Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to welcome to today's meeting Ms Viviane Reding, Vice President of the European Commission, who is in Dublin on a short visit as part of the preparations for next year's Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. While her portfolio deals with justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, our discussion with her today will focus on the broader theme of the future of Europe. Ms Reding has during recent months been to the fore in an emerging debate on the future of Europe. She has articulated a vision for a move towards political union in Europe by 2020, with an essential role for the citizen in that process. We are delighted to have the Ms Reding here today to discuss Ireland's relationship with the European Union and to stimulate debate on what the future of Europe will be. I now invite Ms Reding to make her opening remarks.

Ms Viviane Reding:

Thank you, Chairman and honourable members. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to come here to help prepare for Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union. I know from experience that previous Irish Presidencies were great and helped to move Europe forward.

Ireland and Europe have been working together since 1973 to overcome difficult and complex problems. We have overcome those problems in a joint venture. Do Members recall the Irish Presidency in 1975 and the decision on the European Regional Development Fund? Irish citizens should certainly remember it given Ireland has in the past five years received €751 million from it. It is a real instrument for solidarity, of which there are many in Europe. It is good to remind people of this as they have a tendency to forget quickly. The Structural Fund was established to support the poorest regions in Europe and to share prosperity grounded on the system of solidarity. I have already mentioned the amount of money which Ireland has received from the fund during the past five years. Since joining the European Union, Ireland has received €17 billion to help its citizens.

The Irish Council Presidency in 1979 was the first session of the freely elected European Parliament, which was a historical step and the beginning of the Europe of citizens. In 1990, the Council Presidency brought forward the decision to convene the conventions on economic and monetary union and on political union. In 2004, the Irish Presidency steered the biggest enlargement, welcoming ten new member states. It is sometimes good to recall the past in order to see where Ireland stands. I am confident that the forthcoming Presidency commencing on 1 January next will be a great one, and will move Europe forward.

When we speak about bringing Europe a step forward and a great Presidency, it is not to hide that there are significant problems. I need not tell the committee members because they are in day-to-day contact with their citizens but there is a crisis in Europe. The citizens tell the members about the problems they have with making ends meet, with not finding a job and so on. We have to work together to overcome this crisis. However, I believe the most important crisis is one of confidence. We see our citizens beginning to lose confidence everywhere, not only confidence in Europe, but confidence in the national government and the national parliament. The Eurobarometer survey shows that the confidence of citizens has gone down steadily not only in this country, but also in other member states. This is important because one cannot represent citizens, whether in parliament or in government, and make policies if the citizens do not trust that one makes the right policies. It is of absolute importance to restore this confidence and we must work together in this endeavour.

I realise that some Irish citizens have questioned the fate of our common currency and Ireland's place in Europe. I imagine this is one of those moments in history where, when things are going bad, one questions everything. However, one should see that the euro is not the problem, but the solution. If there had not been a euro or European solidarity, the fate of the citizens would be much greater.

We are riding out of the storm at the moment and it is important to be true in the analysis we make. When things are going bad, one should say they are going bad and say what one is doing to get out of it, but when there is light at the end of the tunnel we should also say so without exaggerating or saying that everything is done and there are no problems to be solved any more. We should also remember the efforts made by the European Union and, most of all, by the Irish people and the Irish Government. They are riding out of the storm. Ireland has gone back to the debt markets after two years of absence and that is an important moment. The Irish economy will grow this year, reaching almost 2% growth. That is higher than in the United Kingdom, France or Germany. The Irish fiscal deficit is set to fall below 8.6% and this was the target for 2012. This shows that the programme remains firmly on track and that things are moving in the right direction.

Having said this, we cannot ignore that there remains a long way to go. The members may wish to hear from me where Europe comes into this. They know perfectly well what they have been doing and what their citizens have had to do and how the Irish Government has been fighting to get out of the situation. What have we done to help Ireland to get out? As with many occasions in the history of Europe, a crisis is not a time to stand still but to go forward. A standstill takes place when everything is fine. We lean back and we say everything is fine and that we should wait and do nothing. When there is a crisis, then we see where the deficits are and where we have to move to solve the crisis and not to allow a new crisis to develop.

