Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN UNION AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 12 Jul 2011

Ireland-EU Relations: Discussion with President of European Parliament

I welcome the President of the European Parliament, Professor Jerzy Buzek, to the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. I know Professor Buzek has had a busy few days with fruitful meetings with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ceann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach and the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. He has just addressed the Seanad and I hope there was a useful exchange of views with the Upper House. I thank him for taking the time to address this committee.

We are pleased to have the opportunity to forge closer co-operation between the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament, particularly in the context of the Lisbon treaty. This committee was recently established following our general election. This meeting is timely as the committee is preparing its work programme and focussing on prioritising engagement with our European partners.

Yesterday I addressed the combined European affairs committees in the Sejm and complimented the Polish EU Presidency for its ambitious and comprehensive programme. Its approach can, as I said yesterday, be summed up as Solidarity-Solidarnosc in the areas of enlargement and integration, the EU multi-annual budget, human rights and democracy. In his inaugural address when elected President of the European Parliament, Professor Buzek, spoke of these elements too. I invite him to address the committee.

President of the European Parliament (Mr. Jerzy Buzek)

I thank the Chairman for his opening remarks. It is a great idea to have a joint committee comprising membership from Upper and Lower Houses for European affairs. In some ways, the Lisbon treaty created a fifth institution by giving national parliaments for the first time a formal legal role in the EU legislative process. We have the four institutions, the European Council with its president, the European Commission with its president, the European Parliament and the rotating EU Presidency. It is sometimes forgotten that there is a fifth institution, the national parliaments. These influence strongly the European Council through ministerial meetings. National ministers are in turn democratically accountable to their parliaments. It is important to have a committee for European affairs like this separate from sectorial committees. It should also be remembered that European affairs are not restricted to foreign affairs but also domestic affairs like job creation, agriculture and fisheries.

Another important issue is how to communicate Europe to its citizens. This is our main problem in the European Parliament because we are far away from our citizens. Some Members of the Oireachtas, such as Senator Colm Burke, will understand this point having been European Parliament Members before. It must not be forgotten that between the European Parliament and its citizens are the national parliaments. The European Parliament can achieve much more if it has large contact with the national parliaments. This will also act as a support to our citizens, allowing them to understand better European affairs.

The next Irish EU Presidency term in one and a half years will be very important because the European citizens' initiative will start then, allowing 1 million EU citizens to initiate legislative proposals and changes. The next European financial framework from 2014 to 2020 will be started during the Irish Presidency. This is a time when the European Parliament could say "Yes" or "No" to any of these financial proposals. It is important the European Parliament is involved in the whole process. The Irish Presidency, through co-operation with the European Parliament, could be successful in achieving the necessary qualified majority voting, QMV, of 379 to pass the financial framework. This will not be an easy task and should be a great goal for the Irish Presidency.

We know that co-operation is very important with the next Presidency. Poland, Denmark and Cyprus will host the presidencies, Poland, as the first of the trio. Ireland will host the presidency at the beginning of the next troika. It is very important to propose a programme for 18 month and not just for six months, as was the case of the Spanish Presidency at the beginning of 2010 when it presented a programme for one and half years. It was dedicated specifically for the first six months, but generally the problem was much longer.

The co-operation with the Polish Presidency today is clear. When the Irish Presidency comes around, the co-ordinating role will not be limited to the Irish Government in the Council of Ministers. The Irish Parliament and the committee will need to take the lead in co-ordinating national Parliaments of the 27 or 28 member states.

It is also very important that we should decide on the conference on the Common Foreign and Security Policy. We created it on the basis of the Lisbon treaty. We have many goals and I am very glad to start the discussion now. Should members wish to raise any other point, I am ready to discuss it and answer it, if I am able to do so.

I thank Professor Buzek for his contribution. I have no doubt that a number of members will be presenting. As this is a joint committee, we have representatives of the Dáil and Seanad, as well as a number of colleagues from the European Parliament, Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP, and Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, who was honoured on Saturday last with the nomination to contest the presidency of Ireland. Both are very active Members of the European Parliament and I welcome them. However, both of them must leave shortly to go to the airport.

I now invite members to contribute.

I welcome Professor Buzek and thank him for visiting our Parliament. I have two questions. We are following very closely the negotiations that are taking place regarding a successful resolution of the sovereign debt crisis across Europe. First, does Professor Buzek have observations on the policy that emerged from the meeting yesterday of finance ministers from many of the affected countries? Has Professor Buzek a view on the features of a sustainable solution to the difficulty in which Europe finds itself?

