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

I remind guests, Members of the Houses and those in the Gallery that they must turn off their mobile telephones. It is not sufficient to leave them in silent mode. They must be switched off or they will interfere with the recording equipment. I ask everybody to check their telephones and turn them off.

Apologies have been received from Deputies Seán Crowe and Dara Murphy. The first item on the agenda is a discussion on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's review of foreign policy and external relations. On behalf of the joint committee, I am delighted to welcome our guests, Mr. Tony Connelly, RTE Europe editor, Proinsias De Rossa, former MEP, Deputy and Minister, and Dr. John O'Brennan from the National University of Ireland, Maynooth.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has undertaken a review of Ireland's foreign policy. The closing date for submissions is midnight tonight and we will make a submission in advance of the deadline. The review will examine how Ireland will gain maximum benefit from the resources it commits to international engagements in a rapidly changing world. As a committee, we are examining the effectiveness of Ireland's engagement with the Council, including the central role of the permanent representative in Brussels whom some of us met a couple of weeks ago. We are also examining other issues such as bilateral engagement with member states, relations with the European Commission and relations with the European Parliament.

Today's meeting is an opportunity to hear three very distinct voices on these issues. Mr. Tony Connelly from RTE has been based in Brussels since 2001, in effect, for the past 13 years. He has reported comprehensively on the evolving relationship between Ireland and the European Union. Boasting a distinguished parliamentary career as a Minister, Deputy and MEP, Proinsias De Rossa, has a valuable perspective on how Ireland's influence within the European institutions can be both safeguarded and enhanced. Dr. John O'Brennan lectures on European politics at NUI, Maynooth, where he is also director of the centre for the study of wider Europe.

His research interests span EU enlargement, Ireland's experience of European integration and the fallout from the eurozone crisis which continues to complicate EU politics.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Our first guest today is Mr. Proinsias De Rossa.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa:

I thank the Chairman and committee members for allowing me to speak here today. It is a pleasure to be here. The opinions I offer are my own. Nobody else is responsible for them, nor am I responsible to anybody else for them, which is a new pleasure I enjoy.
First, I suggest that the most important thing Ireland can do in Europe is to insist on the practical implementation of the Lisbon treaty in all its aspects, and not just in respect of the Single Market. Second, in respect of the current foreign policy review, we as a people need to deepen our relationship with the European Union beyond ensuring Irish interests, which phrase is emphasised time and again in the public consultation document. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but it must be a part of a wider commitment to constructing a Union that is more democratic, more socially engaged and seeks to end economic inequality. Others in Europe would join us in such a project, but we would need to show our commitment to these principles by actively implementing them in Ireland.
In Articles 2 and 3 of the Lisbon treaty, there is an excellent statement of values and objectives, while the democratic principles of the Union are set out in Articles 9 to 19 on the functioning of the EU. However, there is still a lot of work to do in demonstrating a real commitment to them and in fleshing out democratic processes which span national frontiers in a way that makes citizens feel they are part of the process. As well as protecting our back, we need to ask ourselves what contribution we can make to mapping a better European Union. All politicians with a commitment to the EU, and not just Ministers, must lead that process by engaging with the public and the EU institutions in teasing through Europe's options in a rapidly changing world, where the only constant is the dominance of global finance which has escaped democratic control, crosses frontiers with impunity and dictates to democratic governments what they may or may not do and even what taxes they may collect. As a consequence, the EU has been through its first almost fatal crisis, and it is not yet clear that it will survive as anything more than a Single Market.
Despite the experience of the crisis, the indispensable institutional and regulatory changes which only a transnational body such as the EU has the weight to achieve have been painfully slow and piecemeal because of the interplay of national interests which too often seem to trump the need for solidarity between us. For example, despite the EU rhetoric that job creation is the priority, the broadening of the remit of the ECB to ensure it also gives employment creation that priority is not even on the agenda. Its current remit states that "the primary aim of the ECB shall be to maintain price stability",while in that bastion of capitalism, the US, the Federal Reserve is mandated to "conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long term interest rates".I would argue that such a reform should be high on our European agenda.
There is, too, an urgent necessity for a serious EU budget to build a better system of social transfers between states, which would make real the Lisbon commitment to social solidarity in a social market economy. I suggest that a financial transaction tax could be a major contribution to the development of such a budget based on EU so-called own resources which would not be dependent on what member states can spare from their coffers.
I suggest a way of engaging domestically and at European level in this debate about embedding the EU as part of our political culture is to establish a forum on the future of Europe, but make it more directly representative of citizens than the previous forum, as this Parliament has done with the current Constitutional Convention, and then go a step further by including elected councillors as full members as a way of reaching out to the most basic level of representative democracy. In that way, we would be reaching out to more citizens for their contribution. Committee members should not wait for the next treaty change to land on their desks before this is done. We should do it now to mark the 100th anniversary of that man-made catastrophe that was the First World War, and have its first report ready for 2016 as a fitting way to mark the maturity of this State. Its debates could be used among other things to broaden our understanding of the concept of sovereignty and the value of sharing it with other like-minded democracies as a means of creating a greater European democratic space. I believe that having a serious debate on sovereignty now will help to undercut the interminable argument by Europhobes about Ireland abandoning its sovereignty.
One of the questions in the consultation document relates to Northern Ireland and how we can help there. I suggest that having a mature debate in an EU context on sovereignty and what it means in today's world would help to undermine the grip of irredentist republicanism on those on this island who continue to claim a fantasy mandate to kill their neighbours in our name, based on a 19th century concept of sovereignty. I believe such a process would deepen our commitment to the idea of a united Europe and ensure we have something important to contribute to the treaty reforms that have to happen if the EU is to survive as more than a Single Market.
Surviving the crises will not of itself reassure those who now fear for their future, or despair of ever getting a job again. Some people are turning in despair to extreme right wing groups, and some seek reassurance by reverting to conservative religious stereotypes which primarily penalise women, but also gay men. National chauvinism is giving rise to a tendency towards the fracturing of some states and a resurgence of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and anger toward immigrants. This is accompanied in some states by militia style vigilantes hunting and killing presumed immigrants and other minorities. These developments require us to reform our economics and tax systems to deliver more economic equality. They require us to rebuild our health, education and social systems to deliver effectively social solidarity in a way that reassures people they have a secure future. We need to avoid playing a zero-sum game by narrowing our politics to defend so-called national democracy or national culture, either unconsciously of for populist reasons. It also requires centre right and centre left parties to mount without delay a vigorous defence of human rights and democratic values domestically and in Europe.
We can begin that process this year when the Government sets out to nominate a Commissioner, and with regard to selecting the next President of the Commission. This committee could do a service to the citizen by discussing the criteria for the person or persons we send to serve at the highest level in Europe for the next five years. What expertise will they bring to the table? What political, economic and social values will they bring and are they in line with the objectives and values outlined in the Lisbon treaty?
The European Parliament has hearings and can approve or reject a nominee for the Commission, as well as the nominee for President of the Commission, based on whether they are fit for the job and committed to EU values. This committee and its members could also hold hearings to examine the Irish Government's nominee to satisfy themselves as to the person's credentials and his or her approach to various key issues. Would the person support a financial transaction tax?

