Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses. I apologise for being late as I was doing local radio at 10.30 a.m. For anybody who has been in the European Parliament, we know that is the meat and potatoes to make sure people have some concept of what is happening at European level. I have one or two comments to be followed by one or two questions. Like Mr. Montgomery I am also one of Mr. Connelly's family and friends. Many times I have used his simple, clear and concise explanations.

I thank him for that because, again, it is all about communicating what is happening in a way people can understand.

There have been one or two interesting comments so far. Mr. Connelly mentioned the fact that when we outsourced responsibility for Brexit to the Commission and Mr. Barnier, we became stronger. Part of the debate here at that time was about bilaterals and going to capitals in other member states. There is nothing wrong with cementing relationships but when it came to Brexit, the fact that we relied on the EU made us so much stronger. We cannot always choose our battlefields but we can choose our tactics, which, in this case, were the right ones. I will make one other comment about Brexit that has been made in respect of the Commission and the Council. The Parliament was also hugely reliant on UK colleagues because there was a common understanding, common legal system and common way of doing things. On many occasions, I was very happy to see British Conservative and Labour Party rapporteurs of dossiers because there was a connection that made a real difference.

Mr. Montgomery commented on whether we have the systems to sustain physical integration. He mentioned the banking union and all of that. The Parliament, the Commission and the various institutions did some of that work but there is a lot more to be done. It is still a weak link and when other issues arise, links like that can sunder. We still have more to do there.

I have two questions. The first relates to the role of the European Parliament. Many people think in terms of the Council and the Commission. In my 15 years as an MEP, we had a very strong Commission from the very beginning with Mr. Barroso but, as time went on, and especially during the Juncker Commission, I definitely saw the Parliament gain more ground. Of course, we had the various treaties in the middle of all that. I sometimes think that because I was an MEP, I could see what was happening. There is an idea that it is really only ministers, prime ministers, commissioners and the Council that make a difference to European legislation but it absolutely is not. I have seen that very good, strong rapporteurs in trilogues - I have been a rapporteur - can have a huge impact on legislation and outcomes, for example, the fact that the Parliament was so strong in support of Ireland during Brexit, with involvement by the likes of Guy Verhofstadt. Indeed, those from all Irish parties and none played a real role in ensuring that support came. I sometimes feel the role of the Parliament is a little underrated. The people we send to represent us there really matters.

My other question relates to a matter mentioned by Mr. Connelly, namely, the Inflation Reduction Act in the US. My question is on the future of globalisation. Part of the raison d'êtreof the EU is around globalisation. With this new Act, President Biden is pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into companies who will produce green tech in the EU. We have just seen in the past day or two, President von der Leyen's green deal industrial plan, which is an attempt to counteract the Inflation Reduction Act. Part of that is around state aid and trade deals; she has four pillars, but those are two of them. Given that is how we are moving at present, how do the witnesses see globalisation and the role the EU will play? Germany and some of the larger European countries are looking very enviously at what is happening in the US; they want a slice of that cake. How do the witnesses see co-operation between the EU and the US?

We need more democratic input into how we transpose European legislation, not at the beginning but at the end. I have seen a number of examples where there is flexibility regarding legislation that may or may not be used by governments in member states in respect of directives. That is something we are lacking. In addition, and this is where we see the loss of the British, when we have draft legislation - of course governments have an input into it before it ever arrives in a document - we need within each Department, and at a centralised level, greater monitoring of very important draft documents, legislation, regulation etc. I do not think our input into that is anything like what it should be. I ask for comments on that.