In addition, we obtained a package of guarantees which will ultimately be transposed into a protocol. Taken together, these represent a tremendous and positive response to the views expressed by the Irish people. That was evident at the GAERC meeting last month. The General Affairs and External Relations Council paved the way for a successful European Council where, with the help of its European partners, the Government achieved all of the objectives required of it by the Irish people.
Members will recall we had already secured a deal in December to retain our Commissioner. The legally binding guarantees on the right to life, the protection of the family and education, taxation and our traditional policy of military neutrality will be attached to the treaties in the form of a protocol. In conjunction with the solemn declaration on workers' rights, we now have a cast iron package which addresses the genuine concerns of many voters. I am pleased that both Houses of the Oireachtas have endorsed, by an overwhelming majority, the Government's decision to hold a referendum on the treaty on 2 October.
It is worth emphasising that the progress we have made is due to the efforts of people on all sides of the House. I recognise the extraordinarily valuable work done by the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. Everything we have achieved was done through the GAERC and the European Council.
The key external relations items discussed at last month's meeting were the Middle East and Burma. Ministers had a broad-ranging and useful discussion on the Middle East. Following this, they agreed Council conclusions which set out the European Union's commitment to a comprehensive settlement and the two-state solution and called on the parties to implement their obligations under the road map. These conclusions were endorsed by the June European Council. I understand the Chairman of the committee is visiting the region today and I wish him and his travelling companions well. It is important that we should emphasise that our small country, by means of engaging in discussion, has found a solution to years of separation. I hope the parties in the Middle East can replicate our achievements.
Ministers also discussed the appalling situation in Burma and developments relating to the trial of Aung San Suu Kyi. They considered how the European Union should respond and considered a number of measures which it might adopt. It was agreed that it was vital that any new measures the Union might take would be carefully targeted against the regime and that we should do everything possible to avoid the imposition of adverse effects on the Burmese people who have certainly suffered more than their fair share of pain.
The principal item on the agenda for next week's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council will be the presentation by the Swedish Presidency of its priorities for the coming five months. These comprise: the response to the financial crisis which will be top of the agenda at all meetings in Europe for the foreseeable future; climate change; the Stockholm programme; the Baltic Sea strategy; and the European neighbourhood policy and EU enlargement. Other matters for discussion will be the new European Parliament and Commission and the Treaty of Lisbon. External relations priorities include EU-Russia and EU-US relations and the Middle East. The Presidency's focus on the economic crisis and climate change underlines the extent to which the Union is to the fore in dealing with these major challenges.
The Baltic Sea strategy is one of the priorities of the Swedish Presidency which will make a presentation on the European Commission's communication on the strategy. The purpose of the strategy is to provide a co-ordinated inclusive framework to respond to key challenges facing the Baltic Sea region and propose concrete solutions in respect of these challenges. A substantive discussion on the issue is not expected at next week's meeting.
The Council may consider the Icelandic application for EU membership. This follows the positive vote in the Icelandic Parliament, mandating the government to submit a formal application. It is likely the Council will ask the Commission to examine the application and give its opinion. Given Iceland's high alignment with many aspects of Community law as a member of the EEA since 1994, the process of considering its application is likely to be rapid because it meets nearly all the criteria.
We regard Iceland's accession to the European Union as a positive development. Eventual Icelandic membership could only happen on foot of successful negotiations which would need to deal with a full range of issues. The decision of the Icelandic Parliament represents a significant shift in that country's attitude to EU membership following its recent economic experience which has served to highlight the advantages of future membership for Iceland's small island economy. Its experience is relevant to us. The international economic turbulence of the past year has served to underline the high importance for Ireland of being part of the European Union and a member of the euro zone. We ought to bear these factors in mind when we come to weigh up the Lisbon treaty in the run-up to the referendum in October. I have had a number of bilateral meetings with senior political personalities from Iceland, including the current Foreign Minister and the previous Prime Minister, and the steep change in attitude in Iceland towards the Union has been extraordinary. I do not say everybody is happy, but the policy they have held for a long time has changed fundamentally.
I refer to external relations items. The Council is due to discuss and review relations with Iran following last month's disputed presidential elections. There is no plan at this stage, however, to adopt conclusions. There is no doubting the very serious disquiet internationally regarding the response of the Iranian authorities to the mass popular demonstrations provoked by the swift declaration of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the winner of the presidential contest on 12 June. We were all shocked by the deaths and scenes of violence on the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities last month and the clear attempts of the Iranian authorities to suppress peaceful protest and impinge further on the human rights of ordinary Iranians. Both nationally and with our EU partners, we have firmly condemned the nature of this response.
The efforts of the Iranian Government to blame foreign, including EU, intervention for the protests last month have been equally unacceptable. Such allegations are completely groundless and a clear attempt on the part of the Iranian authorities to divert attention from the underlying tensions within their society which have given rise to the post-election dispute. The events of the past six weeks have imposed further strains on the European Union's relations with Iran, which I very much regret. Nine local employees of the UK Embassy in Tehran were arrested on 27 June, although all have been released, with the final individual only being released last Sunday on bail. It is still not clear whether he may yet face trial on serious charges. A French national was also detained on 1 July for the "offence" of taking and texting photos of one of the mass demonstrations in Tehran last month. The European Union, in a gesture of solidarity with the United Kingdom and France, has made it clear to the Iranian authorities that it strongly condemns these arrests and continuing detentions. This message was firmly communicated by senior officials from my Department to the Iranian ambassador on 6 July. In the meantime, diplomatic efforts are continuing to secure the release of the French national, Ms Clotilde Reiss.
