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

I welcome Mr. Freudenstein and thank him for his contribution. I find a few points he mentioned alarming - I am not an alarmist by nature, but sometimes I get alarmed. One point concerned the growing tendency among the larger European countries to dominate the debate and the politics of Europe. That is a dangerous development and it is not in line, as Mr. Freudenstein mentioned, with the original vision of Europe. It is a departure from that. For example, we had a discussion in our Houses of Parliament on comments by the Bundestag on budgetary projections and proposals. Those proposals were necessary and we accept that. We signed up to the memorandum of understanding following the economic collapse. We stuck to that without variation. The Government parties valiantly stuck to it and some of the Opposition parties grudgingly stuck to it. The people stayed with us on it, which was difficult for them to do, and huge sacrifices were made by them, about which many other people throughout Europe and in the European institutions know. However, just because there were no demonstrations on the streets, no protests, no baton charges and no water cannons, it does not mean we did this painlessly. Huge sacrifices were made, including by the trade unions, who constructively led their people, recognising what the options were.

That brings me to the issue of responsible politics. There has been a tendency in recent years throughout Europe to run before the populists and that is a dangerous route to go. We all have to explain to the electorate that the consequences of what they do in the ballot box will reflect afterwards outside. That is one thing for which we all have to take our share of responsibility. We all try do that individually here. We may not always succeed but at least we try. It is hugely important that the electorate, at either national or European level, recognise fully the consequences of what they do and relate it directly to what will happen afterwards by virtue of the way they vote. I will not quote Disraeli on that one but I will turn to Oscar Wilde for a suitable quotation in this context. He said that duty is what we expect of others but not necessarily of ourselves. That is very important to remember at this time. All of us at every level throughout Europe have a responsibility at this particular juncture.

Mr. Freudenstein mentioned taking ownership. How often have we talked about taking ownership of the European project here? The fact is that certain European countries are opting out and are taking ownership of what suits them as opposed to what suits the entire European Union. Certain countries opted out originally from the EMU or from the euro, for whatever reason. Some were not able initially to aspire to it and others decided to opt out of it for tactical purposes. We have discussed that here and not everybody agrees with me on it. I am not an expert in this area but I strongly believe that a single currency right across the European Union is the only answer and that any deviations from that will ultimately, and could only ever, lead to a division within the Union - a two-tier Europe, a two-speed Europe, or both. I think we are heading in that direction. There is an onus on the larger countries to address that situation because they have more influence. It worries the small countries when we read comments in the international media from some of our neighbours which appear to be directed at ourselves. We have always believed that we have been good Europeans. We have taken and continue to take ownership of the European project. I will give an example in this respect. We always believed that the European Central Bank, and fiscal policy throughout the eurozone in particular, was the means of bringing the European economies together. That would have meant that the central bank in each eurozone country fed into the ECB, and the ECB, in turn, would have had a position of oversight on fiscal policy in the individual member states of eurozone, but what happened? They seemed to detach themselves from it entirely and everything went crazy. The degree of accountability that should have been in place did not exist. Some people knew what was going to happen. Some people pointed all of these things out, but we were all led and misled by expert opinion, and it was wrong.

I also have strong reservations about the politicisation of the Commission. It is a step in the wrong direction and it will be hugely divisive, particularly for the smaller member states of the Union. We should consider what is happening. The power of the European Parliament has increased and, under the Lisbon treaty, the power of the national parliaments has also increased.

There is an inherent conflict and I do not see how it can work because unless the national parliaments take ownership of the European project to a greater extent than they have done - that includes our next door neighbour and all other countries within the European Union and the eurozone - then it cannot work because there is a blockage. There is no seamless movement between the two.

The other point of note about membership of the European Parliament is that initially members of national parliaments were appointed and then they were directly elected to the European Parliament so we had a continuous influence in the European Parliament from the national parliaments. It was not a distinct separation as we have now. I am not sure whether Herman de Croo is still a member of a national parliament or a regional parliament-----