Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

In the early days of what is now the European Union, one of its founders, Jean Monnet, talked frequently about how it might develop. His most often quoted idea was: "Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises." When looking at the outcome of last week's summit and those of recent years, it is impossible to miss the power of this idea. We are five years into the biggest crisis since the Union was founded. A financial crisis became an economic one which has hit many millions of citizens throughout the Union. The sum of the solutions adopted to tackle this crisis appears to have been reached and the outcome is one that should worry anyone who cares about the future of the Union and its member states. In recent weeks, this has been joined by a dramatic escalation of a wider crisis, which has many new economic, political and security dimensions.

The decision of Russia to try first to maintain control over and then annex a region of a neighbouring state is fundamentally a challenge to the idea that Europe is a space of peace and co-operation between nations. It is a reminder to all of us that there are very uncomfortable decisions to be taken if we are to be true to the values of democracy and human rights. It has brought to the fore the absolute need to remember what unites us and put aside short-term concerns. The decision of the Council to extend the list of persons subject to sanctions was reasonable. In particular, there appears to be real agreement about going to stage three sanctions if there are any further efforts to subvert Ukrainian sovereignty. This is the least that could be done in the circumstances. The debate at the Council was between those who wanted a more extensive list and those who wanted to do almost nothing. It is welcome that Poland and other states were listened to during the meeting and that the final communiqué was significantly toughened from the opening, rather abject, proposal. We would have welcomed it if the Council had at least matched the list of sanctions published by the United States. Those sanctions appear to have had a real impact on the private financial networks of people intimately connected with Russia's expansionist policy. Given the reach of the financial system of the United States and the legal force it applies behind sanctions, duplication of the list by the European Union is not essential. Because there have been so few occasions for welcoming the major outcomes of summits in recent years, it is important that we acknowledge that leaders overcame the divisions between them of recent weeks. They applied themselves to working together and seem to have understood that a failure to act together would have been disastrous for the Union. The contributions of Poland and the Baltic States, in particular, were valuable in reminding others that there comes a point at which narrow commercial interests cannot be allowed to trump basic principles.

As I have said previously, Fianna Fáil fully supports the Government's position condemning the illegal actions by Russia. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste have left no room for doubt on this. What is not clear at all is where Ireland stands on the specific issues which have been decided by leaders at the summit. The Taoiseach told us yesterday that two different approaches were proposed at the summit. He then outlined the final agreement and said that Ireland supports it. However, he did not say what Ireland's position was during the discussion and I have found it difficult to get an answer on that.

There has been a concerted propaganda campaign by Russia to justify its actions. The arguments it is using today are completely different from those it was using at the start of the crisis. Thankfully, the number of parties and individuals falling for the Russian line or who seem committed to staying silent no matter what Russia does is small. However, it is worth mentioning the response to Russia's evolving arguments. In recent weeks, and again yesterday during Deputy Adams's contribution on Question Time, Sinn Féin has been reluctant to utter a word of rebuke towards Russia. It has now started the line that what is at issue is self-determination by the people of Crimea. This is an extraordinary argument. There is a majority of Russians in Crimea, but this has not always been the case. It was an almost uniformly Tatar area until relatively recently. The current population balance is the result of what we now term ethnic cleansing.

The issue of Crimea becoming a part of Russia only became live when Russia decided it would activate it. Russia still has a powerful imperial mindset concerning its former subject states. Once it became clear that the people of Ukraine wanted to assert their independence of Russian control, Russia simply decided it would partition parts of Ukraine where it felt it could sustain a majority. Last week's referendum was completely illegitimate. It was held with Russian troops on the streets and no dissenting voices were allowed. Less than two weeks elapsed between the calling of the vote and the announcement of the result. Independent observers were kept out by the threat of violence. This included the firing of warning shots over the head of an Irish officer. The belligerent speech of President Putin confirmed that this was a planned annexation. We should also understand that Crimea is now subject to deeply anti-democratic laws. Due to a measure enacted in recent days, it is now a crime to publicly question the annexation. If one is a Tatar or Ukrainian in Crimea, one may end up in gaol for saying one does not want to belong to Russia. The invasion and annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia is the type of action that has not happened in Europe since 1968. From beginning to end, this was a manufactured situation. The statement that Europe is somehow to blame by supposedly forcing Ukraine into a choice between Russia and Europe is outrageous.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade on this topic. It does great work, but is rarely given the attention it deserves. In particular, I would like to commend it on its session with the Russian ambassador. Deputy Bernard Durkan, in the Chair, Deputy Eric Byrne and Deputy Brendan Smith made sure that Russia's aggressive propaganda was challenged. In particular, they made sure that implied threats were seen to have no impact on the views of the overwhelming majority of Oireachtas Members.

The presence of large numbers of Russian troops on Ukraine's borders is ominous, but it does not seem there is an immediate likelihood of their annexing further territory.

In spite of repeated provocation, it appears that the eastern areas of Ukraine have not been destabilised.

The red line which the summit drew, beyond which escalating economic sanctions would be imposed, is a restrained and reasonable response. Any escalation will be because Russia has decided to escalate the crisis and not because of anything the European Union has done.