I thank the Deputy for his succinct questions.

I join with others in welcoming the President of the European Parliament to the committee. He spoke in his brief contribution about the necessity to bring the institutions of Europe closer to the citizen. Professor Buzek's presence here at an early stage in his Presidency speaks volumes for that initiative.

This committee, in the life-time of the previous Parliament, put a great deal of time and effort into a rerun of the Lisbon treaty. In trying to establish why that disconnect had developed, it became clear that many of the institutions were viewed by our citizens as being outside their remit and something that was considered to be a distance away. That is not to take from the great work that Members of the European Parliament do but the point was made clear that unless the European institutions and the central players in those institutions made a greater effort to partake in dialogue in the Houses of the Oireachtas, it would be more difficult for us to break down the barrier that has arisen, not just in Ireland, but throughout Europe. The initiative of the President of the European Union, Professor Buzek, by being present in the Seanad yesterday and before the Joint Committee on European Affairs today and his open approach has ensured that he has become part of our general commentary. That is very helpful as a top-line issue.

I would like to hear Professor Buzek's views on Ireland's current situation vis-à-vis its European partners, the question of burden sharing by senior bond holders and the ongoing difficulties the Government is having in reducing the interest rate for the bailout programme. It is clear to us, and this is one of the difficulties of our citizens, that a limited number of influential countries are acting as the gatekeepers. We like to view Europe as a conglomerate of equals working together in partnership but it seems that certain larger States have a tendency to block progress.

I would like the President to comment on those issues. I thank him again for his presence.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

I welcome the President. My colleague, Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP, and I had the opportunity to meet the President last night and to be present in the Seanad yesterday. Unfortunately, we must both leave to go to the airport shortly, but I have a question for the President.

There has much discussion on the interest rate. It is important to us that people are seen to get a fair deal but there is a matter on which the President could be helpful. I have raised it with the President of the European Central Bank and the Commission but it is a matter for the ECB. The ECB provides liquidity funds for our banks of between €140 billion and €160 billion, usually turned over on a 14 day basis. The interest rate on that until recently was 1.25%, which is very welcome. It is a very necessary to have these funds but it is turned over every 14 days. I asked many people what we in Europe could do to restore confidence in the Irish banks, and the constant reply is that if we could be given the same amount of money but in the medium to long-term it would restore confidence. It would not cost the ECB any more.

This is an issue that is being looked at. I questioned the incoming President of the European Central Bank when he was before the relevant committee recently. I believe the statutes of the ECB permit it and there is support for it among the governors. It would help if the President had a word with the relevant authorities on this. The country will still pay the same interest rate but it would help to restore confidence. I ask the President to take that message back. it would not cause any problems to the European Central Bank and it would aid us greatly.

I too welcome Professor Buzek to the joint committee. Being a new Member of the Dáil I am not familiar with how close the relationship is between the Oireachtas and the European Parliament. I wonder if Europe is aware just how difficult it is for the more vulnerable in our society because of the measures that have been imposed on us. I have always been pro-European and I understood the notion of a European Union as being a group of family nations. I see decisions being made now that suit the Germans, the Dutch and the French more than may suit nations, such as Ireland, Portugal and Greece. If one were a neutral country, looking in on Ireland, I do not believe it would be seen as a fair arrangement, especially the measures that we are being forced to impose. There is no doubt that the most vulnerable suffer the most. From my experience of Europe over many years, that is not what I would associate with it. I always thought things would be done in a fairer fashion. It seems that looking after the markets is now a greater concern of the ECB than looking after the citizens of Europe.

Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP

I welcome the President of the European Parliament to Ireland. He was in the Seanad before he came to this forum. The Irish Members of the European Parliament are honoured that our President decided to come here to share some time with us. He has indicated that he clearly supports Ireland at this difficult time. As a representative of the Border counties in the European Parliament, and as a former Member of the Dáil who represented Donegal South-West, I am well aware of the important role the European Parliament has played in peace and reconciliation. I remember vividly the declaration of a ceasefire in 1994, when I was an MEP. The President of the European Commission at the time, Mr. Jacques Delors, said that evening that Europe would respond in a positive and practical way. The EU - particularly the Parliament, supporting the Commission - immediately increased its contribution to the International Fund for Ireland. That was all that could be done at the time. The fund was the only structure that was in place.