The actions of the Iranian authorities in recent weeks, including mass arrests of opposition activists and severe restrictions on foreign media operating in Iran, have accentuated our serious concerns about deteriorating human rights in the country. They have also undeniably made efforts to make progress in resolving the questions over its nuclear programme and ambitions more difficult. Despite this, it is important for the international community to persevere with its efforts and continue encouraging the Iranian authorities to respond positively to the offers to engage by the Obama Administration and the European Union, on behalf of the E3+3 — France, Germany, the United Kingdom, China, Russia and the United States. It is only through such engagement on Iran's part that the serious concerns about its nuclear activities can be properly addressed. The Iranians take a slightly different view. One can recall they have a history of interference by western sources. As the US Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, stated last week in Washington DC, Iran has a choice to make between co-operating with the international community and becoming a constructive actor in the region or choosing a path of further isolation. The latter course would be tragic for the country It needs to make a choice soon. For our part, we need to continue expending all our efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution to this increasingly difficult situation. In my humble opinion, isolating Iran is not in anybody's interests.
Ministers will also discuss the current situation in Somalia and it is expected they will agree conclusions on the way forward. Fighting between various armed groups in Somalia has been intense in recent months and there is no sign of light at the end of the tunnel for that unfortunate country. Restoring the rule of law is a key issue. In developing a long-term EU strategy for Somalia Ireland believes the international community should support rule of law and human rights standards, wherever possible, rather than giving personal support to particular individuals. We believe this is important to avoid repeating the disastrous mistakes the international community has made in Somalia in the past, and in other countries also. Ireland provides significant humanitarian funding for Somalia, channelled through the United Nations and other international organisations, as well as through Irish and international NGOs. Two Irish naval officers have recently been deployed to the operational headquarters in the United Kingdom of the European Union's anti-piracy naval mission off the Somali coast, Operation Atalanta.
Turning to the next item on the agenda, we expect that next week there will also be a Council conclusion on the EU monitoring mission in Georgia. The mission is playing a vital role in ensuring peace and stability in the region, particularly in the context of the departure in recent months of the UN and OSCE monitoring missions. The EU monitoring mission has had a real impact on the security situation on the ground and the extension of its mandate for a further 12 months is to be welcomed. Ireland has been a strong supporter of the monitoring mission since its initial deployment. It has provided four members of the mission, all of whom have been promoted within the mission since their arrival. Their security and that of all members of the mission is of the utmost importance. This issue was also discussed recently at an OSCE meeting in Corfu. There are difficulties in relation to the mission and, of course, the Russians take a somewhat different view to the European Union.
We expect Kenya will feature on the agenda and that Council conclusions may be adopted. In the light of EU concern at the disappointing level of progress made in the reform process in Kenya, Ministers will call for prompt implementation of the agreed reforms which are of critical importance for reconciliation, nation-building, development and prevention of further conflict. I share the concern of my colleagues that without international pressure, there is a possibility that Kenya could lose ground and slip back towards instability. I am particularly worried at suggestions corruption may have tainted the new government and distracted it from the urgent need to bring change to the lives of poorer Kenyans. Dialogue is an important first step and EU representatives on the ground should move it forward. If necessary, Ministers may revisit the issue in the coming months.
That concludes my statement on what is a fairly light agenda for the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting next Monday. I shall be very pleased to hear comments and answer any questions.
I thank the Minister of State. I shall now open up the discussion to the floor. There are several contributors offering. I call first Deputy Thomas Byrne who will be followed by Deputies O'Rourke and Quinn.
I thank the Minister of State for coming. The Georgian mission probably needs to be highlighted more because of the dangers and difficulties encountered. It is, however, a positive example of what the European Union can do at foreign policy level. It probably needs to be highlighted more because when we speak about EU foreign policy, it generally involves scare stories and the worry they can entail for the mothers of Ireland. It is important, therefore, that the mission should be highlighted more in Ireland. It is not something, perhaps, to which people tune in regularly.
As the Government supports Icelandic membership of the European Union, does the Minister of State expect any discussion to take place on fishing policy?
I thank the Minister of State for his submission, especially his review of the items discussed at the previous meeting. It is very important that we realise the passing of the Lisbon treaty is not simply about dealing with the treaty on its own merits. Whether we like it, the next referendum will involve an adjudication by the Irish people on whether we want to be involved in the European Union. Nearly every other country has signed up to the treaty and it is important that we give a positive response. It is also important that we articulate the reasons the treaty is beneficial to Ireland and concentrate on the positive aspects, pointing out that if the treaty is ratified, it will assist us in dealing with the economy, agriculture and in the fight against drugs.
