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

I am sorry I was not in time for the initial presentation. Having tried bilocation, I then attempted trilocation, which is even more difficult. I was singularly unsuccessful. This is an important subject. I empathise with the points expressed by Deputy Seán Crowe and other speakers. It behoves us to carefully balance our attitudes in cases where the European institutions might intervene in what might be seen by some as the internal affairs of a member state.
A determination must be made on whether the rule of law has broken down; if the constitutional requirements of the individual member state are being adhered to; whether, for example, in the case of a member state with a written constitution and those without one – we can make a comparison between this country and the United Kingdom in that regard; but there must be a recognition that the constitution of the member state is recognised, observed and honoured, otherwise the European institutions may well bring themselves into disrepute. In view of the experience in the most recent elections to the European Parliament, where there was evidence to the effect that the population in some member states seem to have developed an antipathy towards the European institutions - whether it is well based or not is really not material to this particular conversation but it exists - because of that fact we must travel very carefully before we invoke the provision of Article 7. I accept what Viviane Reding has said, that it would only be done as a last resort.
In the course of ordinary domestic political debate one might determine that the rule of law has broken down. It used to be a question of observance of the acquis communitaireand that in the case of accession the member seeking accession had to observe it over a period. That does not mean when accession has been achieved that a country can depart from such observance. We are all part of it and we must continue to support it. If we do not do so then we all contribute to the undermining of the institutions to which we aspire. That approach will not work.
The point which was raised by Deputy Crowe is what the European institutions should do in the event of an administration, notwithstanding compliance with its own constitution or the acquis communitaire, if a regime develops, which could happen within the European Union in certain circumstances, that is not intent on observing the rule of law. The question is whether the institutions would be willing to allow freedom of expression, recognise human and civil rights and follow the grounds according to which the member states originally aspired to join the Union. Deviation from that would be grounds for asking questions. It is not desirable for the European institutions to become involved in individual member states on a daily basis in the administration of law. It was not intended that it ever should. It would create a dangerous precedent for the future in that eventually one could have interventions from the European institutions on a daily basis which might be welcomed in 50% of cases but otherwise would not.
To follow on from the points made by Deputy Eric Byrne, in this country we have a clear definition between the Judiciary and the Executive. That has always been the case. The system has worked extremely well. The obligation is on all of us on both sides of the divide to recognise and accept its existence. In the past ten years there have been situations where the Parliament in particular has overstepped the boundary of propriety. That brings a reaction of its own accord which should not happen. Similarly, the Judiciary must observe the rules as well. Otherwise, we get into a situation where we have to politicise the Judiciary, which is not desirable in this country or in any other country. There must be an ongoing recognition of the separation of powers by whatever means the separation is recognised in the individual member states.

I believe sincerely that as time goes by we have to revise our thinking in certain areas in respect of various instruments and directives. We should learn from past experience also. We must recognise that where there is opposition or where Ireland, another member state or European institutions made a mistake, whether in reacting too soon or failing to react at all, and Ukraine is a classic example of the European Union as an entity reacting rather late to a situation developing in its neighbourhood, the power comes from the people to the individual member states, governments and parliaments in the first instance. That is from where the European institutions derive their power because as we know all directives originate within the European institutions, come to the member state parliaments and the relevant bodies in the member states for appraisal and approval and, unfortunately, often get put into deep freeze, so to speak, for a number of years only to pop up at a later time. I recall one or two directives in particular to which that applies. They pop up ten or 12 years later having been given a derogation. I would abolish derogations for everything because that would bring everything up to date, everything would be upfront and anybody would be able to say that this will affect the member state parliament of which they are part. We postpone those decisions for ten or 12 years. When they come back to bite the people, so to speak, nobody knows where they came from and, invariably, the European institutions are blamed and it is said that they are the people who caused all the problems. I have heard people say, as I know has the Chairman, that the economic downturn across Europe was caused by the European institutions. It was not; it was caused by institutions in member states, and the European institutions, that failed to react, plan ahead and recognise the signs that were obvious to people for many years, and took no action. I am sorry about that rant, Chairman.