Mr. Deaglán Ó Briain:

Prior to the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2013, we were aware of discussions at EU level on the need for a mechanism to address problems that might emerge, short of an Article 7 situation - the nuclear option, as mentioned by Mr. Crabit. Article 7 allows for the suspension of an EU member state that tolerates a situation that breaches the fundamental values of the European Union on democracy, rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights. It made sense to us to focus on prevention rather than allow a crisis to develop, so we examined how crisis situations could be managed in advance. Membership of the European Union has been very positive for Ireland, and all member states can learn from each other. None of us is perfect, and we should not be afraid to open our imperfections to external scrutiny; we should put in place practical steps to deal with them. There are benefits to comparing Ireland to other member states and systems.
At the start of the Irish Presidency, we felt that Ireland, a small member state with good relations with all other member states, should take on a difficult and sensitive topic that touches on issues of national sovereignty. At this point, this was to be the Irish contribution to the future of the European Union. Our starting point was concern at the apparent rise in xenophobia, anti-Semitism and other extreme forms of intolerance, including racism and homophobia, within the European Union and the perceived failure in some cases to respond adequately.
As a second strand, we were concerned that justice institutions, particularly the courts and the police, should function effectively so that mutual confidence and solidarity between member states is maintained. Mr. Crabit referred to that point. There is nothing more corrosive of the trust that is essential to the effective functioning of the European Union than the perception, accurate or not, that not all member states are wholeheartedly committed to the core European values of respect for personal freedoms and so on. The institutions must function effectively in giving expression to those values.
Third, we were concerned about ensuring coherence between the internal and external dimensions of EU human rights policy. The European External Action Service has put together an external human rights policy for the EU. It is of great importance to our credibility that we in the EU are seen by the world outside to practise what we preach. The element of coherence is important.
In January 2013, Ireland tabled a paper for discussion by justice Ministers at the first such meeting of its Presidency. There was then a conference in May 2013 on the rule of law theme that led to Council conclusions adopted by EU justice Ministers in June 2013. These conclusions called on the Commission to take forward a debate on the need for "a collaborative and systematic method" - that is, a rule of law mechanism or initiative to address the identified issues. Given what I had to say earlier about the sensitivity of this topic, we regarded the securing of agreement by all member states to the text of these Council conclusions and the request that the Commission progress the debate as an important success for our Presidency. We worked closely with a number of member states during our Presidency, particularly Finland and the Netherlands. For example, after the Irish Presidency, Finland and Ireland presented a joint paper to a conference called the Assises de la Justice,organised by the Commission in December 2013. The conference was an important milestone in this debate.
We think the approach in the Commission's communication is positive. The communication is a very clear and coherent response to the issues we have raised during our Presidency and the debate that has ensued thereafter. Issues were raised by foreign affairs Ministers of four other member states in a letter to President Barroso. When the communication was published we were able to warmly welcome the approach of the Commission.
There are issues that require further discussion. As indicated in the scrutiny paper, we are aware of the legal view on the question of the Commission's competence to take the approach set out in the framework, though this is not a central concern. In any event, one of the themes of the Irish Presidency's approach to this was the need for political discussion and peer review. We are comfortable with the alternative suggested - that is, the involvement of the EU's institutions in a political debate at the request of member states without worrying about technical legal questions. The discussion could be quite academic if it is not based on a concrete example, so these questions will probably arise when an issue needs to be addressed.
Another theme of the Irish Presidency was protecting the fundamental rights of individuals. What is the link to the mechanism, and do EU citizens see this intervention as useful in protecting them? The European External Action Service recommended the development of an internal fundamental rights policy, and it is the case that issues could be progressed in this way. In terms of political discussions, there are questions relating to the roles of the Council, member states and external bodies and the reliance on evidence gathered by the Council of Europe and the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. It is better to use a practical situation to tease out the answers.
Methodology is an area in which Ireland has a continuing interest. Finland, the Netherlands and Ireland are working with the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights to identify a methodology by which rule of law indicators could be developed. We seek clear answers to the questions of what is being measured and how. How can this be done in a way that is not only valid in assessing a member state but can give a valid comparison across member states with different legal and constitutional traditions?
All member states, large and small, old and new, must be treated equally. We must move forward on the basis of an agreed understanding of what we are trying to do. As I have said already, some of these questions really come into focus when an actual situation must be addressed.