Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and commend him on inviting our guests. Their contributions have been most stimulating and thought-provoking. I do not know where to start, but I will finish as quickly as I can. I compliment each of our guests on their generally constructive approach to reporting over the years and on their comments, which, unlike those of many other commentators, do not adopt the approach of misery, deprivation and destruction.

Ms Cahill mentioned the word "vision" several times. Vision is hugely important. As we have discussed on many occasions, the vision for Europe must be reaffirmed. However, we are not doing that either individually or collectively. She mentioned she did not remember when JFK was shot, but I do, and I also remember ration books and the stand-off at Dien Bien Phu. At that time, there were pressing issues that helped concentrate the minds of the people, politicians and the voting public in a way they have not been concentrated since. That is the reason the founding fathers of Europe looked at the map before them and from the ashes that lay around them found the need to do something. I remember when I was a young Member I visited the European institutions and met people such as Pierre Pflimlin, Simone Veil, Egon Klepsch and many others who were totally committed to the vision of keeping Europe together and worked for a Europe that would bring the people together under one umbrella.

Over the years, things have changed and various national parliaments have decided to be selective in how they support the European concept. We, because we were a neutral country, stood aloof in the area of defence and security, for example. There were compelling reasons for that. However, people ask questions when one does something like that. They ask whether we want the support of the security, but not the responsibility. That question arose, but our view was accepted and we managed to get by. An interesting reference can be made to Abraham Lincoln and Michael D. Higgins, both of whom come to the same conclusion.

Interestingly enough, though, the American Civil War was not about abolishing slavery. It was a war to stop the union from breaking up and to halt various economic tendencies that were emerging at that time. The war was going against Abraham Lincoln. He was being beaten, and he played the trump card of the abolition of slavery. It was a great move, a political move that worked. It reintroduced a vision and gave people something to fight for and something to die for. It was an appalling war, with massive bloodshed and loss of life, similar to the Second World War in Europe. That vision is what prompted the founding fathers of the European Union, in my opinion.

Let us examine the concept of each member state having its own commissioner, with which I never agreed. It individualised the extent to which the commissioners would operate in the future and it also reflected the thinking in the parliaments of the member states. I felt, in the context of the original vision, that it would be more appropriate to presume that each commissioner, wherever he or she was from, would be recognised as a commissioner representing all of the people of Europe, but that vision was set to one side. It was set to one side not because the commissioners did anything wrong but because people thought there was a better way.

We need a reaffirmation of the vision. I also believe that the European Union, in fiscal, monetary and economic terms, is doomed until such time as the single currency is adopted by all. It will not work until that happens. I do not accept the notion that the euro was responsible for our problems. If there was a multiplicity of currencies in the United States in the last ten years, would that country have worked? It certainly would not have worked. What always happens in such situations is that the currencies on the fringe take advantage of the main currency and plan their economies accordingly. It does not work. My mother was in the United States in the 1920s and the 1930s, which was a very thought-provoking time. The events that have taken place in recent years in Europe are very similar to what happened then in the US.

On the issue of electoral reform and democracy, when things go wrong, we invariably find someone to blame. After the roaring twenties came the hungry thirties in Europe and every politician looked around for somebody or something to blame. On the back of that, electoral reform was introduced, and what a reform that was. One of the first reforms that took place was in Germany, where the electoral system was manicured to accommodate the needs of the people at the time, notwithstanding the fact that there were very compelling economic reasons for deciding to do something different. It was a disaster, as we now know, and I await convincing that it was anything other than a disaster.

I do not think we spend too much time on electioneering. We need to be in contact with our public. Ironically, all of these systems have been in operation in other European countries for the last 25 or 30 years. There are non-political experts serving as ministers in the governments of several member states, yet still the problems exist. We need to reaffirm our vision. The member state parliamentarians must take ownership of the European project. We had a strong delegation from the European affairs committee of the Swedish Parliament here last week. They have a veto over the decisions of their ministers at European Council meetings. When asked whom they represent when they instruct their ministers to take decisions at the European Council, they all looked at each other. I would have liked to think that they instruct their ministers to take decisions in the interests of the European Union as a whole, but I am not convinced. Each member state must decide to take ownership of the European project. We need to understand our German, Italian and French colleagues and they need to understand us.