The IFA executive may be having a meeting today and I hope it will give its backing to the Lisbon treaty. Every national body should examine the issues involved, look at what is in the best interests of the country, advocate and campaign for a "Yes" vote. There is often a reluctance on the part of "Yes" voters to go out and campaign as vigorously as those who campaign against the treaty. I urge everybody in favour of a "Yes" vote to campaign for the treaty, concentrate on the positives and avoid getting caught up in the continuous rebuttal of misinformation.
There are two issues I would like the Minister of State to raise with the Minister. One is the continued captivity of Ms Sharon Cummins of GOAL who is being held in Sudan. Can any channels be used through the European Union to liaise with the Sudanese authorities? I know the Minister had contact with the Sudanese ambassador on the issue, but we need to speed up the release of Ms Cummins and her colleague. I would also like to raise the issue of the internal protests in China under the external relations heading, especially given the way the Uighurs were treated.
The Minister of State mentioned that the enlargement process to include Iceland may be rapid. Can he give us any indication of the timeframe involved?
There is no date set for the EU-Russia summit, but my understanding is the report on the conflict in Georgia last summer has been completed. When will it be published and what might it contain?
I welcome the Minister of State. Am I right in thinking the vote in the Icelandic Parliament on EU accession was very tight? There must be a solid bloc of people who are anti-EU within Iceland. The Minister of State has claimed entry will be swift because the Icelandic Government has been working with the European Union on Community law issues. On what such issues has it been working? Are there other countries that wish to join? Is it true the peoples of Europe have gone cool on enlargement? I was involved in an argument on the issue the other day. I thought the Union would expand forever, but that is not the case. I expect part of the enthusiasm of those within the Icelandic Parliament who wish to join the European Union is the prospect of largesse to assist them in addressing the difficulties of that country which is in dire economic straits. In making that comment I am fully aware that this state is constantly being compared to Iceland, thus far to our advantage.
To follow on from Deputy Timmins's question, is there an ongoing focus within the European Union on Ireland's position in the context of the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon treaty? The Minister of State spoke of the extraordinary warmth shown by representatives of all member states when he went on his last mission. That is good to hear. At our last meeting some of us expressed concern at the prospect of highly placed officials or statesmen from within the European bureaucracy coming here during the campaign and making a faux pas from which it might be difficult to recover. Will the meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council touch on this issue, or is it an ongoing focus of discussion? I am sure the Minister of State has influence with other member states because of his strong support for all matters relating to the European project. I ask him to ensure there will be no difficulties in this regard. While we would normally welcome European Union representatives, there is some concern about the effect of such persons coming to the State and putting forth their views in the course of the referendum campaign.
I agree absolutely with Deputy Thomas Byrne on the issue of Georgia. I have had meetings with various political personalities from the region and it is very clear that the European Union's intervention in Georgia was an extraordinary move that created peace. Given the country's remoteness from us and the confusing history of the region, we did not have a great insight into what had had happened there. It was extraordinary to have the Georgian Foreign Minister point out to me that Russian troops were on the outskirts of the capital. Of course, Russia has a different take on these events. The European Union has managed to play a good role in the region, helping to calm a situation that could have developed into a very bloody war. Moreover, such a war would invariably have spilled over into surrounding areas, given the series of frozen conflicts in the region which are easily and quickly re-ignited. We must at all times be conscious of history lest we repeat it. After all, it was the assassination of two persons in that general region which sparked the First World War and subsequently paved the way for the Second World War.
Deputy Byrne is correct that it is not sufficiently recognised in this state that one of the essential aspects of the European Union is its extraordinary capacity to be a force for peace. It is the fault of those of us who believe strongly and passionately in the European project that we do not often enough make that case. That is the true prize. As I said at a meeting some days ago in another jurisdiction, the reality is that the European Union, for all its warts, bumps, pimples and many frustrations, created a miraculous situation. Yesterday we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the miracle of man walking on the moon. It was an even greater miracle when Schuman, Monnet and the other brave leaders of six countries came together to make war not just morally repugnant but also materially impossible. We have all gained from this.
Deputies Byrne, Timmins and O'Rourke had questions about the prospect of Iceland's accession to the European Union. As Deputy O'Rourke observed, the preliminary examination may well finish in December with a decision to move to the negotiating stage. However, it will be a considerable time thereafter before there is definitive progress. Iceland will have to go through all the various heads, although it undoubtedly ticks most of the boxes. It has been a long-standing member of the EEA and, as Deputies O'Rourke and Timmins observed, already applies many of the existing European rules. Consequently, it will not have difficulties in respect of these issues. Undoubtedly, there will be a number of specific issues of interest to Ireland such as, for example, fisheries. Deputy O'Rourke correctly adverted to the close majority in the Icelandic Parliament, which reflects a major issue. Members should recall that Iceland is in a fortunate position in respect of energy and up until recently had no grave problems. One issue about which it always was concerned was fisheries. It is a sensitive one for both Iceland and other member states, including Ireland. To return to Deputy Byrne's original question, we must wait and see how negotiations develop before any assessment can be made as to how it might affect Ireland. Certainly, it will raise questions because if one takes an historic view, one area in which Ireland failed to win the kind of concessions it should have because of a failure to keep its eye on the ball back in the early 1970s was fisheries. The sector was not as well developed then as it is at present and the potential in that regard was always seriously undervalued.