Would they support a European initiative to ensure decent jobs in line with the ILO criteria? Would they support a European minimum wage? Would they support a proactive global campaign to end child labour? An associated question would be whether they would oppose policies that would undermine the European social model. All of these matters have a direct bearing on the well-being of our citizens and their perception of the European Union as a force for good. All members would have their own list of questions but the key point is that the importance of cementing citizens' commitment to the EU cannot be left to the happenstance of who needs to be promoted or, as some would have it, exiled regardless of their policy priorities or commitment to Europe.
Many of the political groupings in the European Parliament have nominated a candidate for the post of Commission President. The idea is that people who vote in these elections can see that their vote is not only electing an MEP but also has an influence on who will run the next Commission. A step that this committee could take is to ascertain if the Irish Government is committed to applying Article 17.7 of the Lisbon treaty which reads: "Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council ... shall propose ... a candidate for President of the Commission."
I think we have to insist that the Government does not go along with some member states who reportedly would rather ignore the wishes of the electorate and want to continue the old practice of making a decision behind closed doors and then presenting the European Parliament with a fait accompli. There are many more issues I could address, but given the time constraints, I will leave it at that for now.

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

I thank Mr. Proinsias De Rossa. That was a very interesting contribution. The next speaker is Dr. John O'Brennan from the National University of Ireland, Maynooth.

Dr. John O'Brennan:

I thank the Chairman for the invitation. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the ongoing review. I wish to touch on four elements in my contribution, the first of which is the Irish priorities in the European Union and the way we defend and promote our interests; the second, how we communicate Europe in Ireland, why our EU membership is important, and developments in European integration in general; the third, the importance of further enlargement to the western Balkans, Turkey, and potentially further - it was interesting to see Commissioner Štefan Füle talking about offering Ukraine a membership perspective in recent days; and the fourth, the role of the Oireachtas in the relationship between Government and Parliament in the European integration sphere.
In regard to Irish priorities and strategies in Europe, we have exited the bailout but this is still a very critical juncture for Ireland and for Ireland in Europe. I wish to reinforce what Professor Ben Tonra said to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade last month when he spoke about the foreign policy review. We must be smarter about how we use and deploy our resources in Brussels and elsewhere. In particular, that means re-examining our network of embassies and the kind of activities in which they engage. It seems to me there is something of an imbalance currently, with the understandable emphasis on reconstituting the economy and the move towards incorporating trade as a more important element of activity. We should not lose the significance of the traditional nuts and bolts of diplomacy in the EU, which is so important in the context of the Council of Ministers and the broader institutional environment. It is important that we continue to maintain a presence in every EU capital and continue to maintain the very basic tools of diplomacy which are so valuable in the EU-28 context, having eyes and ears on the ground and sufficient human capacity in order that people can engage in national capitals with parliamentarians, government ministers, civil society, business and so on. All of that is critical as legislation is proposed and is going through the cycle in Brussels. There is simply no substitute for human intelligence. I think we have to beef up our smaller representations rather than rationalising or diverting attention away to Asia where there is an understandable need for further representation. A core focus has got to remain on the Council of Ministers and the EU legislative cycle.
I will make a further point about Irish representation in the institutions. I know Government is concerned about this in that many of the people who entered the Commission in particular are coming towards retirement age and that the number of Irish people entering the EU institutions has fallen dramatically. We have to examine that seriously and also ways of incentivising people coming out of the universities, for example, to consider going into the Commission, the Parliament and elsewhere. There is simply no substitute for having Irish nationals in positions of influence across the institutional matrix. I was reminded of that again in Brussels last week in almost every meeting, where the cup of coffee or the casual drink one has with somebody may not be important in the immediate context but down the line it may be crucial where there is an issue of importance to our country within the Council.
I am aware the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs is visiting all the universities next month and he is very serious about tackling this problem. I know that faculty members throughout the country also are giving this a good deal of thought. We must increase the representation of our nationals across the board in Brussels.
My second point is about the way we communicate the importance of our membership to Irish citizens. We know from many years of regular polling that Irish people continue to be seriously ignorant and ill-informed about developments within the EU. Successive referendums have revealed the persistent theme of that lack of knowledge as a common variable in the Irish experience of European integration. We simply must do more to bridge that gap, and again the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs is seriously considering new vehicles that might help us tackle that problem.
I agree very much with Mr. De Rossa's suggestion that some kind of reconstituted public space where people who are actively dealing with Europe, whether they are politicians, academics or otherwise, could initiate and continue conversations around the country. I am involved with Europe Direct, which is an initiative of the Commission but which is done through public libraries. There have been a number of meetings thus far and I have been very impressed with them. They have echoed what the forum did in the past but we could expand that significantly with a little imagination.
A further point relates to the longer term, that is, the place of Europe, our membership of the EU within the school system, and how we construct a proper civic education process in order that people can be aware of the significance of Irish membership of the EU. At the moment, the only place where this happens is within the second level curriculum in the social, personal and health education, SPHE, programme, but that tends to be rather haphazard and ad hocand it has suffered like other programmes as priorities have had to be changed during and through the recession. I think there is a very good case for putting very significant resources into both primary and secondary level and ensuring children coming through the system have some understanding of the place of Europe within the broader civic landscape. I also think there is a need for a much expanded role for this in the university system. I would argue that every single university student should be compelled to take at least one module in European integration in order that they become familiar with the institutional landscape and that when they go out into the world as engineers, doctors or whatever else, as leaders in their fields, they have internalised the contours of Europe and why they are significant for Ireland. If resources could be directed towards them, universities would be quite willing.
My third point relates to EU enlargement. This is my specialist area of research. I have been immersed in it since the mid-1990s and I have grave concerns at the moment about the political will across EU capitals to achieve further enlargement. So far as I can see there is an open and shut case for including the western Balkans within the European Union.

At the moment there are unmistakable signs that many EU capitals have gone cold on the idea, for all kinds of reasons. Ireland has been identified, rightly I think, as a champion of enlargement in the past. Certainly that was the case in respect of 2004 and there is a lot of goodwill towards us.
I urge the Government and parliamentarians to remain positive about enlargement and to remain a strong advocate, particularly to extend enlargement to the western Balkans, including Turkey. I am in favour of Turkish membership once the accession criteria has been satisfied and we should make a case for same. Three quarters of the current membership of 28 were former enlargement states so we all have a stake in this measure. The goodwill that recent entrants have towards the EU is significant but it is one that we, in turn, should play a role in replicating, in the current context, in the western Balkans.
Finally, I shall discuss the role of the Oireachtas. Some members will be aware of my views on the matter. The Oireachtas punches significantly below its weight in terms of European integration that is broadly defined. Parliament must take much more responsibility and step up to the plate across a range of spheres. This is particularly the case in terms of the scrutiny of EU legislation. The scrutiny that takes place in the Oireachtas is almost laughable and the change to a mainstream system has not worked. I am in favour of condensing the work around European legislation to a single committee, the European Affairs committee. The way that one can do so is to provide it with the necessary resources. Therefore, one would need to significantly increase the resources of the EU committee which should be the primary vehicle. We must address the imbalance in power where the executive has almost all of the prerogatives where European integration is concerned. We must swing that back so that parliamentarians can engage in the proper and substantive amount of scrutiny and oversight of executive action in Brussels.
The current situation is not good enough. There must be a stronger role for Members of the Dáil and the Seanad to play in the process. There are all kinds of ideas about how that might happen and we could interrogate some of those in questions. A stronger role for the Seanad, for example, is frequently mentioned and I favour the suggestion if the resource question is addressed and the circumstances are right. The role of the Oireachtas must be beefed up for foreign policy in general and most especially in the European integration context. I shall leave my comments at that and we can return to some of the issues later.
Chairman:I thank Dr. O'Brennan and I call our next speaker, Mr. Tony Connelly.

