Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on the most recent European Council meeting on 10 and 11 December 2009. It was the first Council meeting since the Lisbon treaty came into force and it began the process of putting in place the nuts and bolts that were required under the treaty, initially with the two somewhat unknown incumbents, Herman Van Rompuy, who filled the new office of President of the European Council, and the equally unknown but rather distinguished sounding Baroness Ashton, who filled the position of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

A report appears in today's newspaper indicating that the baroness decided not to go to Haiti to see for herself the effects of the earthquake there. That was the wrong decision. This is the first time we have had a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. We see on the television and hear on the airwaves every night about the President of the United States and the previous President of the United States who is in Haiti currently, and see how the United States is claiming for itself a huge profile in the response to the Haiti disaster. At the same time, we are the largest donors of aid globally. It seems to me that we are adopting the same position that we have adopted towards the Middle East in the context of the European Union, that we are providing most of the resources and aid, as we are doing in the Middle East, but we are not in any way claiming the kudos, so to speak.

The European Union is not projecting itself forward in the way that it should. In terms of perception, it should be seen as being central to dealing with the problems created by the earthquake and the huge human disaster that exists rather than allowing the United States to continue to present itself as the only serious, caring political entity in regard to Haiti. Nevertheless, I wish both of those new appointees well. I hope they will distinguish themselves in their new appointments.

The next item to which the Council referred was the European external action service. It has signalled its intention to adopt the proposals relating to the organisation and functioning of the European external action service by April of this year and that member states would get involved in that process. We have precious little information on how that work is progressing. What input is coming from this country on the matter? What bodies are involved in developing the European external action service in terms of its organisation and future functioning, personnel, resources and locations? What impact will that have on our diplomatic service in terms of its location, personnel, careers and the parameters of the service? It would be worthwhile if we could have a discussion in this House or if the Minister could present some paper to us on the nuts and bolts of what has happened to date and what input might be made by a broader consultation process than seems to be the case at present. This House would benefit from a full briefing on the European external action service and its organisation before the deadline of April 2010.

I was disappointed that the Taoiseach did not mention the European citizens' initiative in his contribution even though he referred to the fact that together with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, he is leading work within Government to improve our overall engagement with the European Union. He also stated that it is necessary to improve engagement right across the board. One of the great problems with the European Union is engagement with it. That is one of the great complaints one hears around the country and in other members states, namely, that is difficult to see how ordinary people can engage with the European Union. The citizens' initiative is tailored precisely to allow power to the people, and to enable the ordinary citizen to put an item of concern directly on the agenda of the Commission, to bypass the normal bureaucratic processes, institutional bureaucracy, red tape and to be able to use a new mechanism to get an issue straight onto the agenda of the Commission and for it to be dealt with in a serious fashion.

That is our first test. How did we respond to it? I have not seen the Government respond to it by going out to the highways and byways and consulting widely with the citizenry. I have not seen the Government availing of all the communications mechanisms, including electronic methods, newspapers, advertising, television and radio to inform the citizen. Scarcely a citizen in the country is aware of the new rights that are being conferred on him or her. Where is the sense in talking about awareness, consultation and engagement unless we do it when we can do it and when we have something beneficial to sell to or tell the citizen such as the fact that a mechanism exists that would allow him or her to be directly involved in the decision making of the European Union? We have not done that.

As Deputy Lucinda Creighton said, the only thing that has been done to date has been done by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs which is carrying out a minimal amount of advertising in newspapers in order to reach the public at large. There is no sense in us having a plethora of meetings about collective stakeholders, holding a few conferences here and there and talking to each other about it; we should be engaging in a direct awareness and consultation mechanism. Although time will be limited in terms of getting that together, given that our proposals have to be in by the end of the month and the new structure is to be in place by June., I would like to see work done in that regard. It is something that we could usefully discuss in the House and communicate to a wider audience if that could be managed.

The fiscal exit strategy is a work of fiction. I cannot imagine what the intention was in the context of this country when the matter was being discussed. That is one of the most important aspects of the meeting in the context of the economy. Reference was made to exiting from the broad-based stimulus policies. We, in this country, have nothing to exit from. We have no broad-based stimulus policies. We have no stimulus policies at all. We have not been part of the European recovery plan. It was stated that member states "should begin to unwind financial support schemes". It was also stated that there should be "adequate incentives for financial institutions to cease to depend on public financial support". It was indicated that the phasing out of support should start with government guarantees. Those quotations are from the final report of the European Commission. In the context of government guarantees, the Taoiseach must have thought he was on another planet when that was being debated. I cannot see how he could have agreed to something of that nature when we are in the process of putting a package together. We have State guarantees, recapitalisation, NAMA and further recapitalisation will be required. We are way out of kilter with what is happening in the vast majority of members of the EU. When the review of that fiscal exit strategy takes place in June, we will be seen to have moved further and further away from the position to which the other member states have moved because they have moved on to growth and jobs and the banking systems in those countries will have become independent and able to stand on their own two feet.

Our mollycoddling of the banks is clearly frowned upon by our EU partners. This is at loggerheads with what the Taoiseach said in the House this morning, namely, that the systems that have been put in place are approved by the EU and the European institutions, which is clearly not the case. They are telling us to get out of it as quickly as possible, to get rid of State financial guarantees as the first step and to unwind state support.

See this speech in context