I wish to make another point that is implicit in Deputy O'Rourke's question. In addition to the discussions and negotiations that must take place between the Government of Iceland and the European Union, there also will be the issue of how the people of Iceland will deal with accession. They will be obliged to go through their own constitutional process which may involve a referendum. There was discussion to the effect that a referendum would be held in Iceland as to whether it would make an application, after which there would be a further referendum at the end of the process. Given that I am the world's leading fan of referendums, I consider that one referendum is probably sufficient in that process. However, everyone has views on the subject.
I thank Deputy Timmins for his comments about happenings at previous meetings. However, he is being overly generous because, if I recall correctly, the idea there would be a report back to the joint committee was his own. Perhaps this was a compliment to himself. It is important that Ministers should report back from all EU meetings to all Oireachtas committees. Now that the guarantees are in place, the Deputy is correct that we are at a crossroads. Arguments were made last year and real concerns were raised. I attended a debate last night in the Institute of International and European Affairs at which someone suggested the concerns of the Irish people were ersatz or slightly false. However, that is not true, as the concerns were real. The sovereign people had concerns which were reflected in the vote on 12 June 2008.
The reality of that vote was subsequently explored in the post-referendum research and such concerns were identified by what was, by any objective standards, the most incisive examination of voting patterns that had ever taken place in Ireland. I refer to the Eurobarometer poll conducted from 13 to 15 June 2008 and the Millward Brown poll which was followed by a series of focus group analyses and then a fine study by the Geary Institute. As Deputy Timmins suggested, we have isolated and identified the issues of concern to the people. The decision on the Commissioner was a major breakthrough. It was one of the issues on which we struggled longest and hardest, both in the Intergovernmental Conference after the Convention on the Future of Europe and in the course of the convention. There were two diametrically opposed camps, wherein the first argued for a large Commission, while the other argued that only a smaller Commission could be effective and efficient. Although I was always of the view that one could find a proper role for a larger Commission, that was not the majority view in either the convention or subsequently.
The Irish people, by their decision, have managed to persuade 26 other member states — and the Government which also signed up to it — to reverse that view. As I stated, that constitutes a highly extraordinary move forward. It is far more significant in real and objective terms than removing the "Ode to Joy" or the flag from the constitutional treaty. It is more significant than removing the reference to a constitution which should never have been on the front page of the treaty. This was a real concession which meant that 27 governments were obliged to go back to the drafting board to consider what the Irish people had said, while realising in many cases that their own people would have said the same. Deputy Timmins is correct, in that we must be prepared to ensure that the people understand and appreciate how much their decision influenced thinking in Europe.
I do not agree with the suggestion that the concerns about ethical issues were contrived. They were real concerns to which we now have a real response that specifically relates to the Constitution. Deputy Timmins is correct, in that we must tell the people that this is their victory, not the politicians'. Their concerns have been extraordinarily and generously addressed.
I have done research in recent days. After 7 April, when Madame Lagarde, a French Minister, made her faux pas with an unwelcome intervention, there were more than 200 press events on taxation. While come of those concerns were contrived, those that were not are addressed in a sentence that we have acquired. It will become a guarantee, international law and a protocol. The ongoing concerns of defence and neutrality have been addressed. There is a bonus, given the reference to social issues.
Regarding Sharon Cummins in Sudan, the Department of Foreign Affairs has people on the ground and has been working hard. With regard to the Uighers in China and the region's ongoing difficulties, we should not lose sight of the fact that the population most injured is that of the Han people, who are settled in the region. However, Deputy Timmins is correct, as this development is disturbing. It is appropriate that the EU should keep an eye on the situation. We should not only watch Burma, a small country with internal troubles. We should also make larger countries aware of our concerns.
Deputy O'Rourke is correct about the Parliament. I answered her question regarding applications to the EU. Croatia's application is well developed, but it has been held up because of a dispute with Slovenia regarding the sea approaches to Slovenia's ports of Piran, Izola and Porto Roz. The area is small and confined. This issue has been a source of bad blood between the Slovenes and Croats for a long time, but it and other large issues did not come to the fore until Yugoslavia broke up. It is regrettable and inappropriate that a bilateral issue is impeding the discussions on EU membership.
Many others have applied, but Deputy O'Rourke is correct in asking about expansion exhaustion in a number of member states. The issue with Turkey has been ongoing for a long time. There is also considerable concern about getting the Balkan states, particularly those in the western Balkans, to fall into line. Among a series of issues is a bilateral disagreement between the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece. The EU has never properly resolved the conundrum of whether Europe has a geographical boundary, where is it and how can countries be absorbed. Two applications will advance in the short term. Croatia has gone through many of the chapters and Iceland, by dint of being in the EEA, will have covered much.
Deputy O'Rourke asked about the faux pas of EU partners. My opinion is different than that of most others, in that all Europeans have a right to have a say in the issue.
It would be welcome were we not having a campaign.
Yes. European politicians who visit Ireland have a propensity for putting their feet in their mouths. However, valuable contributions were made to the Irish debate during the second Nice treaty referendum. This was not done in an interfering way but to show the reality of the debate. I remember Meglena Kuneva from Bulgaria, in particular, who is now a Commissioner, and former Commissioner Danuta Hübner from Poland. Angela Merkel made a very good speech here and in the Seanad we had a memorable speech by Hans-Gert Pöttering. It is no harm that the Irish debate is broadened and that we see that the decision we take is not just a decision for the 4.25 million people on this island but one that has a real impact on 500 million other people. We should think about the subject in this context.