Let us consider what has been done in recent months in Europe. It is impressive. As parliamentarians, the committee members will know all about the European semester whereby the whole of Europe examines the budgets of the neighbouring countries. Why does this happen? It is because we have seen that if one budget gets out of control, it has an impact on other member states. Could we have imagined it two or three years ago if someone had said that we share a common responsibility for national budgets? No one would have believed it could ever be done, but it is important that it is done in order that we can help each other and that we do not deviate from the right track. The European Stability Mechanism will be a new testament to European solidarity. It will act as a sail, pulling troubled economies out of danger and into calmer waters. The proposed banking union is absolutely necessary to solve the problems of the banks and to prevent the build up of new problems such as those which people in Ireland have experienced. The banking supervisor was put on the table by the Commission on 12 September. All summer long, from the end of June to 12 September, our people were working to make this possible. What is the aim? Never again will banks remain unregulated and unaccountable. Never again will a nation's people pay the price of its banks' mistakes and never again will problems in one country spread unchecked to the countries around it. That is the aim of the European banking supervisor.

However, the crisis of confidence is not only a lack of confidence in the economic capabilities of the eurozone members, but also a crisis of confidence in politics in general and, specifically, in European politics. It is important that we go back to the grassroots. Do we speak with our citizens? By "we" I include everyone in Europe: local government, regional government, national government, European government and the parliaments. When do we go to speak to citizens? We do it when we want something from them in election campaigns or in referendum campaigns. In between are we really going to the grassroots? We have 27 different systems where we proceed at a dazzling speed and at European level too. There are complex systems and solutions but we have never really explained to our citizens where we are heading. We have never really explained to citizens how the system works, unless the committee members have done so during the referendum campaigns. It is of the utmost importance not only to gain the confidence of the financial markets, but also to regain the trust of our citizens. We have moved from a growth compact to a fiscal compact and we must go to a legitimacy compact that includes our citizens.

Having said that, the European Union is already a very democratic system. We have a directly elected parliament which is part of a co-decision system. The European Parliament is one of the main players to decide for or against European laws. A European Commissioner must go through a sound and hours-long hearing before securing the acceptance of the European Parliament. I am unsure whether there is something similar for the Ministers in this country. Anyway, that does not exist in most countries.

There are checks and balances at European level but the process is much more under parliamentary control than the appointments of Ministers in most member states. For instance, I can be removed at any time from my post as Commissioner by the European Parliament. The national parliaments have also gained, with the new Treaty of Lisbon being a significant influence on the way European policies are decided.

The current crisis has served as a sobering reminder of how we are all in the same boat and a decision taken in Ireland, for instance, has an impact on the neighbouring countries. The recipes of the past, which included individual and unco-ordinated action, have led to excesses of debt and endangered trust and confidence in our economies. Member states have granted Europe greater powers but have also imposed new checks and balances. One cannot have increased powers without a parallel system of checks and balances. It is a question of how to achieve this balance by getting the necessary common decisions on policies in parallel with a necessary democratic common system of checks and balances. I believe we need to go a step further, and this has already been inscribed in the decisions we have taken. For instance, the decision to have a more economic Union, which is mainly intergovernmental so far, has inscribed in the text that this needs to become part of the European treaties as from 2018. In order to implement the decisions of today we will need a treaty change in the future and it is a question of how to change the terms of treaties. Will the decision be taken behind closed doors and then brought to the citizens? I propose that it should be done another way. For the first time in the European system we need to integrate the citizen before we sit down to decide on what treaty changes will be necessary.

With this in mind, on 9 May 2012 I launched a programme of dialogue with the citizens of Europe. The first step was an Internet questionnaire for citizens and it was mainly young citizens who responded. The Internet is a young medium and that is why young citizens responded. However, they needed to take time to answer the questions posed and they took that time. This illustrates that there is an eagerness and a willingness on the part of citizens to be consulted beforehand. Before we start to think about the next step we must include citizens in the discussion. That is the reason that 2013 will be the European year of citizens. It will mean that all citizens, such as the committee members, rather than Commissioners such as me will play an active role.

I am speaking tomorrow to the European association of mayors and presidents of regions to explain to them that it is their responsibility to reach out to citizens. All elected representatives have a responsibility to go to the grassroots and to have discussions with citizens. The discussions will be about the meaning of belonging to the European Union, the added value of being in the Union and what improvements are required. It is a means of finding out what the citizens think about Europe and what they think is working well or badly and also to hear what are their hopes for the Europe of the future. This is to be a serious discussion with citizens outside of any voting imperative - there are no European elections in 2013, nor is there any European referendum planned. There might be other referendums in this country and also national elections are planned for 2013 in other member states, but this discussion with the citizens of Europe will not be part of any election campaign. The year 2014 will be the time for the election campaign for the European Parliament and it will be the turn of the political parties who will have to do their job to win votes.