Following that, the Commission and the Parliament supported the Peace and Reconciliation Fund. We are coming towards the end of the third phase of that process. The fourth phase is being negotiated. We are anxious to get Professor Buzek's support as President of the European Parliament - we know we have his personal support - for those negotiations, with a view to ensuring funding is provided for the fourth phase. A great deal remains to be done. Both Parliaments, the EU, Canada, Australia, the United States and New Zealand have contributed to the International Fund for Ireland. As a result of a meeting with the regional committee, I know we can extend the life of the International Fund for Ireland and the peace and reconciliation project if we receive further support from Professor Buzek. I am anxious to hear him reiterate his support for the major peace and reconciliation project today, in the presence of my colleagues in the Oireachtas. If funding is made available to help to resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland, that work can be replicated in other parts of Europe and the world.

We are running short on time. I ask members to be as succinct as possible.

Professor Buzek is welcome. I thank him for addressing the Seanad earlier. It sometimes appears to citizens that the EU is dealing with the emerging crisis in EU states like Greece, Ireland, Portugal and now Italy by making up the rules as it goes along. There is a need for more flexible debt restructuring. In light of the difficulties in various member states, how stable does Professor Buzek believe the EU project is?

During his Seanad address, Professor Buzek mentioned the importance of stimulating growth and investment and, especially, the importance of competitiveness in the Single Market. What about education, which is a key driver of economic growth? Some EU states, such as Finland, are performing extremely well in areas like standards of literacy and maths, or problem-solving in science. Other countries are not performing as well. Has the EU considered having a more proactive role in the education systems of individual countries? I do not refer to cross-European projects like Comenius, which are very good but cater for relatively few learners. They are tinkering around the edges rather than facilitating in-depth change in individual systems. I would be interested to hear Professor Buzek's responses to both of those questions.

I thank the President. He is aware that there is a close relationship between Poland and Ireland. There is a substantial Polish community here. There have been some major Irish investments in Poland. There is a long tradition of good relations between the countries. Professor Buzek has a tremendous record. I thank him for coming to the Seanad earlier today. He gave a great address. We were delighted to have him there.

I would like to comment on some of the countries that wish to join the EU. Croatia is about to join the EU. Bearing in mind that Turkey continues to occupy part of northern Cyprus, what is Professor Buzek's view on the accession of Turkey to the EU? Is the European Parliament making any efforts to facilitate the reunification of Cyprus? If Turkey is to join the EU, it should happen on the basis of the resolution of the Cyprus issue to the agreement of both halves of the island.

I join others in welcoming Professor Buzek. What steps have been taken by Professor Buzek and the European Parliament to deal with the financial crisis on a Europe-wide basis? What steps can be taken to deal with issues like the interest rates and the length of the loan terms? How can the question of burden-sharing be dealt with on a pan-European basis?

What is Professor Buzek's reaction to the suggestion that the review of less favoured areas within Europe could work to the detriment of countries like Ireland if there is a shift to southern Europe? I was happy to be informed the other day that the overall budget for agriculture is in place and is promising. However, I would like to hear Professor Buzek's reaction to the suggestion that there might be a shift within the Common Agricultural Policy from direct payments to innovation and research. I accept that various arguments can be made on the question of how the two should be balanced. Has it been decided to provide for such a shift?

Like other speakers, I welcome Professor Buzek and congratulate him on the job he is doing. He has identified a need to bring the EU institutions closer to the people. The European Parliament is doing that. As the President of the Parliament, Professor Buzek has been particularly successful in that regard. Today is an example of that. That does not apply to all institutions, however. There should be a particular emphasis on bringing the European Parliament closer to the people and vice versa. There is ample evidence that parliamentarians in EU member states have moved further apart from each other. The cohesion that existed some years ago, when each member of parliament in each member state recognised the need to remain in sync with the European vision, ideal, goal and objective, is less evident now. There is clear evidence that in some member state parliaments, members have resiled into their respective corners and renationalised, in effect. I believe that is dangerous, particularly when linked with the economic crisis that faces us all. It could be calamitous for the whole European movement at a later stage. I will not repeat what previous speakers said about the current crisis.