I thank the Minister of State for his explanation of what happened at the last meeting. Learning what happened at the last meeting is an improvement to these briefings.
We should not be shy about having any visitors speak to us. Those opposed to the debate will argue in every case. If we bring no one here they will accuse us of being afraid and if we bring people here they will be accused of interfering. When in Brussels I am often asked what Ireland will do differently this time. The Minister of State has explained that clearly in respect of what happened in the past.
I would love to see Iceland join the EU. I raised the matter last year after spending some time with Icelandic people. Iceland was settled by Nordic settlers and Irish slaves. There is a link there, assuming the settlers married the slaves at some point.
In Icelandic legend they are referred to as Irish princesses.
That is a good way to do it. There are 63 members in the Icelandic Parliament and 28 voted against it, with two abstentions. On the question of whether they would vote in favour, the figures are quite balanced. Some 61% believe there should be accession talks but whether they would continue after that is evenly balanced.
My question concerns Somalia. It is like going back to the 16th and 17th century to see pirates free on those waters. Two Irish officers are serving in that area. It is a UN security decision to do this. Who pays for the boats and weapons? It is not just Europe or the UN. Is it those who contribute to fight against the pirates or is the decision taken at another level?
I will be brief because some of my questions have been answered. Did the resignation of the Croatian Prime Minister a few weeks ago have a bearing on Croatian membership?
I refer to sanctions by the US and EU in Iran and the Caspian Airlines plane crash last week. Does the fact that Iranian airlines cannot get western aeroplanes from Airbus or Boeing mean they are using old Russian aeroplanes? Have the sanctions been effective or counterproductive? Many embassy and diplomatic staff were arrested since the upheaval. Are further sanctions necessary or would that be counterproductive?
I endorse what the Minister of State said about the Lisbon treaty. I pay tribute to the work he has done along with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Taoiseach and our excellent diplomatic teams. I know the Minister of State has visited all of the member states to discuss the pre-Lisbon treaty agreement with his colleague Ministers with responsibility for European and foreign affairs and Prime Ministers and we appreciate the hard work he did in ploughing the furrows before we reached ultimate agreement. We have copper-fastened guarantees now and there should be no doubt or ambiguity about the future.
Deputy O'Rourke and others asked about the enlargement of the Union. I would very much welcome Iceland; it is very compatible and has much to contribute. It would also provide an opportunity to examine the Common Fisheries Policy, which would be to our advantage. It would very much to Europe's advantage that Iceland join as much as it would be an advantage for Iceland to be part of the Union.
When one looks at a map of Europe it is obvious that since 1957 successive European leaders — six first, then nine, 12, 15, 25 and now 27 — have taken decisions in different times, eras and decades with a vision of an enlarged Europe to contribute to global peace and economic sustainability in the Union. It is very important that an enlarged Europe should be sensible and practical. To bring that sensibility and practicality to conclusion it is vital that the Croatian application be taken now with the Icelandic application. The Minister of State has had discussions with Prime Minister Sanader and the Croatian Government. They are good supporters of Ireland and I believe they have a very important contribution to make to the Union. It is important that the Union bites the bullet and that no member state is entitled to hold another sovereign State to ransom on issues that can be resolved by negotiation. These negotiations have been going on for a long time and I hope we will be able to assist in ensuring they come to a conclusion.
Like Senator Quinn and the Minister of State, I believe that every time European leaders come here they are welcome and they have a contribution to make. They are our fellow citizens and political leaders and we have no reason to be concerned about their visits here. We are a mature nation with good political leadership in all of our constitutional political parties and there is no reason we cannot absorb their contributions into any situation at any time. As far as I am concerned our door is open for political leaders to make a contribution and it should always remain so.
I ask that at the meeting on Monday the Minister of State raises the Burmese situation, particularly with regard to Aung San Suu Kyi. This is an outrageous discriminatory denial of a person's human rights. She is an outstanding democrat and a woman who has played a huge role in championing the underprivileged in Burma. She has been outrageously treated by the Burmese junta and it is important that we use every opportunity possible to ensure her freedom is secured as quickly as possible.
I have two questions for the Minister of State; my first is on Afghanistan, which I notice is not covered in the briefing or agenda he gave us. There is much soul-searching in the UK regarding its contribution to that country at present. The further deterioration in what is happening there poses a real threat to the physical and national security of the European Union, including Ireland. Did I miss something in the briefing that was handed out? Will it feature in the discussions that the Minister of State will have?
My second question is on one of the conclusions that came out of the European Council meeting in June on the Growth and Stability Pact. It reaffirmed commitment to it but the next sentence stated that future developments remain uncertain. Are any discussions taking place on how appropriate it is for countries to move to an objective of debt as a percentage of national income being at 3%? What that would mean for countries throughout Europe, but particularly for countries such as Ireland, is that we will deflate during a period when unemployment will increase and there will be increasing demand for economies to be kick-started. Are any kind of discussions taking place at the moment regarding the appropriateness of that objective, given that currently pretty much every European country is in breach of the Growth and Stability Pact?