In his speech on the state of the Union, President Barroso set out the way forward for Europe. We will have discussions with citizens and with national parliaments to see how sovereignty needs to be shared in order to help our economies to survive and to make a place for Europe in a globalised world so that it is regarded as a significant entity.

The European Union is linked together by the rule of law and by solidarity among member states. Decisions must be agreed by means of the normal procedures. Once a new European Parliament is elected it will elect a new Commission from 1 January 2015. It will then be time to call for a new convention, but only once the discussions with citizens have been held in 2013 and once the citizens have made their decision in the European elections in 2014.

We need to do things differently. Everyone knows my position and also the position of the President of the European Commission in this regard. We want a political union. We have seen very clearly that in order for the Parliament and the national parliaments to have basic control of fiscal and economic matters we need to go a step further towards political union. However, this political union must be decided by all. That is why I have come to Ireland to say that the European year of citizens will begin during the Irish Presidency. I hope that the first official meeting of a citizens' dialogue in 2013 can be held in Dublin Castle and that it will be attended not only by the Taoiseach but also by the people of Europe, and not only by the citizens of this country but by citizens of other countries. This will be a great moment which will see power being returned to citizens where it belongs.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Vice President. This is a very timely debate. I read President Barroso's speech with interest and I know that many members of the committee, as well as others, have been very interested to hear his proposals and suggestions. The Irish people are very engaged in the European project - more so now because of the economic situation but also because of our system of government.

We had two referenda in the case of both the Nice treaty and the Lisbon treaty and, more recently, a referendum on the fiscal compact. An issue that emerged in the first campaign on the Lisbon treaty, and a major factor in its rejection by the Irish people, was the perception that we might lose our right to have a permanent Commissioner. The appointment of an Irish Commissioner is seen as essential for the good of the country. By the time of the second Lisbon treaty campaign, the proposals regarding the composition of the Commission had changed, which was an important factor in the ratification of the proposal.

Ms Reding stated in a paper she delivered in May that the European Parliament should have the exclusive right to elect the Commission. How does she see this proposal squaring with the need, as far as small countries like Ireland are concerned, to ensure each member state has its own Commissioner?

I agree with Ms Reding that involving citizens in the European project is essential. The paper by ten foreign affairs Ministers, published last week, offers several interesting proposals, including the introduction of a second Chamber and a strengthening of the powers of committees. Does Ms Reding have any particular views on how these suggestions might help to extend democracy in the European Union?

I will now take questions from members, beginning with Deputy Timmy Dooley.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Vice President and thank her for her forthright presentation. It is useful to be reminded, as she has reminded us today, of the benefits enjoyed by Ireland and other countries as a consequence of their membership of the European Union, not only in terms of funding transfers but also in regard to social interaction, access to markets, ease of travel for citizens and so on. A range of positives has flown from our participation in the European project. Perhaps most important of all, it has been one of the most successful peace projects anywhere in the world.

As the Chairman indicated, this committee has done a great deal of work in terms of assessing public attitudes to Europe, largely as a consequence of the various referenda that were held. Much of this work was concerned with exploring ways of addressing the disconnect between the citizen and the institutions of the European Union. The impression we received from the various witnesses who appeared before the committee in the course of these discussions - witnesses who had engaged in an analysis of the outcome of the various referenda - was that the unsatisfactory level of engagement by the Oireachtas in European Union affairs meant that such matters were considered to be outside the sphere of regular political discourse and did not, therefore, receive the type of publicity within the general media which might encourage citizens to become more engaged. Work remains to be done in this regard, although we saw some progress in the most recent referendum campaign. The difficulty remains that national parliaments tend not to involve themselves in matters in respect of which they do not have clear decision-making powers.

