Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I welcome the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy. The Taoiseach's contribution to this debate confirms reports we have heard that this was as lacklustre a summit as has taken place in recent times. The European Union summit was strong on problems but weak on solutions. The period of reflection over the past 12 months has become an extended period and a new two-year period of analysis. The Heads of State decided essentially to tread water and there seemed to be little sign of direction or leadership. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, was reported in the newspapers as saying he would have preferred to have been somewhere else entirely. Perhaps that comment sums it up best.

Twelve months ago the Heads of State in the European Union at the previous summit called for a period of reflection during which a broad debate would take place in all member states involving citizens, civil society, social partners, national parliaments, political parties and the European Union institutions. Recently, the European Commission published A Citizen's Agenda for Europe, which was a welcome contribution to the debate.

Ireland had begun its own reflection process when the initial rejection of the Nice treaty in 2002 sent shockwaves through the political establishment, and a positive initiative was established in terms of the National Forum on Europe, which is still very effective. That the entire political establishment, the church, the three major political parties, the farming community, the trade union movement and the business community had all supported the referendum demonstrated that the establishment was out of sync with the electorate on the issues of European Union enlargement and European Union institutions. The subsequent defeat of referenda on the constitutional treaty in France and in the Netherlands caused alarm bells to ring throughout the EU and clearly demonstrated that significant deficits in democracy, citizen confidence and information had to be addressed before some citizens of member states would give their stamp of approval to new developments and treaties.

The European Council meeting on 15 and 16 June reflected the experience of those member states who urged caution and the festina lente maxim, especially among the older and larger member states. On the other side of the equation and at the same time, the new ten accession countries were impatient at the failure of all member states to open their borders and their job markets to the newcomers. The refusal to allow Lithuania to join the eurozone because it failed to make the grade under the strict Commission criteria for joining the eurozone caused a mini-rebellion among five of the new member states. Eight of the ten accession countries are eastern European and perceive some of the old European Union states as treating them like second class states.

Therein lies the conundrum. Countries surrounding the European Union, especially the crescent to the east, see the European Union as a form of salvation with hope, democracy and employment opportunities for their burgeoning populations as well as an escape from the ravages and inhumanity experienced of dictatorship. Those states which fashioned the European Union as a vehicle to bind the former warring western European nations into a peaceful society and a prosperous market following the Second World War and the destruction it caused now perceive in many cases the eastern European countries as a potential threat to that settled, collective sense of security in western and central European society that they have forged and particularly to their jobs market. That is the conundrum and what caused the malaise at the summit.

The European Union is unable to move forward definitely either on enlargement or on the constitution because of its failure to prepare the ground and inform its citizens. The danger in such a scenario is that the European project could stagnate and shrivel. A long period of reflection and analysis is envisaged and, while there is nothing wrong with that, it is envisaged it will last for a period of three years from June 2005 until at least June 2008. This may cause difficulty in kick-starting the institutional reform process and the enlargement process in future. The danger is that malaise and stagnation could set in and the difficulty in moving forward in future could become much greater. Reflection and analysis as concepts in their own right are all well and good, but if they are not combined with action, a serious problem will emerge.

The accession of the two new member states, Romania and Bulgaria, will inevitably take place in 2007 or 2008. However, there are serious concerns whether they will be allowed access to the job markets of old member states such as France and Germany which still maintain restrictions on the ten countries which joined in 2004, more than two years ago. The courage of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden in going against the tide on that occasion and opening up their job markets and economies has been rewarded, ironically, by their economies being strengthened much more than the economies of those which imposed restrictions, and those three member states are now being further rewarded by other states following their lead.

However, it is difficult to see how a small country with a population of 4 million such as Ireland, which has amazingly succeeded in absorbing large numbers of Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians and other nationalities, can absorb a further influx of Romanians and Bulgarians unless the major countries of the European Union absorb their share by lifting their restrictions. There is an onus on us, because we are proactive in these matters, to raise this issue with other Heads of States.