Senator Quinn picked up on the following point, with the vote in the Icelandic Parliament ending up with 33 votes in favour of opening negotiations for membership of the EU, 28 against and two abstentions. It is a sobering point.
Yes.
We have heard much media commentary from Iceland contributing to our discussion in Ireland. There was an excellent example of this on Pat Kenny's radio show yesterday morning. Despite all the discussion, a sizable minority of the Icelandic Parliament felt it was not appropriate for Iceland to initiate membership negotiations with the European Union. My party and I, along with members of this committee, would argue for the passing of the Lisbon treaty and it gives us food for thought to think that in the kind of circumstances a country like Iceland is in, and with which we have so much in common, that kind of doubt still exists. The campaign in the run-up to the October will need to address those kinds of concerns within our own country.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and his team of senior officials from the Department. I wish both the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Martin, every success next week. I congratulate the Minister, Minister of State and the Taoiseach on the successful negotiations regarding the Lisbon treaty. We are making a virtue out of necessity but the people who voted "No" have done the State some service, as the Minister of State has indicated in a conciliatory fashion. Such a tone will help those who voted "No" in the last referendum to consider voting "Yes" in this referendum on 2 October. I foresee a reconciliation with Mr. Declan Ganley.
These views might bring him back. We put the issues to bed very well. The report of Senator O'Donohoe's sub-committee was of great help, along with the research that has gone into this issue. Other issues affecting us today, including REPS, are causing some fall-out. Irrespective of the financial difficulties we are experiencing, any changes in policy with respect to our connections with the EU and farming will have a detrimental effect. Other issues will arise but perhaps we could provide some solution on that issue, particularly regarding the core principle of the rural environmental protection scheme. It has been of enormous benefit to rural Ireland and the scheme that will follow it should be of equal benefit to the State.
Iceland would be fortunate to be in a position of joining the European Union.
In the interests of clarity, the Senator might explain that the two issues are entirely separate and there is nothing in the Lisbon treaty that in any way affects REPS payments.
Of course there is not.
It is important that we do not raise extraneous matters at this stage.
It is a separate issue and I am merely providing the human side of what is happening on the ground for people such as farmers, who feel very disappointed about the change. They will try to link that issue with the second Lisbon treaty referendum. The same thing happened the last time.
I am assisting the Senator in helping people make the break and see that there is no link.
Of course there is no link.
We should not discuss the issue in this context.
There was no link at the time of the first referendum.
I accept that.
The Vice Chairman may recall the large advertisements taken out by the IFA on that issue right up to a week or two before the vote. I hope that will not occur again. We need the European Union, irrespective of the other issues arising. We need to vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty on 2 October for our own security and the future of the State. It is vital. Whatever issues that arise, they should not be used to take from voting "Yes" on 2 October. An bord snip nua and other matters are not related to the European Union.
It is vital that we maintain our goodwill in Europe. Our position will be greatly enhanced if we vote "Yes" on 2 October, and the Minister of State's statement today has been very helpful and should gain wide circulation.
I thank the Senator for the clarification.
Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Iceland would be well advised to apply for membership of the European Union. It needs it as much as we do and I hope it will join and be successful.
What input do the Minister of State and the Minister have into the agenda of the meetings, irrespective of Sweden's Presidency? For example, I notice that the Middle East is often dropped from the agenda at short notice. There is no item dealing with the crisis in Gaza and the West Bank and the development of that region, which issues are of enormous significance to the EU. We are closely involved in that region as the EU is the largest contributor in the world, including America, to Palestine. I hope the Minister of State will have an opportunity of raising this issue with the Minister at some stage during the meeting.
The Icelandic experience is a lesson for us. There is no doubt that had we found ourselves in the same situation as Iceland, the vulture currency speculators would have moved in. The fact that we are within the eurozone has ensured the stability and ongoing growth of the Irish economy. The Minister is to be commended for his work. The deal in December was to allay any genuinely held fears that people might have had, and he has done that. He has obtained binding guarantees on the right to life and protection of the family, education, and taxation, our traditional policy of neutrality, and the Commissioner. There can be no doubt that those who voted "Yes" the last time can say these fears were unfounded, while those who voted "No" for those reasons can be told we have ensured their fears are unfounded. I commend the Minister on negotiating this excellent deal. I would like to ensure, however, that the guarantee on the right to life will be — as I am certain it will be — extended to the European Court of Human Rights in the case which is coming up on 9 December, when Ireland as a State will uphold our traditional right to life and ensure it is the foremost human right in the European Court of Human Rights.
At the meeting, the Minister will also deal with the response to the international financial crisis. I ask him to continue the efforts to ensure there is strict regulation on the use of certain financial instruments, tight control and an element of responsibility for the seller to retain a financial interest in any subprime packages sold in the future.
With regard to the Baltic Sea strategy, we as an independent player can play a part. Europe definitely needs independent supplies of energy. There are local issues involving old enmities which are coming before the practicality of having the Nord Stream come on-line. Security of energy supply is vital to Europe's interest.