Ms Reding referred to the notion of a democratic deficit and the importance of democratic legitimacy. In recent years, since the beginning of the most difficult economic crisis we have faced, we have seen two countries take the lead in Europe, namely, France and Germany. That spectacle gave the impression to our citizens and perhaps citizens in other jurisdictions that all decisions relating to the European Union would ultimately be decided by two superpowers. In observing that the Commission was largely sidelined during that period I do not mean to cast a negative reflection on that institution. I am well aware of the tremendous work done by the President, Mr. Barroso, and all of his colleagues, the fruits of which are clear in the proposals that are now coming forward. The difficulty, however, is that perception often forces reality. In the context of media coverage and so on, the perception certainly was abroad that two individuals were steering Europe through the crisis or, depending on how one looks at it, steering the crisis itself. Will Ms Reding comment on that?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Vice President to the meeting. I had the privilege of welcoming her to St. Vincent's national school for girls in Dublin Central this morning. Ms Reding is fortunate to have had an opportunity to visit the best constituency in the country during her stay in Ireland and to see one of our finest schools. The staff and pupils did an excellent job in demonstrating their ongoing efforts to learn about the work that is done in Europe. I hope Ms Reding will agree that what she saw this morning was a clear example of how, despite the difficulties facing this country, our public servants, schools and communities are ensuring that everything which makes the country great continues to be in evidence. I thank the Vice President for participating in that event.

Will Ms Reding elaborate on what is envisaged in the reference in her contribution to the idea of political union? We in this country are well acquainted with the challenges arising from economic union. As a consequence of the recent referendum, there is a high level of understanding among citizens of what needs to be done to enhance that union. There are different views, of course, as to whether it should be enhanced at all. However, many people might struggle with the notion that because we are integrated economically, albeit still lacking effective governance mechanisms, this generates a platform for the proposal that we should have common foreign and security policies. The argument seems to be that the response to profound economic crisis, of itself, provides the rationale for integration in the area, for example, of justice policy. I am not convinced by the arguments for this linkage. When Ms Reding refers to political union, does she mean a union across economic aspects of governance or does she have a broader vision in mind? If the latter, how does she justify that as a response to an economic crisis?

We have had proposals from the President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso, for a banking union. A positive recent development in the ongoing efforts to safeguard economic union is the increased timeliness of responses. The fiscal treaty, for instance, was successfully negotiated in a matter of weeks. Does Ms Reding likewise expect the banking union proposal to be delivered by the beginning of next year, as Mr. Barroso has indicated is his intention?

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now invite the Vice President to respond to the points raised.

Ms Viviane Reding:

Regarding my proposal to grant the European Parliament the power to elect the President of the Commission and the Commissioners themselves, it is important to note that the Parliament already has a function in this area. As it stands, the Parliament elects but does not nominate the President of the Commission. The Council of Ministers - that is, the bosses - presents a candidate and the Parliament can choose to accept or reject that candidate, just as it can reject a proposed member of the Commission and has done exactly that several times in the past. In other words, the Parliament has a negative power, namely, the power to reject a nominated candidate.

As members know, the political party groupings in Europe - the European People's Party, socialists, liberals, communists and so on - are not merely organisational groupings. When the Parliament is sitting, Members are seated according to political grouping rather than country. In other words, it is a political group fight that is taking place in the European Parliament. What I expect will happen in the next election is that the national parties - say, for example, the party that is aligned to the EPP in this country, will present their candidates for the European elections on the basis of their membership of the national party.

At the same time, if we get the power at European level then our candidate for President of the Parliament will be someone that we will all, as members of the EPP, have chosen together. The socialists would do the same.

The election campaign would then go beyond purely national candidates for the European Parliament and would add to this the European dimension of what the parties are doing. One can only have influence in the European Parliament if one has access to the allies of the other parties with which one is working. This is one possibility of how to proceed and it would reinforce the idea that the elections to the European Parliament are not solely national in nature. In many member states, people vote on purely national grounds and the European dimension is lost as a result. We must bring that dimension back to the elections relating to the European Parliament. In order to achieve this, we must work together. That is why in 2013 we must inform the people about what is going to happen in 2014 when the political parties engage in that election campaign. We must also make clear to them for what they will be voting.

I was very taken with what the ten Foreign Ministers did. I actually pushed the entire thing when I published an article containing my five-point plan. The German Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Guido Westerwelle, then brought his colleagues together in a reflection group. This is very important and we need many such reflection groups in order to prepare for the future. I do not know the choices we will ultimately make in the context of our common future. However, we must begin the discussion now. The fact that this discussion is starting everywhere shows that Europe goes beyond both national borders and also the market. However, the market is of utmost importance and the Internal Market is the real wealth of the European Union. That is why, for example, one of the highlights of Ireland's Presidency will be to bring to completion the projects I have put on the table in respect of justice for growth. In this regard, I refer to how, with justice, it is possible to open the Single Market to the benefit of consumers. This matter can be seen from different points of view but it is necessary to go one step further.

