Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

Article 29.4.4o of the Irish Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, states: "Ireland affirms its commitment to the European Union within which the member states of that Union work together to promote peace, shared values and the well-being of their peoples." Those underlying principles, which we not long ago put into the Constitution, are principles which have been the motivation of those of us in politics and society who support the evolution and development of the Union and the European ideal.

One of the founding fathers of the European project, Mr. Robert Schuman, in his speech to Strasbourg on 16 May 1949, announced a bold new idea, namely, a century of supranational communities. He stated that the creation of such supranational communities was the duty of Europe and Europeans to save humanity from the scourge of selfish nationalism typified by the calamities of the 20th century. Later in the same speech, Schuman described the litmus test, as he saw it, for what is European. I am not sure if the Minister of State, who is conversant on these matters, is aware that he set the test as being those having the European spirit. He stated: "The European spirit signifies being conscious of belonging to a cultural family and to have a willingness to serve that community in the spirit of total mutuality, without any hidden motives of hegemony or of the selfish exploitation of others". That European spirit, which was the idealism of the founding fathers of the Union, is now being tested.

EU Council President Von Rompuy said last year that the future of the Union is in question now and that we are in a survival crisis. The question that must be asked is where in this crisis are the modern day Schumans or Jean Monnets? Where is the vision to take domestic political risk and to show true European solidarity? Many of our citizens are dismayed at the attitude of our European colleagues to Ireland's economic woes. It is true - we cannot gainsay it in this House - that those woes are largely self inflicted and responsibility for this must be acknowledged and accepted by the banking community, regulators and political system. We expect understanding and real solidarity in our time of need.

Ireland was long the poster boy for what European Union membership could bring. The European Union revelled in us and we in it, perhaps getting too big for our boots in believing the publicity of the ever sustaining Celtic tiger. The challenge was and is for the Union to show a modern version of that European spirit to deal with the calamity now facing Ireland and other European countries and the challenge this poses for every member of the Union. Granted, our Government was singularly inept in its recent negotiations with the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund.

Our weak Government played a weak hand in critical negotiations for this country. It accepted an interest rate that punishes the Irish people. It is in Europe's interest that Ireland recovers economically and does so quickly. That fact seems to have been blurred by a banker's view of what is now described as moral hazard. The granting of solidarity funding was judged to require a degree of pain to discourage further delinquency. This mindset is more akin to the aftermath of the First World War in Europe when Germany was to be broken rather than the spirit that existed following the Second World War when those who understood what a divided Europe would mean wanted bonds of economic and cultural solidarity to prevail.

The comments of French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, are a case in point. He said Ireland cannot benefit from the EU's financial aid while maintaining its low corporate tax rate regime. The president knows full well how important this is to our economic well-being. It was important in the past as we evolved from a poor agrarian economy into a modern industrialised economy but the regime is more important today because we have to rely on export growth to drive our economy out of deep recession. Together with my party leader, I spelled this out to the French ambassador to Ireland and I also spelled this out to the European Commissioner, Olli Rehn, when I met him on two occasions with colleagues. I am sure every other Member, particularly those who are members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, have underlined the importance of this issue to the representatives of every other member state. It is not out of a lack of understanding or ignorance of the import of what he said that the president spoke.

President Sarkozy also said that he and Chancellor Merkel will reinforce European economic integration and progress towards fiscal convergence. This is his view but we know what we promised the people in the negotiations on the Lisbon treaty. We received written confirmation from the Commission in the lead-up to the second referendum on the treaty. Commissioner Kovacs confirmed that all proposals on tax matters will continue to be decided on the basis of unanimity; that no member state of the Union can or could in the future be obliged to participate in any proposal for a set of rules governing a common consolidated corporate tax base; and that all members states have and will continue to have a veto on matters affecting direct taxation. He further confirmed that the position of the Commission was that "Each and every member state is free to choose the direct tax system that it considers most appropriate for its own requirements provided they respect Community rules such as non-discrimination". That was the pact we had with the people and the committee that I, as a pro-European, and my party made.

I echo some of the concerns expressed by Deputy Creed. Europe is not an exclusive Franco-German project. The specific and unique needs and requirements of all member states, particularly smaller member states, must be fully comprehended and respected by all. Labour is a pro-European party in the social democratic mainstream. We communicate and interact regularly with our social democratic colleagues across the Union and beyond. We support a Union of common values and solidarity. The benefits of such a Union have been self-evident in this country and on the Continent for more than half a century. We will guide this unique project onwards because we want it to have a future.

We will examine in detail the proposed revision of the Lisbon treaty to underpin our currency "to put our economies back on track", as Commission President Barroso said. The Taoiseach has indicated that such a narrow revision will not necessitate a referendum in Ireland. It is highly likely that this view will be challenged. Deputy Creed called for the establishment of a validating body other than the Attorney General to give independent views but I am afraid that would not have any status because it is the citizen's right to ask the Supreme Court to make a decision. No matter what intermediary is determined to do this, somebody will contest a decision of this nature in the Supreme Court, as is his or her right. I do not disagree with the view that the Government could be proactive on these matters in order that it is not seen as a victory for somebody to test them.

In the document on political reform I published on behalf of the Labour Party, I specified that advices such as this from the Attorney General should be put in the public domain, whatever the convention. There are advices which are client confidential but these are public interest issues and I hope such advices will be made known generally in order that it is not simply an assertion of the Government when we parse and analyse the wording and that there is a clear, legal underscoring of the fact that it does not require in the Government's view a constitutional amendment.

A huge amount of work must be done on this matter and others. This work is in Ireland's interest and it has been made more complicated by yesterday's resignation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Taoiseach indicated to the House earlier that he will take on that role. There is a full-time role for such a Minister at this juncture to do the nation's business and the Taoiseach cannot subdivide his activities to do an adequate job in that respect. We need a foreign Minister. Appointing an individual for a few weeks - even, for example someone as experienced in European matters as the Minister of State, Deputy Roche - would only be a stopgap because people know full well we are facing a general election shortly. For people to have the force and authority to argue their case, we need someone with a long-term mandate in that important job. What is required, therefore, is not a temporary replacement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs but the permanent replacement of this entire Government.

I would like to mention a number of other issues but as my time is almost up, I will do so during the question and answer session. Although my contribution has been dominated by the economic crisis, as was the Council meeting, other issues were discussed. I would be interested in teasing out the views of the Minister and the Council on the situation in Côte d'Ivoire. It is a very worrying development in West Africa. What communications have the European Union, the Commission or the High Representative had with ECOWAS which largely composed the intervention force in Côte d'Ivoire? I wish to know also whether the democratically elected President Ouattara will have his position vindicated. I will take the time to explore those matters during the question and answer session.

See this speech in context