Mr. Tony Connelly:

I have reported from Europe on the European Union since 2001, the year that Ireland rejected the Nice treaty. I have covered various referenda and events since then up to the fiscal compact treaty, exiting the bailout, plus the second Irish Presidency of the EU that I have covered which has just finished. I shall outline to the committee the perception of Ireland at the end of all of those events and what political capital that may give the Government in shaping its strategic vision for its interaction with Europe and the wider world. There is no doubt, having spoken to people both from member states and the institutions, that Ireland's reputation has been restored. We are experiencing some kind of after-glow following a very effective Presidency and the exiting of the bailout. That has been crystalised in the discussions and speculation about the future role of the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, as a potential presidential candidate for the European Commission. Whether he wants to participate is another question.
Ireland's political capital has largely been restored following the awful events of the banking collapse and bailout. Also, there was an overhang of some discontent and criticism about the way various referenda were handled in Ireland. Whatever about the democratic vote of the people at the time, broadly speaking, Ireland is now seen as a mainstream player in the European Union. It is becoming more mainstream the more the UK drifts to the right and towards a more eurosceptic trajectory.
The Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, is a member of the European People's Party, the largest group in the parliament. The Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, is a member of the socialist group and Deputy Micheál Martin is a member of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, ALDE. All of these factors, and the fact that we are also in the euro is viewed as evidence that we are seen increasingly as a constructive, stable and forward looking European partner.
Having said that, the Europe that we have merged into, after the bailout and the Presidency, is much different and much changed from 2001, and even 2008 to 2009. The challenges that Europe face will be a major difficulty for Ireland and for the European Union.
Looking ahead, we have the UK referendum, an "in-out" referendum, that could be poisonous and very difficult for the Irish Government to deal with. The European Parliament elections are coming up and significant inroads could be made by far right eurosceptic candidates and far left groups in the European Parliament. The trade deal with the US has also run into difficulty. Migration is also a very difficult political hot potato that member states are not prepared to take risks with. Perhaps it will fall to Europe and the European Commission to frame some kind of far-reaching migration-emigration policy. Africa will be a major foreign policy challenge to the European Union. All of the upheaval that has emerged from the Libyan crisis seems to have opened up a vacuum in the Sahel that is being filled by radical Islamists. Therein lies the seeds of potential terrorist attacks in Europe in five to ten years' time. These are some of the challenges that Ireland must confront over the next few years.
The question is as follows. Does the experience of the bailout and the very painful reform programme that Ireland has gone through give the Government a particular advantage or political capital? There may be an expectation, and there is certainly a desire, among some of the institutions that Ireland will use its bailout experience to put itself forward as a possible model for growth and reform. Our ability to attract foreign direct investment is unrivalled in the European Union per capita. There will be an expectation for the Government to punch above its weight and be a more assertive player. Even though the Presidency is over the opportunity to do so still exists.
Ireland is largely seen as a pragmatic country and we are not constrained in one particular group. Of course Ireland is very close to the UK in a lot of areas such as taxation and justice and home affairs yet we are not virulently anti-regulation. We are close to the Baltic countries on taxation yet we are close to France and Spain on agriculture. We are trying to position ourselves as being closer to the northern European creditor rules-based community that we heard so much about during the crisis. Certainly we have decoupled ourselves, in terms of reputation, from Greece and perhaps Cyprus.
I shall outline another expectation. Ireland is viewed as being close to America. The Irish Government made quite a play and was quite triumphant about the fact that it was able to commence trans-Atlantic trade negotiations with the United States during its Presidency. However, the talks have ran into trouble with the Congressional mid-term elections approaching. Two questions are being asked in Brussels. Will the Irish Government take up the cudgel again on behalf of the trade agreement? Or will it sit back, like many other countries seem happy to do, and let the trade agreement talks drift?
We have heard about taxation many times. People always ask me the following questions when I return to Ireland. Is the Irish corporate tax rate safe? Are they out to get us?

We can always go back to the reality that taxation remains a national competence. There is a veto and many other countries have similar taxation aspirations. There will be major developments at OECD level over the next few months leading up to the G20 summit in September. The double Irish tax arrangements, the Dutch sandwich and various other loopholes that exist will come under a great deal of pressure at G20 level and they are not sustainable.

With regard to how the permanent representative and the Irish presence in Brussels operates, there was universal praise for the Irish Presidency. People have spoken repeatedly about the professionalism of the Civil Service and the fact that Ministers were prepared to make the journey not just to Brussels but to Strasbourg and Luxembourg. It was felt that the Ministers put many hard yards in and did a great deal of hard work with the European Parliament which is much more important, given the Lisbon treaty. However, the Irish Presidency was in a cluster of first-time Presidencies, including Cyprus and Lithuania, and, therefore, it was not that difficult for Ireland to make a big impact. We were seen as having done our homework on all the dossiers and civil servants were professional. There was a sense that Ireland's honour was at stake following the EU-IMF bailout programme and the Presidency was the opportunity to address that. One perspective I got on the way the Irish permanent representative worked is the ambassador, Rory Montgomery, seemed to have much more discretion and room for manoeuvre in making decisions on behalf of the Presidency rather than having to constantly run a particular policy or line back to Dublin through various levels. I have heard the word "envy" being used in that context. Ireland was much more pragmatic and had much more discretion and room for manoeuvre.

We are back to where we were before the Celtic tiger happened. There was definitely a perception in Brussels that the Celtic tiger was accompanied by a certain level of hubris, a certain cavalier attitude to Europe that we did not need the EU and that we had largely become rich on our own initiative. There were reservations about some of the policy decisions and logistical decisions Charlie McCreevy made as Commissioner. That did not go down well in Brussels and that sense lingered for some time. That was compounded by the events surrounding the bank guarantee scheme, the lack of regulation of banks and perhaps a fiscal policy which poured fuel on the fires that were raging at the time. However, people were aware that Ireland was not alone and other countries had caused problems for the rest of Europe in terms of regulation and banking policy. The UK, Spain and Cyprus have all come in for criticism. Now Ireland is back and its reputation is largely restored. The question for the Government will be what it will do with that reputation.