I was asked what the national parliaments are doing in the context of this debate. I spent ten years as a Member of my country's Parliament. I was also a Member of the European Parliament for ten years before I became Commissioner. I am, therefore, quite well versed in how national parliaments function. It is important that national parliaments understand that they are de factoEuropean parliaments. This is because the decisions which can be channelled through a national parliament will have an influence on European policy. If I am not mistaken, a national parliament has a major task in the context of controlling the government. That is the essence of what a national parliament should do.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Ms Viviane Reding:

Do this and other national parliaments control what, for example, their Justice Ministers are doing at the Justice and Home Affairs Council? Perhaps members will not bring what I am saying in this regard to the attention of the Minister for Justice and Equality, with whom I work very well. Do Members of the Oireachtas really control what the Ministers with responsibility for social affairs, economic affairs and finance do when they attend Council meetings? Doing so would be an extremely important task. There would also be a need to organise, in the context of plenary sessions, discussions on proposals which the Commission puts forward. For example, would the members present suggest that the Minister for Justice and Equality support the proposals I have put forward in the context of justice for growth, which contemplate many elements of reform? Would they instead inform him that they do not agree with him in respect of the matter?

I am of the view that national parliaments must take an increasing interest in European politics. This will show the citizens in Ireland and other countries that European politics are not foreign politics but rather they are national politics. If this Parliament engages in regular debates on matters relating to Europe, the public will understand that European politics are also national politics. They will also come to see that their national parliamentarians care about those matters to which I refer.

A not so positive way to proceed within the European Union would be to take the intergovernmental approach. The fiscal compact is an intergovernmental mechanism and it states that the intergovernmental system must be included in a treaty by 2018. That is why I stated that 2018 is an important year in the context of treaty change because there is already something which we must include in a treaty. The Deputy inquired about a Europe led by France and Germany, with all the other member states following behind them like poodles. It appears that this is the case because when one switches on one's TV, one sees Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel clapping each other on the shoulder and agreeing with each other. Citizens looking at such pictures often think that France and Germany have made a decision and that their countries can do nothing but follow. Things are not like that. Since the creation of the European adventure, we needed the engine of the German and French understanding. If that engine does not work, then Europe has a problem. However, an engine is not enough. We need an entire aeroplane and a pilot to fly it. Decisions relating to the European Union are taken by 27 member states, not by two.

I am a Luxembourger and the people in my country know that there are other states which are bigger than ours. Ireland is one such example. However, that does not prevent Luxembourgers from trying to exercise influence in the European Union to try to bring it to that place where we want it to be, to persuade, and not agree with, our larger neighbours of the fact that they are, as we see it, on the wrong track. The essential aspect is that democracy in the Union relates to the fact that we are 27, we are not two. I accept, however, that all the shoulder-clapping might give the wrong impression.

This brings me to the political union. Such a union is not one where two decide and 25 follow. It is, rather, a union where we have parliamentary systems which can have an impact in respect of the fiscal compact and the intergovernmental approach. The Parliament must also have an input in respect of banking union when we go down that road. There is a need for checks and balances. I say this as a Commissioner and I am well aware that it is not always very comfortable to go before the Parliament, offer an explanation and then be grilled by the Members. However, those are the checks and balances we need in order to reinforce the European Parliament.

We do not need intergovernmental decisions but European Union decisions and not only economic decisions. The European Union decisions are also citizens' decisions. I will give a good example in this respect. During Ireland's Presidency, the protection of personal data, a project I have put on the table, will be a very important element. I hope Ireland will make a gift to Europe and reach the completion of this or at least arrive at a political decision between the Council and the European Parliament on data protection rules. This is a system where both can be done together.

With regard to what are the new rules on data protection, I am talking of a market opener because there are 27 different conflicting national laws on data protection. If a company wants to work in 27 different member states, it has to apply 27 different conflicting rules. This costs the business world €2.3 billion per year, which represents a loss of money. As to what to do, we need to open the market, eliminate the 27 conflicting rules and replace them with a system of one continent, one rule and one regulator and in that way such companies can work. The data protection rules protect the individual. That means we must also reinforce the protection of the individual's rights in this system, and we can do both. We can open the market in an internal market without barriers and better protect the individual. It is not a case of one or the other; it is one and the other. Europe is about the economy but it is also about the rights of the citizens. It is about the free movement of citizens and citizens being protected when they move across borders. That is exactly what we need to do and to do it well.

Why can we not have, in terms of governance, a common policy, a foreign policy and a justice policy? What I am doing in justice is building bridges - bridges between different systems - not to change the system per se but to ensure the systems can function together and that a citizen is not completely lost when he or she crosses a border.