It is also correct that the association agreement with Ukraine starts first with the political aspects. The undermining of Ukrainian democracy in recent years has been profound. Wider civil society has suffered a sustained attack and democratic roots are weak. The European Union cannot compromise on its democratic principles and must hold the Ukrainian Government to account. The extremist elements who gained prominence during the last months of the Yanukovych regime are not acceptable partners. Thankfully, there are signs of democratic parties pushing back against their influence and we should do everything possible to support them. The European Union’s aid programme must prioritise support for civil society organisations which provide the essential counterbalance for a political system which has repeatedly failed the Ukrainian people.

It was timely that there was a discussion about energy on the summit's agenda. Given how often Britain plays a negative role at the Council and its repeated efforts to stop the European Union becoming more active, we should note Prime Minister Cameron’s very positive initiative on energy before the summit. Energy dependence on Russia is a profound strategic weakness for the European Union. The Russian state exerts tight control on its energy sector and has repeatedly shown a willingness to see energy as part of its strategic arsenal when dealing with other states. Now is the time for the European Union to push ahead with a determined effort to secure real energy independence. It must diversify both the sources and types of energy it uses. It must end the practice where individual states are picked off in highly suspicious ways. This has blocked alternative supply routes and increased reliance on Russia. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s lucrative job with the Nord Stream project still leaves a bitter taste in many mouths. I welcome the summit’s decision to show more urgency on energy independence and hope this resolve will be maintained.

The summit took place against the backdrop of ongoing negotiations with the European Parliament on key elements of the so-called banking union. The Parliament’s position that the resolution mechanism agreed to by leaders is inadequate is correct. It involves too little money; there is too much national involvement and not enough banks. By covering no more than 1% of covered assets and then only after a lengthy lead-in time, it does not provide a credible resolution mechanism. By only phasing in mutualisation it specifically fails to break the link between sovereign and financial debt.

The few concessions secured by the European Parliament are extremely welcome. They dilute somewhat the worst elements of the Council’s deal. For this I particularly acknowledge the leadership of Sharon Bowles of the ALDE, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, group. Nobody can say with confidence that the eurozone financial system has been placed on sound foundations. We still have a single currency without a genuine banking union. What is much worse is that we are heading into bank stress tests without the confidence that genuine and tough results can be managed.

ECB president Mario Draghi’s letter to Fianna Fáil’s spokesperson, Deputy Michael McGrath, shows that the Government’s complacent line about everything having been sorted is false. The Draghi letter confirms that there are serious issues remaining relating to Irish banks. There is no engagement with the idea of retrospective recapitalisation. Yesterday I directly asked the Taoiseach if he would state what Ireland was looking for in this regard. Just as he has done for a year and a half, he refused to say anything. A year and a half after he and his Ministers announced victory on the issue of bank debt they have not only achieved nothing, they will not even say what, if anything, they are asking for. It is now well established that Mr. Draghi’s decisions have been far more significant for the economy than any taken by the Government, particularly as it waited three years before announcing an economic policy. Mr. Draghi’s commitment to fight against threatened deflation is very welcome. We should note also the news yesterday that the head of the Bundesbank had indicated that he would not oppose quantitative easing in all circumstances. This is the first time he has said on the record that the ECB could buy government bonds at issuance. Instead of sitting on the sidelines, Ireland should make a clear statement that it supports Mr. Draghi’s initiatives and that it believes quantitative easing is an appropriate response to low growth and threatened deflation.

A further major threat to Ireland is emerging. From the very moment the conversion of the promissory notes into sovereign debt was announced by the Government, my party has been pointing out that the deal is worth nowhere near what was being claimed. As recently as December, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, was involved in inflating the claim even more when he announced on radio that the promissory notes had been “ripped up”. Nothing of the sort happened. Today a very serious piece of news has been reported in The Irish Times. It is right that the appalling behaviour of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, and the Taoiseach’s continued support of him have dominated public attention in recent days, but we cannot let other, potentially dramatic, news pass without reference. It is being reported that there is new pressure from the ECB council on the Central Bank of Ireland to sell its holding of Irish bonds. If this were to happen, billions of euro in interest on the bonds issued to replace the promissory notes would be lost to the State. Every single positive economic impact of the arrangement announced last year requires the Central Bank to hold these bonds for as long as possible, preferably to maturity. The Taoiseach owes it to us to explain what is going on. Is he aware of these pressures to sell the bonds? Has he made any intervention? If this happens, a central plank of the Government’s claims will have been destroyed and Ireland will lose billions of euro which should be available for public services.

The sum of the actions agreed to to tackle the financial and economic crisis shows a generation of leaders committed to finding a way to muddle through rather than address core problems. The lack of leadership remains striking. In the discussions about who will serve as presidents of the Council and the Commission we do not need a ready-up between the big parties. We need people of drive and vision who want to reform and develop the European Union and end the damaging policy of maximising disputes and minimising ambition. Given that those in these positions will set the direction of the European Union for the next five years, the Taoiseach owes it to us to come to the House before the informal meeting on 27 May to outline his views. It will not be acceptable if all we get is another case in which the Government waits to hear the outcome before it tells us what it is seeking.

See this speech in context