Mr. Proinsias De Rossa:

I thank the Chairman and committee members for allowing me to speak here today. It is a pleasure to be here. The opinions I offer are my own. Nobody else is responsible for them, nor am I responsible to anybody else for them, which is a new pleasure I enjoy.
First, I suggest that the most important thing Ireland can do in Europe is to insist on the practical implementation of the Lisbon treaty in all its aspects, and not just in respect of the Single Market. Second, in respect of the current foreign policy review, we as a people need to deepen our relationship with the European Union beyond ensuring Irish interests, which phrase is emphasised time and again in the public consultation document. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but it must be a part of a wider commitment to constructing a Union that is more democratic, more socially engaged and seeks to end economic inequality. Others in Europe would join us in such a project, but we would need to show our commitment to these principles by actively implementing them in Ireland.
In Articles 2 and 3 of the Lisbon treaty, there is an excellent statement of values and objectives, while the democratic principles of the Union are set out in Articles 9 to 19 on the functioning of the EU. However, there is still a lot of work to do in demonstrating a real commitment to them and in fleshing out democratic processes which span national frontiers in a way that makes citizens feel they are part of the process. As well as protecting our back, we need to ask ourselves what contribution we can make to mapping a better European Union. All politicians with a commitment to the EU, and not just Ministers, must lead that process by engaging with the public and the EU institutions in teasing through Europe's options in a rapidly changing world, where the only constant is the dominance of global finance which has escaped democratic control, crosses frontiers with impunity and dictates to democratic governments what they may or may not do and even what taxes they may collect. As a consequence, the EU has been through its first almost fatal crisis, and it is not yet clear that it will survive as anything more than a Single Market.
Despite the experience of the crisis, the indispensable institutional and regulatory changes which only a transnational body such as the EU has the weight to achieve have been painfully slow and piecemeal because of the interplay of national interests which too often seem to trump the need for solidarity between us. For example, despite the EU rhetoric that job creation is the priority, the broadening of the remit of the ECB to ensure it also gives employment creation that priority is not even on the agenda. Its current remit states that "the primary aim of the ECB shall be to maintain price stability",while in that bastion of capitalism, the US, the Federal Reserve is mandated to "conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long term interest rates".I would argue that such a reform should be high on our European agenda.
There is, too, an urgent necessity for a serious EU budget to build a better system of social transfers between states, which would make real the Lisbon commitment to social solidarity in a social market economy. I suggest that a financial transaction tax could be a major contribution to the development of such a budget based on EU so-called own resources which would not be dependent on what member states can spare from their coffers.
I suggest a way of engaging domestically and at European level in this debate about embedding the EU as part of our political culture is to establish a forum on the future of Europe, but make it more directly representative of citizens than the previous forum, as this Parliament has done with the current Constitutional Convention, and then go a step further by including elected councillors as full members as a way of reaching out to the most basic level of representative democracy. In that way, we would be reaching out to more citizens for their contribution. Committee members should not wait for the next treaty change to land on their desks before this is done. We should do it now to mark the 100th anniversary of that man-made catastrophe that was the First World War, and have its first report ready for 2016 as a fitting way to mark the maturity of this State. Its debates could be used among other things to broaden our understanding of the concept of sovereignty and the value of sharing it with other like-minded democracies as a means of creating a greater European democratic space. I believe that having a serious debate on sovereignty now will help to undercut the interminable argument by Europhobes about Ireland abandoning its sovereignty.
One of the questions in the consultation document relates to Northern Ireland and how we can help there. I suggest that having a mature debate in an EU context on sovereignty and what it means in today's world would help to undermine the grip of irredentist republicanism on those on this island who continue to claim a fantasy mandate to kill their neighbours in our name, based on a 19th century concept of sovereignty. I believe such a process would deepen our commitment to the idea of a united Europe and ensure we have something important to contribute to the treaty reforms that have to happen if the EU is to survive as more than a Single Market.
Surviving the crises will not of itself reassure those who now fear for their future, or despair of ever getting a job again. Some people are turning in despair to extreme right wing groups, and some seek reassurance by reverting to conservative religious stereotypes which primarily penalise women, but also gay men. National chauvinism is giving rise to a tendency towards the fracturing of some states and a resurgence of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and anger toward immigrants. This is accompanied in some states by militia style vigilantes hunting and killing presumed immigrants and other minorities. These developments require us to reform our economics and tax systems to deliver more economic equality. They require us to rebuild our health, education and social systems to deliver effectively social solidarity in a way that reassures people they have a secure future. We need to avoid playing a zero-sum game by narrowing our politics to defend so-called national democracy or national culture, either unconsciously of for populist reasons. It also requires centre right and centre left parties to mount without delay a vigorous defence of human rights and democratic values domestically and in Europe.
We can begin that process this year when the Government sets out to nominate a Commissioner, and with regard to selecting the next President of the Commission. This committee could do a service to the citizen by discussing the criteria for the person or persons we send to serve at the highest level in Europe for the next five years. What expertise will they bring to the table? What political, economic and social values will they bring and are they in line with the objectives and values outlined in the Lisbon treaty?
The European Parliament has hearings and can approve or reject a nominee for the Commission, as well as the nominee for President of the Commission, based on whether they are fit for the job and committed to EU values. This committee and its members could also hold hearings to examine the Irish Government's nominee to satisfy themselves as to the person's credentials and his or her approach to various key issues. Would the person support a financial transaction tax?

Would they support a European initiative to ensure decent jobs in line with the ILO criteria? Would they support a European minimum wage? Would they support a proactive global campaign to end child labour? An associated question would be whether they would oppose policies that would undermine the European social model. All of these matters have a direct bearing on the well-being of our citizens and their perception of the European Union as a force for good. All members would have their own list of questions but the key point is that the importance of cementing citizens' commitment to the EU cannot be left to the happenstance of who needs to be promoted or, as some would have it, exiled regardless of their policy priorities or commitment to Europe.
Many of the political groupings in the European Parliament have nominated a candidate for the post of Commission President. The idea is that people who vote in these elections can see that their vote is not only electing an MEP but also has an influence on who will run the next Commission. A step that this committee could take is to ascertain if the Irish Government is committed to applying Article 17.7 of the Lisbon treaty which reads: "Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council ... shall propose ... a candidate for President of the Commission."
I think we have to insist that the Government does not go along with some member states who reportedly would rather ignore the wishes of the electorate and want to continue the old practice of making a decision behind closed doors and then presenting the European Parliament with a fait accompli. There are many more issues I could address, but given the time constraints, I will leave it at that for now.