I refer to the EU and the world. We are again in a changed set of circumstances with the creation of the EU External Action Service, EEAS, which is often referred to as the 29th member of the Union. It is a strong bureaucratic body that is supposed to project European foreign policy with a strong voice. There are criticisms that this has diluted and diminished the impact Ireland could have. The Government sometimes struggles to get purchase on its policies at foreign affairs level but there are examples such as Zimbabwe where the Government along with other smaller member states was able to push the question of relaxing sanctions against the country in order that civil society and development organisations could benefit from a dialogue with the Union. Eventually that became EU policy. The opportunity, therefore, is there, although it is a greater struggle for countries such as Ireland when the EEAS is trying to develop its muscle and project its particular force on the world stage.

With regard to Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality, there is a perception that it is an irrelevance and there is puzzlement that Ireland is guided and bound by the triple lock given we do not have a voice at Security Council level but we have a voice at EU level and, therefore, why should we not go down that path. There is also a feeling that while Ireland has been positive in the context of development aid and in projecting its aspirations through organisations such as Concern and GOAL, this may not be enough in the 21st century. The security challenges Europe faces will require a blend of force, diplomacy and development aid. As Kofi Annan said, there is no security without development and there is no development without security.

A major issue that will confront the Government in the next few years is the UK and its relationship with the EU. It will be a major challenge given the apparent trajectory of the UK out of the Union. There is concern that an unstoppable momentum has been created and Ireland will have to assess its posture regarding the UK. The first challenge will come later this year with the European Arrest Warrant, EAW. Under the Lisbon treaty, the UK can opt out of as many elements of justice and home affairs as it wants and the big expectation is that it could opt out of the EAW and that will automatically call into legal question what will happen in extradition cases between Ireland and the UK. How the Government handles the debate as it takes place in Europe and as it filters through into the media-tabloid sector in Ireland will be important. Ireland is seen as a constructive, pro-European member of the Union, yet it is close to the UK on tax, security and justice and home affairs issues. However, it is not perceived as a troublemaker. For example, I heard anecdotally that Viviane Reding, the Justice Commissioner did not realise Ireland had an opt-out on criminal justice matters because we do not shout that from sidelines and we keep it to ourselves. We are seen as diverging from the UK on some key issues.

The perception is Ireland's reputation is largely restored in Brussels. It is up to the Government to see what it does with that political capital.

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

We have had three interesting presentations. I welcome Mr. De Rossa's suggestion about the Forum on Europe, which would be useful. He referred to the committee holding hearings on future appointments of Commissioners by the Government. While I would welcome the opportunity to cross-examine the appointees on their thoughts on issues such as the financial transactions tax, there is a danger these could turn into confirmation hearings akin to what happens in the US. The Oireachtas had a recent experience in this regard when the chairman of EirGrid appeared before a committee. These meetings could turn into a circus with opponents of the nominee using the forum to try to bring them down. How would we make sure that such hearings did not turn into a circus and added value to the proceedings?

Dr. O'Brennan said we should re-examine our smaller embassies and build our representation rather than focus on Asia. The announcement of the opening of an embassy in Zagreb, Croatia will mean we have an embassy in the 27 EU capitals. Some of those are single diplomat embassies, particularly in the Baltic states.

An example is Estonia where one diplomat covers a range of activities on behalf of the Irish people.

While I agree it is important that we have sufficient representation across all of the countries in Europe how do we ensure that we also have representation in countries such as Chile, Venezuela or even Iran where we recently closed an office? These countries have growing populations, of between 30 million and 50 million people. We have significant trade with them and in some cases many members of the diaspora live there. New Zealand is an example. We do not have an embassy there. How do we balance those needs with the need to have representation in the 28 capitals in the EU?

If there are unmistakable signs in some European capitals that they would like a slow-down in accession by western Balkan states how do we square that with the decisions on the accession of Serbia and Albania and the opening of chapter 23 in respect of Turkey? I thought that the mood music from the capitals was to continue with enlargement, that they are keen for more countries to come in, particularly the Balkans, but not to rush this because they need to make sure the internal laws of these countries are up to speed with what European citizens expect from member states.

Mr. Connolly’s point about the Presidency is well made. Every time this committee visits fellow politicians across Europe we hear how successful the Presidency was. I am glad to hear what he said about our permanent representative, Mr. Rory Montgomery, because we often hear how successful the politicians were during the Presidency but that could not have been the case without the support of the officials. They were outstanding before and throughout the Presidency.

Mr. Connolly said that our political capital has been restored to a large extent and suggested that we can earn more capital by taking up the cudgel of the American trade agreement. What does he think we can achieve in respect of the recapitalisation of the banks and how can we achieve that? He knows the Government’s position on seeking retrospective recapitalisation. Does he think that is possible or are there are other ways to achieve that overall aim. If so, what are they?

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry I was late for Mr. De Rossa’s presentation. It seems that the EU works as a unit in brokering trade agreements with different countries. I do not know how that works in practice. Does Mr. De Rossa think it works well? How are Ireland’s interests served when we try to develop agreements with certain countries?

Dr. O'Brennan touched on the disconnection from, and the communication of, the EU in Ireland. He mentioned polling. I did a poll which nobody seems to care about. My office surveyed approximately 300 people around Grafton Street and 91% of them could not name one MEP. Those who could named Gay Mitchell. Fewer named Emer Costello and hardly anyone named Paul Murphy. Do the witnesses have any views on the co-option of people from the substitute list? I understand that Paul Murphy was not on that list, which would be perfectly legitimate if none of the people on the substitute list were available to go to Europe. I have nothing personal against any individual but do the witnesses believe that contributes to the sense of disconnection that seems to exist?

I release comments on EU matters to the media quite frequently but they are rarely picked up. I have touted that poll to various members of the media and at this stage I am just boring them. RTE could play a better role in the communication of what is happening in the EU. Unless one is an insomniac who happens to be watching television on that one day of the month when the EU is covered one will not know anything about it. Mr. Connolly does a very good job on the news programmes of keeping us up to date but we need more information from the EU. What would Mr. De Rossa think of holding regular fora with MEPs in Ireland or some form of communication? Who knows who would turn up at these events? There could be quarterly fora for MEPs. It is a good idea for students to get involved in politics generally and particularly in respect of the EU.

Over the weekend I attended the Convention on the Constitution where I met members of the Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa, AWEPA, who were here to discuss African development and democracy. They mentioned European involvement in the development of democracy in Africa. Do the witnesses think that there is a role to be more fully explored in that respect or is it already up and running? It is not on my radar. The members of AWEPA said that Ireland because of its history, and because it is not naturally inclined towards colonialism, is ideally suited to being a leader in that work. I would be interested in witnesses’ comments on that point. I have other questions but that is probably enough for now.

Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the panel here today. Mr. Connolly mentioned neutrality. The Minister for Defence told the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, review publication last year that neutrality is an outdated concept. Is that idea floating around Europe? Mr. Connolly spoke about the blend of force, development aid and diplomacy. The plans discussed at the last European Council meeting could see increased spending on weapons and arms by EU member states including this State. Will that float in this State, given our neutrality? Is there sense in such a policy?

The European Parliament recently voted on a report that noted with regret that the EU does not possess a permanent military planning and conduct capability. Our MEPs supported that view. The document defends excessive military spending. This committee talks about promoting Ireland’s interests in the EU and its relationship with the Commission and the Parliament. Dr. Brennan spoke about the scrutiny of legislation. Does he think we should consider some of the reports that go through the European Parliament too, such as the one I mentioned?

Moving on from the role of MEPs, what is the current state of play with regard to engagement between Departments, permanent representations and MEPs? We cannot force the hands of MEPs as they are members of particular political parties and groupings within the Parliament but is there co-ordination?

The civic education of young people was mentioned. Last week the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, announced that politics and society will be an examinable subject for the leaving certificate examinations. I am aware that he believes what is in place up to junior certificate level is not adequate. It is his view that a good part of that needs to focus on European integration, European politics and making sure there is more of an understanding of European institutions and how they work.

Senator Catherine Noone mentioned the Constitutional Conventional. A previous convention considered reducing the voting age. We talk about referenda turnouts and lack of understanding. Does Dr. O'Brennan think that this European aspect in the politics and society module, which will be coming on stream, would help? When I did my master's in 2008-09, I did my thesis on the Eurobarometer survey and how many people consider themselves European. The number was low then but it is much lower now.

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

I thank Senator Kathryn Reilly and invite Deputy Joe O'Reilly to speak.

Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and welcome our three guests. I apologise for my late arrival, having got delayed on the way, as I would like to have heard the presentations. In am very interested in the question posed by the Chairman. It is relevant and probably the most pertinent, and one that is on all our minds, that is, the question of the recapitalisation of the banks and how we are likely to fare. At the top of our agenda here is the whole issue of job creation. Nobody in the room needs any supporting arguments around that issue. It is a no brainer, it is what we have to be about. In that context, is the support for the youth guarantee scheme adequate, is more forthcoming and are we in a position to get it up and running? Can Europe do more to get job creation programmes in place? Is there more potential within ECB-ESM funding than we are fully exploiting from that perspective? In other words, are we doing enough on the domestic front, is enough being done in Europe and can more be done? There is nothing to bridge the democratic deficit, which is Dr. O'Brennan's area based on Senator Kathryn Reilly's question. He referred to a disconnect and that the best way to address it would be the creation of the perception in this country that Europe was proactive in the jobs area and could be relevant in the regard.
I would welcome a comment on the possibility of a UK exit. It would appear that momentum is gathering. Is Dr. O'Brennan optimistic that it can be halted? I would like to believe we will be fit to prevent the UK's exit and that ultimately it will not happen. Can we prevent it and, if not, what then, given that we have 50% of our trade with the UK and given the position of Northern Ireland? My constituency and that of Senator Kathryn Reilly staddle the Border. It would have enormous implications and would set the clock back were it to happen.
We are all aware from our televisions of what was happening in the Ukraine recently. There was an inevitability that as we push east and close to the Russian borders, Russia would react. It was hardly going to let us push in as far as Moscow in terms of western influence, trade links and so on without reacting and it is reacting in the Ukraine case. Could it be argued that we over-did it, that we pushed too tight or that we did not proceed by process, that we did it to the detriment of the lives of the people in the Ukraine and as a result, caused a combustion and anarchy almost, with no alternative government? That is a very serious question for the people who have to live there.
I know I am straying off to another issue but I will finish on this. I read a very interesting article by Tom McGurk in the Sunday Business Post last Sunday suggesting that energy needs and energy strategies are changing all the time and questioning our hypothesis that all or much of our energy policy is currently predicated on the premise that we will be exporting energy to a UK market. He questions that premise and said that because it is likely to get involved in the same strategies as the US in regard to shale and fracking, etc., we are unlikely to have an export market in the UK. Have the witnesses any thoughts on that issue? Is there a cohesive energy policy or strategy evolving in Europe as nuclear power changes? Is there a need to look at energy policy at a European level?

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

I thank Deputy O'Reilly. I have two more speakers before I return to our guests, the first is Deputy Eric Byrne.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and welcome the three speakers whose contributions were very stimulating. However, we do not live in an ideal world. While I accept many of the contributions made, many are predicated upon resources and reform within the State itself. For example, we are theoretically addressing the review of foreign policy and external relations. How does one create a policy around those two issues? Some have said it is important to relate to the people who put us here, the people must relate to Europe, we must go back into the schools and we must educate the politicians. It is a sobering fact and it is not a popular one for a politician to say it. There are about 226 politicians in this complex. We struggle as a small committee as do other committees. The representation is four people today. We struggle to create a quorum. We drag people in who happen to be passing by in the corridor and so on. As soon as they come in, the meeting starts and they leave.

On the questions the witnesses are posing to us - how does one build on what has been achieved so successfully to date, and on Ireland's role among the 28 member states in the European Union? I challenge them to say that, theoretically, they are telling us how to go about it but, in practice, it will be very different. Perhaps I can draw a comparison. If we have closed the three embassies on the grounds of economic inability to sustain them and we have now decided, during this public debate on the review of foreign policy and external relations, to open five embassies and three consulate generals, that will all happen out of the existing budget. There is not an extra cent in the budget for this increased representation. Dr. O'Brennan mentioned the importance of retaining the embassy relationship at each of the 28 member states. I understand that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, three adjoining countries, have diminishing populations while one of them, Lithuania, has been targeted for a reduction in services.

There will be a presence in Jakarta and the embassy to the Holy See is to be reopened. It does not make economic sense to be opening embassies on the ground while ostensibly not increasing the budget. The arguments that we are being asked to engage in would require substantial investment in the budget.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa mentioned sovereignty, which has been kicked about a few times today. Will he compare the arguments for our position and the counter argument that we play a wonderful role and are highly sought as an independent non-aligned country which engages in the depths of Africa, be it Sierra Leone and further afield. We are uncontaminated because we are not deemed to be affiliated to some power bloc.

I would argue that we must reform the institution of the State before we can be sufficiently empowered to develop the argument that has been made today. We are very proud of what we are doing as a country. Could the delegation offer an opinion as to who got it so wrong about the Ukraine and Armenia, where everybody, including the Chairman, was convinced from listening to one side of the argument in Ukraine? As a western State, have we neglected and not fully understood the complexities of Ukraine; that we have been looking at it as two nations and that we were playing to was the western half of the country? Did the High Representative, Catherine Ashton or the external action services get it so completely wrong? If Ukraine implodes, there are very serious ramifications for the rest of the European project.

I understand the Minister is at one with us when he states he has been in Albania and the Albanians are coming on board, and the same with Moldova. The eastern partnership region started to come unstuck when the Russian Federation, engaging with Armenia, pulled Armenia out of the sphere of influence it was trying to head. Everybody is shocked by the situation that has blown up in Ukraine. Are we that divorced from our understanding of the country? Is our knowledge of the region so unsophisticated that we fail to see the terrible potential in terms of what is already happening?