On the question of moving at great speed on the fiscal treaty and the banking union, one might ask are we not at times moving too quickly and at times too slowly. The member is right in respect of both. When we are in a crisis situation, we cannot lead a long discussion on the system of the firefighters to be established. We need a firefighter in place if the fire has erupted. That is exactly what we are doing and we have to do it quickly.

It was decided in June that a banking union would be put in place and that the ESM would lend to banks when we have a common central supervisory system in place. The Commission put the system on the table on 12 September. I hope the wish, which was also expressed by the Taoiseach, will come to completion, namely, that the Irish Presidency will start with the banking supervision system in place. I hope that those who agreed on the necessity to do that very quickly in June will not now disagree behind the scenes and think that we can do it more slowly. We need all this to be done quickly. The Commission has put the project on the table. It is with the European Parliament which has often shown it can act very quickly, mainly on my projects, which sometimes were dealt with from the beginning to the end in nine months, like all good things. The Parliament can act on this very quickly. I hope the Council will not hide behind closed doors in order to have more time.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a number of other questioners and I will ask them to limit their contributions to three minutes because the Vice President has to catch plane and as it is not her plane but a scheduled flight, it will not wait for her. I call Deputy Durkan.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I compliment the Vice President on attending this meeting. She is carrying out a very important function. I also compliment the Chairman on his opening remarks, which were interesting.

This situation reminds us of a number of matters. We have more referenda experience in this country than any other member state of European Union. We have given our approval or disapproval more often than anyone else and usually we have had to go back to the table and repeat the performance if we did not do it right the first time, to such an extent that our citizens are suspicious of us. They claim now that if we do not get the right response, we will go back to them repeatedly, and that is not good for democracy.

However, we passed one referendum which consented to the free movement of people, money, goods and services within the European Union. That was quite a long time ago. That was an important one, the implications of which the European Union did not fully examine in terms of what might happen in a crisis. What happened in the crisis is what we all know about. It appears, as Deputy Dooley said, that a number of countries were dictating the pace but they were dictating it to the weaker countries with obvious serious political consequences for the weaker countries. That was very worrying from the point of view of citizens, whom the Commissioner mentioned on a number of occasions, but it had a serious unnerving effect on our people. Allied to that, we as national parliamentarians had met our colleagues in Germany, France, Denmark, the Netherlands and all the other member states and we found there were expressions of disunity and doubt by the elected members of the national parliaments for several years as to whether the European Union was going in the direction it was intended to go. We also raised some questions. The Commissioner mentioned the question of the lack of confidence, and that is from where it came but, more especially, it came from a lack of unity of purpose. It was perceived by people throughout Europe and by the Irish people during the course of the crisis that there was a lack of unity of purpose. Some countries wanted more of one thing and less of another. Some people wanted more involvement and integration and other countries wanted less. The Chairman and members will be aware of a serious issue, namely, that what integration means to many other European countries, especially those which have become accustomed to a federalised system in their own countries, does not necessarily mean the same to us.

We should also be careful about citizens' views as expressed to the national elected parliamentarians or to the European Parliament in that there is a big difference. If we undermine the confidence in the nationally elected parliamentarians, we will indirectly undermine the European process. Everyone requires greater powers, the European Parliament wants more powers, but what about more responsibility? What about taking political responsibility for what we do wrong or what we do right, as the case may be?

The final point I wish to make is an important one that was raised by the Commissioner. Nice 1 was about the losing of a Commissioner. We should never have got to the stage where any country sought or felt they had ownership of a Commissioner. Ms Reding and all Commissioners are supposed to be equally available to all member states without exception. Unfortunately, we moved from that to individualisation, which was a major weakness when the crisis came. I refer to Deputy Dooley’s point in that regard. Some countries felt they were obliged to give leadership because of their size and strength, but it had a seriously debilitating effect on the rest of us. We must learn from that.

Let us not forget that we had a European Central Bank, ECB. We can now ask what it was doing. It was representative of the eurozone member states but it was representing the European community globally, for the want of a better expression. It did not do so. It avoided its responsibilities. It shied away from the task it was supposed to do and as a result it weakened the European Union and its ability to deal with the crisis. I could go on about this but the Chairman will be pleased to know I will not. I have heard this debate for the past ten years at various fora throughout Europe. There was always talk of the need to do what we should do but we never did it. We almost paid the ultimate price because there were in Europe among the national parliamentarians in the past five years expressions by people elected to public office that were not in consort with the European ideal. They were far from it. We all know who they were.

