Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

These are questions on which we need to ponder. If one takes one line about whether we want to stop where we are in our engagement in Europe and perhaps take a more isolated marginal position, where does that leave us? These are the questions that the committee, in essence, must tease through.

Deputy Timmins's point about the knowledge of European Union institutions is well borne out by the research that was undertaken. In fact, the research summed up that, in essence, during the Lisbon treaty referendum we were discussing and debating reform of institutions about which people knew little. That is a failure of communication of the issue, both on our side in the European Union and by all of us collectively. Deputy Tuffy raised that point of how one communicates the nuts and bolts of Europe to the people on the ground in a way relevant to them.

I take Deputy Creighton's point about the consequences for the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. I have already met with that committee, which has undertaken valuable work and which produces good reports, particularly on the idea of a European office here in the Parliament. I am working with the Oireachtas Commission, notwithstanding the limited resources of these days, to see if we can get that established because it is a good proposal.

Deputy Durkan correctly referred to the fact that time is tight. He also made the point that we need to work out where Ireland wishes to be in terms of the future within the European Union, that is, at the centre or at the margins. I am conscious of that point also.

In terms of the division of powers, the Lisbon treaty to a certain extent attempted to address that point. I was struck by Deputy Ó Caoláin's point that Europe is about increased militarisation. That is a debate that was never communicated properly. I was at the United Nations last week, for example. In many missions in which the EU is involved, which are UN-mandated peacekeeping missions, it is the Ukraine, for example, which provides the helicopters for the soldiers' mobility etc. That is what military capability in a peacekeeping context was about. We have soldiers in Chad. Are we really saying that we should not ensure all necessary infrastructure and facilities for the mobility and safety of our troops are provided? These are issues which need to be teased out more to give people a better understanding of how language can be wrongly interpreted. The enhancement of military capability was seen by some people in only one way. Such people did not see the EU's more fundamental mission of conflict resolution and peacekeeping, or the need for our peacekeepers to be properly resourced so that their safety is not at risk and they are not vulnerable when they are protecting displaced people and refugees, of which there are hundreds of thousands in Chad and elsewhere. I thank the Acting Chairman for his forbearance and tolerance and I thank the Members for their agreement to the establishment of this sub-committee.

See this speech in context