I have felt for a long time that the European ideal needs to be redefined. The vision for Europe that was set out by people like Adenauer, Monnet and Schuman a long time ago identified particular guidelines, pillars and goals. Their thinking, which survived for 60 years, needs to re-emerge. We all know from past experience that it is never more important than it is at times of economic crisis.

I thank all members for their contributions. Professor Buzek was quite right when he said the questions and comments of members would throw up a number of issues. Members have raised a wide range of issues and Professor Buzek will have a great deal on his hands responding to their comments and queries.

Mr. Jerzy Buzek

I thank members for all their questions. It is great that we can have such a debate. It could be very supportive for me and I am honoured to say that.

The first contribution, from Deputy Donohoe, was related generally to the financial crisis and what could be a sustainable solution. We need to take a case-by-case approach. It is very difficult to answer all the expectations at the same time. Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland face different issues. While we should adopt the same approach, the responses need to be taken on a case-by-case basis and could be slightly different. Different structural reforms and austerity measures are required, for instance, depending on budget deficits and whether the national debt is 150% or 180% of GDP. We must ensure we do not prevent growth in the economy because austerity measures and structural reforms are impossible without growth.

If I am asked about how to respond generally to the crisis, I can say that the Parliament and Commission have done a great deal. There are six items of legislation on economic governance on the table. Economic as well as monetary union are necessary and we are creating economic union. We are doing much to enable comparisons of national budgets through the introduction of the European semester. Each spring all the national budgets will be on the table and Ministers for Finance will be able to compare 28 national budgets. The purpose of the initiatives is to make the budgets of the European Union members states work better together. Many similar efforts and activities are under way for the European Union as a whole, for example, on how to prevent future crises, achieve growth and recovery and proceed with structural reforms. The euro-plus pact is about structural reforms. Many initiatives are under way in the European Union.

We do not have a eurozone crisis today, although it could become one in the event of the bankruptcy of Greece, for example. While there are some instabilities in some members of the eurozone, it is not in a crisis as a whole and growth stands at 1.5% or thereabouts.

The next question focused on general discussion and dialogue between national parliaments and the European Parliament. This is very important on all levels, including at the level of committee rapporteurs in national parliaments and presidents. Together with the citizens' initiative, such dialogue could help us to bring the European Union closer to citizens. We need democratic accountability. Our citizens do not understand how the European Union works today or the reason it is important to be closer to each other and open up to the market. As these issues are not easy for citizens to understand, we should try to help them understand them.

Being very honest, in my travels from one country to another I ask people the reason they are not active in promoting the European idea and informing people about the European Union. The response I received is that while people are convinced of the European idea, they cannot easily promote it because it is very boring. There are two very boring issues for citizens, namely, regional policy and European policy. The reason they are boring is that there is not much war at the level of the European institutions and in regional policy. In the area of regional policy we are making some soft investments but one does not see any type of audiovisual war. At national level, one usually has a coalition and opposition, as in the case of Ireland, and a great war, as it were, where the government and opposition are ready to fight almost every day, not necessarily using the force of argument. Unfortunately, however, this war is very interesting for citizens. What is very interesting for citizens from the point of view of European affairs? The answer is bribery. The horrible truth is that news about increased funds for the Common Agricultural Policy or CAP reform is not interesting for citizens, whereas bribery is extremely interesting. When the European Parliament is the first item in news programmes, it is not in connection with positive information. The question is whether this can be changed. We cannot change our citizens, at least not immediately, but perhaps we should work on it. I am being very honest on this issue. There are probably not any journalists present. It seems we have some with us, in which case it is too late.

Members may answer my question. What is more boring than the regional and European policies of the European Union? We do not have an opposition and coalition in the European Parliament or Commission. Commissioners and Members of Parliament sometimes disagree because we have eurosceptical colleagues and, therefore, euro-positive and euro-negative views. While there is something approaching opposition and coalition and the discussion is probably slightly more interesting for citizens, it is not a typical coalition and opposition. We try to find agreement and compromise from the very beginning. Deputy Dooley asked me about an important issue and I am answering in a very honest way.

The next question was about how we could restore confidence in the banks. It is obvious that the banks, including Irish banks, are all in a worse position than they were previously because the crisis was financial in nature. The crisis was not originally ours but was imported to the European Union. While we should generally support innovations, the exception is innovations in financing and finance policy. The horrible crisis we had was caused by innovations in some financial institutions in the United States. As members are well aware, innovative papers and bonds in the financial markets were not such a good idea. For this reason, we must be careful in this area in future.