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for their presentations. I too apologise for my late arrival. I have a range of questions. As I understand the brief it is not necessary to look at EU policy in detail but rather to look specifically at the promotion of Ireland's interest in the European Union and to ensure Europe's voice is strong at a global level.

I have already raised this question with Ms Catherine Day when she came before us. We are moving very quickly towards a much more robust economic and monetary union but the social agenda of Europe of the People seems to have been left behind. We have much closer involvement at governmental level but as Senator Noone has said, it is doubtful if one would find a single person out of 300 people on Grafton Street who could list all the members of the European Union. We are galloping very quickly in one direction but we are also galloping very quickly in another. Is there an inconsistency? We have an idea that the voice of Ireland is heard in Europe, but should we not be looking at the voice of the Irish people being heard in Europe? Are we loosing to some extent the ability to hear the voice of the people of Europe?

My second question relates to the use of our resources for the best effect. Another point Ms Catherine Day made on the scrutiny of EU legislation was that we should focus our effort and identify those areas where we have influence and can exert our influence on European affairs rather than taking a scatter-gun approach. To what extent is that also the case with our engagement with other member states? Are we focusing enough on bilateral engagement? I am conscious for the sake of argument that as Mr. Connelly said, we have moved closer to the northern European model and distanced ourself from Greece. Our strategy in the late 1980s and the 1990s was the opposite, it was to create bilateral engagement with the other peripheral countries, where there was a sense of a shared range of difficulties that also reflected Ireland's difficulties as a peripheral country. Should we be doing more to develop bilateral relations with EU countries that perhaps are closer to the model of difficulty that we are facing rather than wanting to be up there on the economic and monetary scale with the Northern European good boys?

My next question is whether monetary and fiscal affairs dominate the agenda in the EU. We seem to be quite effective in negotiating that. I am conscious of a speech that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, made in the Dáil about moving to a new style of diplomacy, in which we would move away from the current entrance examination for third secretaries as a means of recruiting people to the diplomatic corps to a new style of ensuring the Department of Finance engaged on the diplomatic level. To what extent has that change worked? Should we be moving to a cross-departmental approach to diplomacy? Are we already there and I have not noticed?

To what extent could the European Union be facing enlargement not from recruiting new member states, but by increased nationalism among some of the older democracies? For the sake of argument, if the referendum on Scottish independence is successful in September what implications will it have on other areas of Europe in which there have been movements toward separatism for many years but with which we have strong areas of national identification? In particular I am considering the challenge Ireland might face if Scotland is successful in achieving independence. The opinion polls indicate it is not looking that likely but much can change in the course of a campaign in the next six months. If that were to be the case, and Scotland achieved its independence, it might have an impact on the outcome of the UK referendum on EU membership as Scotland tends to be more pro-European than the rest of the UK. Would Scotland automatically stay as a member of the European Union if the United Kingdom were to leave the Union or would it be seeking to join the Union behind Serbia? What happens in that scenario and what impact would that have on our interests in peace on the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland?

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

Thank you. I should inform the committee we will be meeting Members of the Scottish Parliament, probably in the next four or five weeks. I am sure those issues in regard to post-independence, if that happens, will be raised.

To come back to our guests, I suggest we resume in the same order. I call Mr. De Rossa who will have, say, five minutes. There will be more time at the end.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa:

I will try not to cover everything. The Chairman asked about my suggestion that the committee should consider hearings or a hearing for the nominee to the Commission. This should also be considered for other matters, which I will touch on. He asked whether this would lead to a circus. It seems to me, from observing the Dáil over the past couple of years, that the committee system in the Dáil has matured enormously and there have been quite a number of hearings on very technical and, indeed, highly volatile subjects that have been remarked upon as a model of how it should be done. I believe that provided such a hearing is structured to ensure the questioning relates to the criteria required of a Commissioner, there should not be any problem.

From participating in hearings, I know that what is done in the Parliament is the political groups produce a list of questions they would like to have put to the nominee. Given the size of the Parliament, one also has to nominate the people who will put the questions, and time is allocated and so on. It is a highly structured affair but it is very effective. I would instance the fact that Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, who was nominated as Commissioner by the last Government, did exceptionally well in the hearings and has proven to be a good Commissioner in terms of doing the job she was sent out to do. To quote Article 17.3 of the Lisbon treaty, it states: "The members of the Commission shall be chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt". Therefore, independence, competence and commitment to the objectives of the European Union are the issues, not whether, if they were former Ministers, Deputies or Senators, they let this or that one down, or whatever. That is out of order. The questions relate to competence and independence. A good question would be, "Will they act independently of all governments, including the Irish Government?", which is key to the collegiality of the Commission. I have no doubt this committee could do that.

The issue of the Presidency of the Commission is equally important. A new system is coming into place this year whereby, under the treaty, the Council has to consult with the Parliament about who it wants for President of the Commission. That is completely new and has not been the case before. As a consequence of that, virtually all of the political groups in the Parliament are putting forward a nominee for the Presidency of the Commission. Martin Schulz has been put forward by the Socialist group, of which I was a member, and Guy Verhofstadt is being put forward by the Liberal group, of which Fianna Fáil is a member. I do not know who the EPP nominee is at this point - it may be the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, for all I know. However, the point is that we need a commitment from all of the governments.

We are concerned here with the Irish situation. We need a commitment from the Irish Government that it will insist this is done, and that the Council will not go in behind closed doors and make its own choice, have a few perfunctory consultations with the Parliament and then just disclose the name. If that is the case, the likelihood is that, no matter how good the person is, if it does not reflect the vote of the people in the elections, the person will be rejected and we will have a crisis. It is very important this is addressed.

We touched on the identification of MEPs, which is a perennial problem. It is not so much a problem for councillors or Deputies because they are on the ground all the time and live in their areas. MEPs spend four weeks of the month, 11 months of the year, not on the ground. They are dependent to a large extent on what the media has to say about them, and in most cases the media has nothing to say about them, good, bad or indifferent. We would be delighted if they would attack us occasionally just to get a bit of attention - I am speaking in the past, of course. I can recall speaking in the Seanad on the European Convention and what was being proposed in the draft treaty. I think I was the first MEP ever to speak in the Seanad but there was not a single word in any of the national print media or RTE. It is not that I particularly wanted it, but I thought that, as an event, it would have been something of significance, given it was the first attempt at the Lisbon treaty.

On the issue of substitutes, the last thing we need are European Parliament by-elections, which would be horrendous. Therefore, either there is a substitute or we go for the full-on list system. One reform might be that the name of the substitute would be printed on the ballot paper, which would make it very long but would in some way let the electorate, which will vote for its preferred candidate, know they are also voting for B, C, D and E as well.