With regard to the European neighbourhood policy and EU enlargement, I support Deputy Treacy in his correct assessment that a single-vote veto is probably too strict in dealing with individual states because, again, old enmities can prevent states from progressing. Croatia is a prime candidate member and should be allowed in, and there are other cases coming forward in the future. The practical advancement of Europe should not be held up by old enmities.
In the area of justice and home affairs, I ask the Minister to continue the Stockholm programme. We are promoting this within the context of the Lisbon treaty. It is still wrong, as it was before, that the drugs barons of Ireland who live in the Costa del Crime are almost getting away with their crimes while we focus on the local crime families who, to these drug barons, are expendable.
I will give the Minister of State an opportunity to gather his thoughts while I say how impressed the committee members are at his ongoing attention to detail and his availability to us on an ongoing basis to discuss the matters that are important to Members of the House. I wish him well in his endeavours at the upcoming GAERC meeting and we look forward to his return to us after the meeting to discuss the matters on the agenda.
Thank you, Vice Chairman. As can be seen from the report, there is quite an amount of detail. I will go through the questions as they were asked. Senator Quinn was the first of many members to welcome the decision of the Icelandic Parliament to lodge an application. As several members recognised, it was a very close vote. It was very much along party lines. I spoke with the previous prime minister and the current foreign minister, and it is interesting that there was none of that cohesive political coming together that existed in Ireland at the time we decided to join. People forget, and it is a mistake to forget it, that the decision to apply to join the European Union was made by politicians.
Yes.
There was no major study group beforehand. It is sad that occasionally we lose sight of that. The late Seán Lemass, in his own inimitable way, sent off a letter. I had the job at one stage, when I was still a sensible and sane civil servant, of looking for the original copy which was discovered in the archives in Government Buildings. Iceland is very welcome, but it is ultimately a matter for the Icelandic people to decide.
Senator Quinn touched on a question which Deputy Timmins also raised, which I did not properly address. I apologise for that because Deputy Timmins has had to leave. The question was what would we do differently. The most important thing we should do differently in this referendum campaign is to honestly point out to the people that Europe is not a zero sum game but the most extraordinary example of a win-win situation. Occasionally there are frustrations. Senator Leyden touched on some of them. There are domestic issues and crisscrossing of issues.
However, nobody could argue that Europe has been anything but beneficial for Ireland or that the progress we have made, economically, in farming or socially was not the result of our membership of the EU. One should remember the position of women in 1973 when Ireland joined the European Union. Women had a distinct status as second citizens. If one were in the Civil Service and married and happened to be a woman, one had to resign. It was appalling, and it was a policy that we did not have a problem with. That changed the following year when a courageous young woman, a Sabena airline hostess, told the European Court of Justice she was no different from any other citizen, that she was not a part citizen but a full citizen. The European Court of Justice, which we sometimes criticise, made a decision which had a revolutionary impact on 51% of the citizens of this and every other state. We were a long way off that position. On every front Europe has been positive.
As to what we should do differently, those of us who believe in Europe should have the courage of our convictions and go to meetings, onto the streets, to the doorsteps and point out what Europe has meant for us and, more important, what it will mean for us. We gained adulthood as a nation when we went into Europe. We should make that point.
Deputy Breen asked whether the decision of the Croatian Prime Minister to step down had anything to do with the current impasse. I had a brief discussion in Croatia last week with the new Prime Minister and I understand that it had, I think very tragically because he is a very courageous man who put everything in and he decided to step aside to allow a different leadership and, it is hoped, create the possibility of discussions.
Deputy Breen also asked a question about the plane crash in Iran. I would only be speculating but I think he is right when he says they are using old rust-bucket Soviet aircraft. There is a real issue there. We should always bear in mind, however, that trade sanctions usually have a greater impact on the innocent than they do on the culpable.
In terms of the Lisbon treaty, Deputy Treacy is right. There should be no ambiguity. I thank members for their comments about me, the Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin and the Taoiseach. At the official and political levels, there were 76 bilateral meetings. Some people believe the negotiations were of the nudge-and-wink variety, but I assure everyone that they were real. More than most, Deputy Treacy appreciates what is involved.
I agree with the Deputy that Croatians are great admirers of Ireland. A small country that has experienced troubles over the years, its people are proud and they are so hurt by the current impasse that public affinity for joining the EU has moved from 86% to the low 60% or high 50% range. This is extraordinary. Last week, when I asked people in Dubrovnik how they felt, I was stunned by individual reactions. They were hurt and disappointed. Deputy Treacy is correct, in that Europe must find a way of preventing minor bilateral issues, albeit major in the eyes of the countries involved, from intervening. Ireland may have a role in this respect. Regarding Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi, we should remind ourselves that Seanad Éireann was the first parliamentary body to enact a call for her to be freed. Europe faces an issue in terms of Burma.
Senator Leyden referred to the meetings' agendas, although I will revert to that matter. Senator Donohoe mentioned Afghanisation. He is correct that the further disintegration of Afghanisation, where corruption is an issue, and Pakistan next door, would affect us all. This illustrates the necessity of a coherent EU policy. Small countries in particular do not inter-react, but we do as part of a larger 27-member body.