I have met the President of the European Central Bank, Mr. Jean-Claude Trichet, who is about to finish his term of office, on a number of occasions. I also met Mr. Mario Draghi a few weeks ago and had a very long discussion with him. I will, obviously, mention Mr. Mitchell's proposal and point of view. However, I can say it will be a policy of continuation. I am quite sure of that because I discussed all the problems with both leaders. That policy will continue, at least at the beginning, but perhaps in two or three years the policy could change. As we know, the term of office is very long.

The next question suggested the current solution to the crisis is unfair, that the people are suffering too much and that the solution only suits Germany and France, as suggested by Deputy Mick Wallace. This is an interesting question. Take Greece for example. Without loans, after three weeks there would be no salaries for Greek public sector workers. Perhaps some private companies would have money to pay salaries, but nobody else would. The question, therefore, is whether we are helping Greek citizens or not. The Deputy could say we are not. The Deputy said we are helping Germany and France. Of course, we want to help the banks, because the bankruptcy of Greece would be great problem for some of the big European banks. Only one financial institution, Lehman Brothers, had troubles at the beginning, but this was followed by a deep recession throughout the world, apart from in China. If Greece collapses, we will see the same, perhaps an even deeper recession. The collapse of the European financial institutions will be followed by the collapse of our real economy. That is obvious. There will be no loans for small and medium enterprises and no possibility for solid investment in companies and so on.

On the problems with the banks, it is difficult to survive with no banks. Ireland has spent significant public money trying to ensure the survival of the banks and it is important to support the banks. The Deputy can say we are helping banks. However, one of the first decisions of the European Parliament in this crisis was to decide to cut banker bonuses. We took that decision 14 months ago because we felt it was unfair to retain such bonuses. That was our decision. That aside, we know that it is thanks to the financial system that our economy works. We cannot survive in the case of the bankruptcy of Greece. Therefore, in helping Greece, while we may also be helping some European banks, we are also helping ourselves. If Greece goes bankrupt, we will have a recession and this will bring higher unemployment in each member state. Therefore, there is no other possibility. The Deputy may say it is horrible for the citizens, but I know that very well. I spent 14 years of my life, my professional life, as a leader of a trade union and had to organise strikes and protests in the streets. I know what it means to defend workers. On the other hand, I know what it means to defend an economy. In the end, if we do not improve the economy, there will be no improvement from the point of view of the trade unions.

I went to Latvia one and a half years ago at the beginning of a deep crisis there, deeper than that of Greece. The national debt and the budgetary deficit were higher than those of Greece. In October 2009, Prime Minister Dombrovskis introduced very deep austerity measures and structural reforms and now, after two years, the country is developing. The GDP growth rate was -18%, but now it is from 1.5% to 2%. The budgetary deficit and national debt have also reduced. Latvia is trying to survive. The situation was very difficult for citizens. Committee members cannot even imagine how difficult things were in central eastern Europe at the beginning of the 1990s. We changed our economies. The unemployment rate in my country was 25% for three or four years, a quarter of the population. That is a horrible situation. I was the leader of a trade union at the time, and it was a horrible time. However, if countries want to survive in the long term, they must go through such a period. It is a responsibility to go through with the hardship.

People in Germany might ask why they should pay and, to be honest, that is a reasonable question. Imagine a worker in a Ford factory in Leverkusen who goes to work every day and earns around €3,000 per month. This worker might ask why he should pay for Greece and say he should not pay for it. Let us pay for Greece, because it is for us. It is for also for the worker in the Ford factory in Leverkusen because we want to help him. If we do not help Greece, the workers in Leverkusen will be unemployed in a few months time. By helping Greece, we are helping the worker in Leverkusen, but it is very difficult for him to understand that. I visited Germany two weeks ago and tried to explain on radio and TV that we have a common responsibility and that we want all of us to survive, rather than to divide the different member states. We do not want to close the doors, because closing the doors is the most dangerous solution.

I also understand the position of Irish workers and citizens, who are so patient. They are fantastic and I have stressed that today. Unfortunately, we must go through such economic hardship. The crisis was imported into the European Union and was not originally our crisis. I understand this reply must be aborted.

I am afraid I will have to cut in as another committee meeting is to be held here at 4.30 p.m. I ask Professor Buzek to finish up please.

