Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 4 February 2014

Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Union Affairs

Review of Foreign Policy and External Relations: Discussion (Resumed)

3:20 pm

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

I apologise to colleagues and witnesses for leaving the meeting. I had some equally important questions to ask in the Dáil.

I have said many times that we in this country do not take ownership of Europe. We are entitled to that, the same as every other European citizen. There is a tendency throughout Europe for each member state - some member states in particular - to use the opt-out clause and claim that Europe will not agree to a specific proposal.

They have a contribution to make but they do not always make it. That is commitment, to which Mr. De Rossa referred. Social, economic and political cohesion cannot take place unless there is that commitment. If one or a number of countries opt out, as one major country is effectively doing, then there is no Union. The Union cannot exist that way. It would be akin to taking one or two states, such as Texas, out of the United States. What would happen to the Union is that it would be finished.
An aspect we need to remember, which was mentioned by Mr. De Rossa, is the Commission and its competence and capability. Those in the Commission and the President of the Commission always need to be people who have an overall conception of what the European Union is about and must represent the entire Union. For example, we have all become accustomed to referring to the Irish Commissioner, which is not a reference to the present Commissioner who, as Mr. De Rossa has said, has done a very good job. The English Commissioner, the French Commissioner and the German Commissioners, as it used to be, have lost the raison d'êtrewhen it comes to that because they are supposed to be the Commissioners of all the community. A Commissioner can become identified with one or other country. We contributed to that too because we fought for an Irish Commissioner when, in fact, we should be fighting for a Commissioner to represent the entire Community, including Ireland. Each individual Commissioner should and must be as familiar with the Irish position and the requirements of this economy as any other part of the European Union and if that does not happen we do not proceed in the way we should.
Reference has been made to the enlargement issue and the general opposition in some quarters. To argue that what we have we hold, or we cannot move forward, or it is too soon to move forward, is all rubbish. There was a need to move forward and to make a decision as to whether emerging democracies should be left to fly on their own, so to speak, to swim in the deep blue water or if there should be some engagement with them to bring into the Community. They are European neighbours who are entitled to be identified as Europeans. The same goes for the neighbourhood communities. The European Union has a large population and should have a persuasive, cohesive and peaceful influence on its neighbours. That reference has already been made by all the speakers. If that does not happen we will have missed out.
My last point is on the ECB. The ECB was supposed to have done a job. Effectively, it was supposed to link up with all the other central banks throughout Europe. There was supposed to be a mechanism whereby each would know what the other was doing, to whom it was doing it, their borrowing and lending capacities and whether they were observing the norms. Of course, that did not happen or, if it did, the ECB did nothing about it. The appalling situation that emerged was that the ECB did not function and it was only when the crisis broke that everybody realised at the same time that something should be done about it, and it was done retrospectively.
I was in the House a few moments ago where I heard a speaker mention the necessity to burn bondholders and to forget about paying back the money that was borrowed. We forget that all the borrowing here took place under the noses of the Administration - I am not blaming one or the other - the supervisory role of the Central Bank, the regulatory system and the institutions that were supposed to protect the State and, ultimately, the eurozone and the European Union, and nothing happened. The presumption in some quarters today is that we can withdraw from that area saying, "Sorry, we borrowed that money, it was unfortunate, but we are not giving it back". It does not work that way and we would leave ourselves open to serious consequences down the road and a lack of trust that we cannot afford. I will conclude on the issue of neutrality.