Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

My first question relates to the text of the introduction to the document, which states that the report reflects the deliberations of the five presidents and focuses on the euro area. It states that, for obvious reasons, the currency is facing common challenges and responsibilities and that the process towards deeper union is open to all EU members. Do the witnesses not think that, on one level, we are deepening the chasm between those members of the Union who are in the euro and those who are outside? A lot of the proposals in the report which are designed to lead to the strengthening of the euro area could be seen to remove independence of action on another level, or remove sovereignty from some other nation states which are not involved in the euro area, particularly the United Kingdom, with which we have a relationship based on our history and geography.

In his statement about the success of Ireland, Mr. Leandro stated that rapid adjustment was key to restoring our competitiveness in the aftermath of the crisis. I was struck by the idea that one size fits all in terms of the economies of member states. There may be particular reasons why a rapid adjustment may have suited Ireland. In particular, we do not depend to the same extent as other member states on trade within the union and so may be less exposed to the financial health of the Union than some other member states. Does Mr. Leandro have any thoughts on this? Are we, perhaps, too wedded to a one-size-fits-all approach for fixing the economies of other countries which have suffered from the global financial crisis? If we are to put in place better shock absorbers against future economic shocks do we need a rethink on how rapidly we are asking some member states to fix their balance sheets? Maybe slower progress might be better.