Mr. Jerzy Buzek

I will finish with one other issue and hope members can wait for that.

Perhaps you can chat outside afterwards.

Mr. Jerzy Buzek

I am very keen to reply. On the issue of peace and reconciliation, I am quite sure that the next multi-annual financial framework will deal with projects such as INTERREG and peace and reconciliation. I met our colleague, Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP, yesterday at the wonderful site of the Battle of the Boyne. I believe this area should be financed. All the NGOs present yesterday asked me about this individually and I assured them that such projects will be continued. We have more money for INTERREG than previously proposed. The Border project between Ireland and Northern Ireland, between two member states, is a typical INTERREG project and there is more money available for that today. The project is also an excellent example for the western Balkans and for the Middle East. I visited Palestine and Israel a few weeks ago and used the peace and reconciliation project as an example. I gave the example of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, people who were fighting each other for centuries and who are now promoting peace and reconciliation. Reconciliation is a sign of this island. I thank Mr. Gallagher, MEP, for providing such a good example.

How stable is the EU project? It depends on the member states and on our citizens. In the European Parliament, approximately 80% of Members are very convinced about the European project. They do not have any doubt about it.

Approximately 70% of funds for education in the next multiannual financial framework between 2014 and 2020 are for member states that are not performing very well, and this could be very helpful for them. Ireland is a very good, modern country for many member states. About 12 or 14 years ago, it was at the bottom of the prosperity list of the best EU member states, yet now it is in the first half and possibly somewhere towards the top of the list. Even after two or three years of crisis, Ireland has kept itself visibly above the average. It means that a country can change its position in 12 years, and that makes Ireland a model for other member states. Countries that do not perform very well should look to Ireland as the best possible example.

Senator Leyden asked a question about Turkey. The Copenhagen criteria are, of course, necessary. Without these criteria, we cannot do anything. They have some problems. Northern Cyprus is a big problem and a veto from Cyprus is obvious.

We have some problems with Turkey, but we should be much more sincere with that country. We should speak with them in a very open way, because we are playing something again. We have played this game for 48 years, since the beginning in 1963. Forty eight years is enough and we should be open with them. We could propose a special type of partnership with them if they have problems with the Copenhagen criteria, or if they have problems with Cyprus. We should be more honest and open with them, because they are doing well. They are trying to change many things in Turkey, so we should also be on their side. If enlargement is now almost impossible, we should connect with them in a special way. We should bring them closer to the European Union in a different way. It cannot happen through enlargement because all the criteria have not been fulfilled.

The last question was about the vision of Europe. That is a very important question. We will have a special congress at the end of September during the Polish Presidency in Sopot, near the city of Gdansk, which is very well known from the Solidarity movement. The title of the congress is the European congress of European ideas. It is the first such congress and the most important question is about our future and how to redefine it. The most important difference between today and the era of De Gasperi, Monnet and Schuman is that we are now in a global environment.

The problems 50 and 60 years ago were inside the European Union, so we created a coal and steel community. We wanted to avoid war in our Continent, but now it is quite a different question. We have the biggest economy in the world. We are an economic giant but a political dwarf. We are not as important as the United States in the international arena but we are trying to bridge that. It is important to show our citizens that this is the future. All the threats to our citizens are coming from outside the European Union, such as terrorism, energy supply, climate issues, nuclear non-proliferation issues, piracy and so on.

If we want to answer our citizens' expectations, the European Union should be strong to create a common foreign, security and defence policy and a European external action service. In our relations with Russia, China and the US, the European Union voice is much more visible and influential than any member state voice, including the larger member states.

It is important for our future if we want to respond to the expectations of our citizens. We cannot influence the situation globally without integration but the solution is far from a federation. We are not prepared at all for federation. We can use the Lisbon treaty instead. Up to 95% of our citizens are opposed to federation but we can use the Lisbon treaty to achieve our goals.

We will finish on that note.

Mr. Jerzy Buzek

The Chairman is fighting against me all the time.

I want to thank you, because it is important for us in these difficult times to have the President of the European Parliament here to engage in dialogue. In particular, I thank you for expressing such sympathy on the renegotiation of the interest rate and of expressing solidarity for a sustainable solution. All of this is very important for us.

I thank you for your contribution and the time you spent with us. I have no doubt we will be in communication with the European Parliament in the future.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.30 p.m. sine die.
Barr
Roinn