I listened to Deputy Lee as he discussed the Stability and Growth Pact and the 3% target at length. That target forms part of a discipline that member states, particularly those in the euro zone, agreed to apply to themselves. Had I had the opportunity or been close enough to a telephone, I would have disagreed with the Deputy because he argued that the target had been imposed by Europe. That is not the case. Rather, we have imposed it because it is good discipline. However, it is correct to claim that the 3% figure has been observed more in the breach than anywhere else in recent times. Europe is acutely aware of the situation. We cannot lose sight of the fact that we would be a financial or banking basket case were it not for the European Central Bank's strong support.
Senator Hanafin touched on the same issue and made a superb point. Reverting to my time dealing with financial matters, I know that the vulture capital speculators, those who run the large funds, do not care one whit about individual member states or the human misery that they cause. Deputy Quinn, who mentioned the issue, will recall that we were on our knees when a large fund decided to operate against the punt. This situation does not occur any longer. Europe is an astonishing shield against such vulture capitalism.
Senator Leyden raised a number of issues. We should recall last year's referendum campaign and the posters with pictures of Peter Mandelson. It was like talking into the wind, but I stated at the time that he would not last or bring the WTO over the line. Senator Clinton, who was then partaking in the US presidential campaign, had made it clear that the US would not sign up to Mr. Mandelson's view. The Indian Government also made that clear. That so many people got wound up about Mr. Mandelson, whose qualities I cannot see, was one of the most suicidal episodes in recent Irish political history. He was never going to show leadership. Where is the issue now? It is not there. We had the same debate about the Laval, Viking and Rufus European Court of Justice cases, which had nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. If we are to behave as practical patriots it is critically important that sectoral interests do not use the Lisbon treaty agenda, irrespective of their current issues and dismays. This applies to taxi drivers, farmers, fishermen and trade union leaders. They should not use the referendum as a lever because the only people damaged will be the Irish people. We are Europe. It is now part of our genetic structure and we are part of Europe's genetic structure. It is not a case of us over here and them over there. We are a family.
I do not share the view, which is often expressed, that those from outside should not have a say in our referendum. We are all Europeans and we should listen with respect to those of the opposite view. In all the exchanges between the gentleman to whom members refer and me, one does not see me showing disrespect for his views. I had suspicions about his finances and other matters but I celebrate the fact that people care enough to talk.
I agree with Senator Hanafin's point on vulture capitalists. He made an important point on the right to life, family and ethical issues. I make no apology for the decision of the Irish people in these areas. I heard the concerns described by a former academic whom I respect, as ersatz, meaning artificial. Those concerns were there and whether they were well-based is not for us to judge. The Irish people are our masters in this matter, they set our agenda. It was wonderful that when we pointed out to the Council of Europe what we needed and that we wanted to protect provisions of our Constitution, over which the Irish people are the sovereign authority, there was a willingness to do that. I refer specifically to the guarantees on the right to life, the family and the general and ethical issues. These are wonderful because they are specific to Ireland, they relate to our Constitution and put these issues beyond debate, making it clear that if there is to be a change to these areas it will be done by the Irish people, not someone in Brussels.
Senator Hanafin referred to the Stockholm programme and energy security, both of which are important. It is important that the Swedish Presidency makes progress, particularly in the area of justice and home affairs. There is something perverse about criminal masters on mobile telephones instructing their goons here on what to do. We have seen far too much of it and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, should be celebrated for taking a firm view of criminal gangs. Anyone who has concerns about criminal gangs and human rights should talk to working class people in the areas affected.
Progress on energy security will only be made through Europe. The agreement for the southern corridor of the Nabucco project was signed last week.
I made a point about setting the agenda.
There are many channels through which the agenda can be set. The agenda is prepared by the Council secretariat. Any member state has the right to submit an issue to be included on the agenda. There is a desire to keep it focussed because if it is too broad, one gets nothing done. Various issues arise through bilateral contacts and the awareness of the Presidency about certain concerns. Member states also talk and we all have one another's telephone numbers. The agenda is set by the issues of the day rather than by prejudices. The working agenda is the role of the Presidency but it is not set in granite and member states can make a submission and frequently do so.
I had a question on the Irish officers in Somalia.
Several forces are involved. Is Senator Quinn referring to the pirates?
Yes, the pirates.
The two Irish naval officers are based in London in the headquarters of the operation. Senator Quinn also asked who pays and the answer is that it is the individual members states. Naval attachments have gone from individual member states and the European Union is very much to the lead in that. I understand US, Indian and Russian vessels are also in the area. EU activity is primarily funded by the member states on the ground and there is some back-up support.
I will return to a point made earlier with a classic example of how an event in Afghanistan can have an effect here. Today, I spoke to a grandmother who is distraught and in despair about heroin being made available to her daughter and her three grandchildren through her daughter and her partner in Arklow. Events in Afghanistan hurt us in Arklow. To return to Senator Donohoe's point, we live in a very small world. People speak about the militarisation of Europe and I wonder where they are coming from.
It is astonishing that we are back to the 16th and 17th centuries with pirates on the high seas. What are the pirates doing? Many of the cargoes they captured were aid cargoes and one in particular was a very large cargo of small arms. If that gets into the continent of Africa it will do great harm. We are all our brothers' keepers.
I thank the Minister of State.
Sitting suspended at 3.46 p.m. and resumed at 3.47 p.m.