I would have liked this issue to have been raised at the summit. However, in any of the reports of the summit I read, the Minister for Foreign Affairs did not appear to raise the issue of disparity in this regard whereby there is a free market in services and goods but not a free market in labour among certain member states and that the brunt of the burden has come to bear in many cases on small countries such as Ireland. There are benefits in this respect but there are downsides and, if Europe is to operate effectively, efficiently and within the ambit of its principles, everybody should be involved in this respect and should bear the burden.

It is critical that the periods of reflection and analysis are properly structured and used by the member states and European Union Commission. Likewise, it is essential the process of enlargement proceeds in the six fledgling states that have been created from the break up of the old Yugoslavia. Of these, only Slovenia is part of the EU and it is making marvellous progress. It will join the eurozone in 2007 and host the EU Presidency in 2008. The remaining former Yugoslav and western Balkan countries — Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania — complete the cohort of former cold war countries. The process of enlargement to admit these countries should not be delayed during the period of reflection and analysis. This matter was barely touched on at the summit although it could have been addressed by it.

It is also critical that we use the next couple of years of reflection and analysis to go far beyond these concepts. The benefits of the European Union must be strongly presented and plainly visible to all citizens. The negative aspects have been allowed to grow and fester unchallenged and unchecked in many cases. For example, the democratic deficit, the loss of sovereignty, the race to the bottom in terms of wages and employment, heavy-handed bureaucracy and the lack of information have all eroded public confidence in the Union and its institutions. These negatives must be addressed in individual member states and within the Union by a leavening process within the EU institutions and structures. Citizens must instinctively feel the European Union is on their side, which is not the case. The existing and potential benefits of EU membership must be explained and unlocked.

The full implementation of the Lisbon Agenda must be a priority so the social, environmental and economic strategies are brought to fruition. Fresh job opportunities, sustainable development, energy and communications policies can, on an EU-wide basis, bring enormous and tangible benefits to people's quality of life and their cost of living.

Much lip service has been paid to the war on crime and to tackling trafficking in drugs and human beings. However, little progress has been made by the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers, which meets regularly and discusses these issues ad nauseam, by the raft of legislation and regulations introduced in the area, or by the activities of Europol and Interpol. These have just not worked. A crackdown on such damaging cross-border crimes would be enormously beneficial to the citizens of member states. Effective crime fighting and policing measures are a priority in the expanded European Union. However, there is no tangible sign the authorities are coming to grips with these issues. On the Order of Business today a question was raised regarding legislation on trafficking of human beings, which we have not yet put in place to bring Ireland into line with its European counterparts. That should be a priority for the Minister, but the Taoiseach did not appear to have any date for the heads of the Bill.

At the European Union Council of 15 and 16 June it was clear there was no sense of leadership or direction among the Heads of State. As they could not decide what to do next, they decided to do nothing other than officially extend the period of reflection into a period of analysis. The one-year period of reflection announced at the previous summit in 2005 was extended to a two-year period of analysis until June 2008. The meeting was something of a damp squib. The draft summit communiqué urging Germany, which holds the Presidency in the first half of 2007, to present a report to the European Council in June 2007 detailing a way forward is not reassuring.

What mechanism is in place to monitor the input of member states or the EU institutions in the reflection and analysis process? What ongoing mechanism will ensure something meaningful happens? Most of the member states do not seem to know where they are going or what they are doing. What structures are in place to ensure all the member states put their shoulders to the wheel, or even know how to go about that? What leadership exists to plot a course of action for member states and lead them in making the European Union relevant to the lives of their citizens? None of these questions appear to have been addressed. All we got was much wishful thinking, a promise to look at the situation in December, have a report detailing the way forward the following June 2007 and the hope to make some progress and complete the analysis by 2008. What are we going to do at that point?

Perhaps there will be some progress made for the meeting in December 2006. Ireland has been a major beneficiary in most areas from its EU experience. We have taken a strong line in many areas and are pretty much a neutral and well respected country with EU borders. We have much to offer and I would like to have seen this offered at the European Council meeting last week. In the run-up to the next summit perhaps we should offer something positive and some ideas as to the way forward. We do not want to find ourselves treading water another time and ending up with another extended period of reflection and analysis that will result in stagnation in the key areas of enlargement, structural reform and making the European Union more relevant to the lives of our citizens and those of the other member states.

See this speech in context