Senator Kathryn Reilly raised the question of voting in the European Parliament. There are anything up to 1,000 votes a week in the Parliament in Strasbourg on all the different sections. There can be an objection to a particular paragraph or line in a report which might run to ten pages. If MEPs agree broadly with the report, they vote for the report, although they may have an exception to that point. Therefore, I would not take a vote for a final report as a vote for a particular dimension of that report, as one would need to dig more to see if there was any explanation of votes and what the MEPs did to signal their unhappiness with it. I have to say that sometimes, because there are 1,000 votes, MEPs vote for some things that, if they knew they were there, they would not vote for. That is the reality as well, because they are only human.

I will leave it at that, although there are many other issues I could touch on.

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

Thank you. I call Dr. O'Brennan. You are not chancellor yet, although you were promoted a few times during the proceedings. It is just "Doctor", is it not?

Dr. John O'Brennan:

Yes, although "John" is perfectly fine. The Chairman asked about enlargement and earlier about diplomatic representation, which links to Deputy Byrne's question. The key question is where the value is added in the international representation. For me, it is about, first, economics and trade, and, second, about alliances in Brussels and how we construct and sustain those alliances over time.

In terms of the budgetary question, we have to make choices. I believe there is ample room to make a political choice. If the argument is that there is value added in engaging in representation in X country, that can and should be done. If one can demonstrate clearly that having representation in Lithuania potentially has benefits when it comes to a complex EU negotiation of one kind or another, one has to maintain that. I believe there was a particularly poor decision in that case.

Equally, it is regrettable that the embassy in Iran has closed. Iran is an important country, as the Chairman pointed out, with a large population that has gradually been brought into the diplomatic process, partly through Ms Catherine Ashton's vigorous diplomacy last autumn. There are real opportunities attaching to the normalisation of Iran geopolitcally. We may come to regret that particular decision and the decision in regard to Lithuania. Such decisions are made within the bounded contexts I have referred to, economic and otherwise, but we would do well to reflect on the suggestions put forward by Professor Tonra last month. These include using secondments and short-term contracts to buttress the capacities we have in individual member states, particularly on important issues like agriculture, for instance, if it is France or Spain. Another important issue is the necessity of watching the legislative cycle very closely.

The second question was about enlargement and my rather pessimistic view of the current landscape. I am at odds with some of the members on these issues. The agreement between Serbia and Kosovo last April has been asserted as the breakthrough that was needed because it has implications that go beyond those two states. It certainly was a success for Ms Ashton and the European External Action Service, EEAS, but we should not come to the conclusion that it represents a decisive break in the logjam. There are many issues that feed into the phenomenon of fatigue. One is the perception that Bulgaria and Romania entered the EU prematurely - I disagree with it, but it is a view that is widespread. Another factor is the economic crisis, particularly what has happened to Greece. The Balkans is partly viewed through that prism, because of its proximity to Greece. There are ongoing problems in the western Balkans, particularly in Bosnia, which is, in many senses, an embryonic state that refuses to become a state proper. There is also a sense that we went too far too fast.

Looking at the support or otherwise for enlargement in key national capitals, it is clear there has been a decisive change. The United Kingdom, for example, was always, for different reasons, a champion of further expansion, including to Turkey. Now it seems to have gone completely cold on further expansion. Recent comments by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, suggesting that the question of the western Balkans might potentially be held hostage to the immigration debate were disgraceful and represent a very decisive change in the landscape. Similarly, the manner in which the Bundestag has insinuated itself into the German stance is very much a negative. When national parliaments effectively hold a veto at every stage of the negotiation, rather than at the end, where the European Parliament effectively has a vote, it becomes very problematic. Serbia was not able to progress last June because the Germans demanded more evidence of the commitment that is implied in the April agreement. We have moved forward since then, which is very welcome, but there remain multiple opportunities for the process to be slowed down, which was not the case previously. It is a cause for concern.

Mr. Tony Connelly:

The first issue I will deal with is bank recapitalisation, as raised by several members. It is important to remember that the Irish State put some €60 billion into the banking sector at a time when there were no instruments available at EU level to help with that process. The Government's argument ever since has been that because Ireland stepped in to take a hit for the team, as it were, and prevent contagion at European level, we deserve to have some type of retroactive recapitalisation. The mainstay of the Government's reassurance or comfort was the summit of 28 June 2012 where Ireland was explicitly named in the Council conclusions and implicitly offered some type of support for Irish banks via the European Stability Mechanism. That has been the Government's foothold ever since. However, there has been a steady withdrawal from that position at a commentary level by various European politicians, most notably Wolfgang Schäuble, the German Finance Minister. These comments appear to pour cold water on the prospects of Ireland ever getting a deal on bank debt, principally because of the argument that the State is doing fine, has worked its way out of the programme, is in recovery mode and does not, therefore, need any additional help.

Having said that, the Government certainly is sticking to its guns and there is a very slow, deliberate and incremental process under way at European Finance Minister level whereby the modalities of a system for the ESM directly recapitalising banks in Europe in a way that would shift the burden away from the sovereign is being worked out. That process should be completed in the next six weeks or so at official level. Retrospective capitalisation, which is Ireland's aspiration, would then be handled on a case-by-case basis. Nothing can happen, however, until the single resolution mechanism is up and running, that is, a system whereby banks can either be shut down or bailed out. Until that architecture is fully agreed and fully in place and the European Central Bank is acting as the central supervisor, the Irish question will remain somewhat in limbo. From speaking to various delegations in Brussels, it is clear to me that there is considerable sympathy for Ireland's claim and aspiration and that people have listened to the Government's arguments. The problem for Germany is that it does not want to concede anything before the final mechanism is totally locked down and agreed; otherwise, it would create a precedent that other countries might want to follow.

We were asked about neutrality and expenditure on weapons and so on. I must demur when it comes to my own opinions on neutrality - I have to remain neutral myself as a reporter. The argument at EU level at this time is very much governed by the decision of the United States to step back from major conflicts around the world, especially in Africa and increasingly in the Middle East, notwithstanding its recent efforts to broker a peace agreement there. The hard reality for Europe was that when the no fly zone was put in place over Libya, it did not have sufficient airlift and refuelling capacity. We needed the Americans to step in. The more the United States steps out of the equation, the more exposed European capabilities will be. There is an effort at EU level to ensure that the European Defence Agency will at least allow armies to equip themselves in such a way that they are not duplicating resources and wasting money. It is a sensitive topic in Ireland because of our neutrality, but the reality is that if Europe is going to confront the threats it will face in the next ten to 15 years, especially the situation in the Sahel and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Africa, there is a view that it must invest more in defence. The reality, of course, is that many countries have been cutting back on defence expenditure during the financial crisis. The big question for Europe is how that issue can be balanced.

Bernard 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.

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

I thank the Deputy.

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

I have believed for a long time that the ability of the European Union to defend itself has changed and is changing. That point has been made by Mr. Connelly. Each European Union country must accept some responsibility for its own defence and for the defence of its fellow members and if it does not do that, as time goes by, the European Union will be perceived as being weak. We have only to remember what happened in the Balkans when Milošević was taunting the US and the rest of the free world by saying, "Come and get me, you cannot do anything about it." He was doing so by virtue of the fact that he knew the European Union was manacled, its hands were tied behind its back and it could do nothing for political and historical reasons. He knew all the buttons to press and he did it very effectively and the result was a catastrophe. The European Union can never allow that to happen again. I am sorry for that tirade.