As to whether there can ever be a successful European Union without a single currency, I believe there cannot. It is fundamental to the cohesiveness of what Europe is about. I say to those who say we can have a separate currency in the United Kingdom and the various other countries, that it will not work. I am sorry for going on for so long but that is my opinion based on what I have seen over my time in public life. It is a long time ago now since I first attended a meeting in Luxembourg.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Vice President to this country. I had the pleasure of being in Luxembourg a couple of weeks ago at a European Court of Justice hearing. It is a beautiful city. I did not have enough time to spend there but I will return for a visit.

Given Luxembourg’s location it is inextricably linked to France, Germany, Holland and Belgium. This country, which is on the periphery, is linked to the United Kingdom. I questioned the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Gilmore, last week about the Future of Europe report and how it plays to euroscepticism within the United Kingdom. Some newspaper articles suggest that it will lead to the United Kingdom dissociating itself further from the EU. There are always groups that wish to put the issue to a vote of the people in the United Kingdom and that, accordingly, it would leave the European Union. I accept reports are discussion documents, they are not binding and Luxembourg's Foreign Minister was part of it, but does the Commissioner accept it will have consequences for this country in terms of our relationship with the United Kingdom? Does Ms Reding believe that based on the report and the five points made on the treaty of European political union that it would cause a detachment of the United Kingdom from the European Union?

In the context of the Future of Europe report, the Commissioner referred to a European army and changing the majority required for decisions. That is contrary to this country’s position on neutrality. Concerns were raised in previous referenda, for example, in Lisbon 1, where it was stated the treaty would lead to conscription in this country. Specific reference was made to the issue in protocols prior to Lisbon 2. The Future of Europe report compiled by Foreign Ministers is a discussion document but it leads to concerns in this country on those issues to which I referred and also in terms of our relationship with the United Kingdom. I invite a comment on those points.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish the Vice President a good afternoon. She is quoted in the Irish media this week as saying Irish people should place their trust in political leaders trying to build a stronger Europe. Why should people place their trust in a system that has in many cases overseen a collapse in their incomes and is now actively dismantling the social infrastructure that holds the more positive elements of society together in the name of the god of austerity?

Ms Reding outlined that never again will a nation's people, as in the case of this country, pay the price for their banks' mistakes. That is reassuring for many but it is not for those who have to pay for those mistakes. Is the Commissioner saying that in future the private debt of wealthy individuals, gamblers and speculators will not become the sovereign debt of a country? That is the message people want to hear. I do not know anyone who caused this debt or contributed to it. It was an elite in society that seemed to contribute to it and an elite in Europe seem to come up with the answers to it. It is not reassuring for those who have children with special needs that cannot get support, for those who are waiting for an operation or a hospital bed, or for those in society whose children go to bed hungry. I would like to hear the Commissioner say that it will never happen again.

In Spain youth unemployment is at 50%. In this country youth unemployment is at 30% but that is because young people in this country are going to Australia, Canada and other parts of the English speaking world to try to get jobs. In the constituency I represent many of the young people cannot go to those countries because they cannot gain access to them as they do not have the required educational qualifications.

I wish to see a free federation of free people in Europe but I want to see answers coming from Europe. In Ms Reding's interview with The Irish Times she said that everyone recognised the problem of bank debt relief and that it remained unsolved. Similar to other senior politicians she said that this country was an exemplar for other stricken countries, that it was going in the right direction. We have a problem with the direction in which we are going. Other federations around the world and in Switzerland and the United States have a different opinion on issues such as safety nets for people who have not done well in society and many of the things we hold dear in Europe. I am concerned about the future of Europe. It is healthy for citizens to question the direction in which Europe is going.

Ms Viviane Reding:

This Parliament is not the only one in Europe in which I am confronted with the fear that Europe is governed more and more in an intergovernmental way by the big member states. This fear can develop when the country is bombarded through the media with what is happening. For instance, I still remember the beach walk between President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel in Deauville. One could ask whether they took decisions at that time.

Did they? Not one of their proposals was put into practice but all the media at the time said that Sarkozy and Merkel were deciding where Europe would go. That is a problem, and members, as politicians, know about the perceived reality. The media showed two leaders walking together and taking decisions. The media did not show that none of those decisions was put into practice. A great deal is done because of this perception, and this perception is dangerous. I should not have spoken as a Luxembourger. As a Commissioner I am no longer a Luxembourger. I am not speaking about Luxembourgish policy. I speak about the importance of small nations in this European Union.