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

I thank Deputy Durkan. I ask each of the three speakers to answer any questions they have not answered so far or if they want to conclude. I have a specific question for Dr. O'Brennan. He mentioned mainstreaming and how he thought it was working out. As European affairs issues have moved from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Department of the Taoiseach, I would be interested to hear his views on how that arrangement is working. It has been a few years since that change took place.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa:

One issue I did not touch on was the UK-Scotland situation. I am not a legal expert on this but my belief is that Scotland cannot remain a member of the European Union if it secedes from the UK. The UK is a member. If Scotland leaves the UK, then it also leaves the EU and it has to reapply. It would have very little difficulty in becoming a member but it would then have to decide whether it wanted to join the euro. One of the big issues in the current debate is that the nationalists in Scotland want to remain part of sterling. I am not involved in the referendum campaign but based on our experience in Ireland, populations at large generally do not like taking a leap in the dark in referendums. I may be wrong but I do not see the referendum being carried. One of the things the European Union has to acknowledge, and given what Deputy Durkan has said, is its relatively tiny size compared to the rest of the world, a declining population, an ageing population and a resistance to migration, all of which lead to a decline, which is an issue we have to address.

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

I call Dr. O'Brennan.

Mr. John O'Brennan:

On the question of the move of European affairs from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Department of the Taoiseach, it is reflective of the wider environment in Europe where departments of the executive in general, and particularly, Prime Ministers offices, have been more empowered at the expense usually of foreign ministries over time. I do not think the Irish context is that unique. Prime Ministers have become more assertive within the EU process, perhaps for good reason in the context of the economic crisis and the task of managing it in the immediate timeframes. There was always a delicate balance in the Irish context between the Departments of Finance and Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Taoiseach's office was a latter day arrival in some senses, in terms of the relative roles played by all three. It is far too early to say what the implications will be in the longer run, for the efficiency of our policies and how they are pursued. It can be argued that the Presidency which, as Mr. Connelly has said, has been universally viewed as a success, suggests that there is more continuity than change. In other words, as the previous Irish Presidencies were successful, the dynamics of last year's one was very similar. That suggests it certainly has not been a negative thing.

There is some confusion, however, particularly about websites. This morning I went to look at the website of this committee and it gave last year's website so that I was looking at early 2013 material instead of this year's material. That was also the case when the European affairs unit moved to the Department of the Taoiseach. There was much confusion for the outside world.

There are elements of the architecture that could work better. In terms of the substantive issues, it is probably too early to say, but it is certainly not negative.

Mr. Tony Connelly:

I will respond to a number of questions. Senator Hayden asked about Ireland's bilateral engagement with other countries and if we had ditched countries with which we were more akin to in the light of our experience, such as Greece and Spain, and were moving towards alignment with northern European countries. I think it is of benefit to Ireland that we are sufficiently pragmatic as it is not necessarily a zero sum game and the Government has managed to navigate different viewpoints and different camps in Europe. The reality was that during the bailout we had to decouple ourselves from Greece in order to restore the trust and the attractiveness of the financial markets. It was an expedient the Government had to follow. The Government made it almost a virtue that we were not like Greece or Portugal but that we were something different. That went down rather badly on the streets of Greece. Certainly at some of the demonstrations that I covered at the time there was some resentment towards Ireland for its cavalier attitude, as it was perceived at the time, but having gone through the EU-IMF programme the Government is in the vanguard of reform, partly through choice because the policy choices that Ireland made had been embarked upon before the EU-IMF programme started. We are seen as in the vanguard of reform and the Government will want to stay the course.

I think Ireland has been very successful in keeping bilateral relations solid. It is the same chemistry that people talk about in Brussels - the Irish diplomats' ability to put people at their ease, their ability to blend business and pleasure. That is a gift that successive governments have and they would do well to keep hold of those gifts.

Deputy Byrne raised the question of Ukraine. There is a debate in Europe as to whether Europe lost Ukraine rather than Russia winning Ukraine. The problems that people are declaiming on the streets of Kiev are the exact same problems and frustrations that accompanied the orange revolution ten years ago. The frustrations that ordinary people have about the rule of law, the brutality of the police and corruption have not gone away. They are being repeated. The European Union was in a very difficult position. It could not offer full membership to Ukraine but had to offer some kind of half way perspective that would sufficiently reassure the population of Ukraine without alienating Russia but there is no doubt that once the eight Eastern Europe states joined the European Union and joined NATO, the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin was going to be on the defensive. Ukraine occupies a place in the former Russian imperial soul that means that it is something the Russian government will not give up easily. It is an intractable problem. One could argue that diplomatically not enough attention was paid to the other part of Ukraine, as Deputy Byrne said, that it was left on a one way street, in terms of bringing the government and the people of Ukraine in a more European direction.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question asked who led us up the garden path. Everybody believed the agreement would be signed, right up to the last moment right until Putin brought Yanukovych over and maybe threatened his oil and gas supplies in the middle of winter when temperatures were minus 30 to 40 degrees. My criticism was there were early warning that the Russian Federation had already moved on Armenia and that seemed to go over the heads of everybody. Everybody was convinced they would sign the agreement. I know it is complicated.

It is unpopular to resurrect this issue, but we did not get down to the issue of oversight. Dr. John O'Brennan mentioned the laughable position of oversight of the EU policies and directives. It is not done. He was quite right to call a spade a spade. Then it was suggested that the Seanad might have a role in the oversight of policy and directive. I have referred to the 226 members of the Oireachtas. Does the single transferable vote issue impinge on the ability, interest or availability of parliamentarians to engage in the "unsexy" vicious hard work of oversight of European policy and directives, which is fairly dry stuff for the best of us? Does he think attending the funeral in County Kerry will be more attractive than sitting here for up to six hours because the volume of the work would require very determined and dedicated politicians?

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

I thank Deputy Byrne. Let me remind members that the Government is carrying out a review of how we scrutinise legislation. The Minister of State, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, is leading that and we will be making an input to it. Comments from Deputies would be welcomed during the course of that review and they will have a chance in the coming weeks to do so.

Mr. Proinsias De Rossa:

I do not think the single transferable vote has any influence one way or the other. I think it is a question of resourcing for Members. Deputies and Senators cannot do the job that must be done in respect of keeping an eye on the European legislation unless it has the staff to go through the legislation and following it through the Parliament, tracking it, identifying the issues and presenting a two-page brief outlining the issues that need to be homed in on, bearing in mind the political perspective. If that is done, one will get good debate and good discussion on the key issues.

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

On behalf of the joint committee, I thank our three guests for coming before us and answering our questions so thoroughly. It has been very useful. We have had a stimulating and interesting debate. We will meet tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. to have our regular pre-GAERC discussion with the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Paschal Donohoe.