In terms of what the Council is doing, when we reinforce democratic control by parliaments, and by the members as a national parliament, it is for not allowing decision making by big countries against the other countries. We have to reinforce democratic control in Europe if we do not want that to happen. We have to ensure the decisions are not taken on an intergovernmental level but on a European Union level because the European Union always gives a certain power of co-decision to the smaller nations. What is dangerous is if this Europe drifts towards intergovernmental decision making.

Deputy Durkan spoke about a lack of unity of purpose. In a large European Union such as we have now with 27 member states, with their different historic and economic development backgrounds, we do not always have the same purpose in terms of what a Government can do, and what this Government can do, and its position in the European Union. It was much easier to agree on aims when we were a smaller European Union. That is more difficult today, and because of the political, cultural and historical diversity sitting in the Council and also in the European Parliament, control mechanisms have to be reinforced. That is the only way out. The control mechanisms are at the end of a process, but the process has to be democratic.

In this Parliament, and in the European Parliament also, the minorities have the possibility to express themselves, even those who do not agree with building a common Europe, but the small countries have the possibility also to find allies to show the way. The future of Europe report is a welcome discussion document. It contains many points with which I agree. There are others with which I have difficulties but that is exactly what we should speak about. Where are we heading? What do we want to share in our common future? What do we not want to share and leave instead at the national or even the regional level? That is what we need to discuss.

I believe that our goal is to have one currency for all member states, but then comes the moment - I have put this in my five point plan for which I was nearly torn to pieces, so to speak, in the members' neighbouring country, which it knows so well - when the question must be asked whether we want to participate in that. There should be no more cherry-picking but we must decide whether that is our common future and whether we want to be in or out. We have had this discussion previously and I hope we can have this discussion in the future.

I do not want to interfere with this country's specific relationship with its neighbour and how it will take its decisions, for instance, in the field of justice where, increasingly, we do important work together without dismantling the national justice systems but which is in the interest of our citizens. Does this country want to participate or not? That is a decision it has to take; no one else can take it. It must also clarify how it wants to exercise its relationships with its neighbours. I will leave that to the wisdom of the Irish people and their elected representatives.

Dismantling the social system is something I hear often. What about the solidarity that was shown to this country by the European system in past decades? For instance, in recent years, the Structural Fund and regional funds pumped €751 million into this country. That is European solidarity. Much can be said about Europe, that it is not perfect here or there, but not to be a solidarity model would be against any reality on the ground.

What did we do in recent months, for instance, when we saw that the banks were in trouble, not only in this country but also in many other countries? They are no longer lending to the real economy, although we believe the main purpose of a bank is to lend to the real economy. The European Investment Bank came in and put money on the table to ensure that money could be given to the small and medium-sized businesses, SMEs, which are the backbone of our industrial development. While it is not possible for the time being to have an agreement on euro bonds, the Commission came out with project bonds to the value of several billion euro for electricity, transport and broadband infrastructure which we put on the table to proceed in a concrete way. That is what we should do. We should not have ideological fights but see in a realistic way what we can do to solve the problem and make Europe a safe place for those Europeans who want to share a common future. We will not force anyone to be in Europe or to share the common future.

On the "F" word, I was told I must not speak about a federation in Ireland. I will speak about a federation because for me, with all I believe in politics and the way societies work, a federation could be a solution. What is a federation? A federation does certain things together and leaves other things to the national responsibility. We have several federations in Europe. Germany is a federation, with power of the lender. Switzerland is a federation. The United States is a federation.

Why should that be bad? Let us at least think about how we can proceed and about what name we will give to what we do. That can be discussed also. I would like to have a political union and I would have no problem calling it a federation. This is on the table to be discussed. This time, it is to be discussed with our citizens. I am ready to go out to do so. As I told members, tomorrow I will be in the south of Spain to discuss the matter with some mayors and the presidents of the regions of all European countries because I believe everybody, including those elected at local and national levels and not only those who are elected at European level, must accept responsibility.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Vice President for coming from Brussels today and for her full, frank and open discussion with us. We all agree it is essential that we have this discussion throughout Europe with all citizens. It is in the interest of us all to have such a transparent and open discussion. We look forward to seeing Commissioner Reding back in Dublin. I hope it will be in the new year during our Presidency.

Ms Viviane Reding:

I thank the Chairman.