Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It does not seem very long since we were debating the Lisbon treaty in this House. The Taoiseach and his party argued for a "Yes" vote on the basis that it would lead to jobs for Irish people. "Yes to Europe, Yes to Jobs" was the slogan on Fine Gael posters throughout the country. We eventually had a "Yes" vote from the electorate, but the jobs have been very slow in coming. Sinn Féin and others called for a "No" vote on the basis that the treaty's provisions would increase the democratic deficit and reduce Ireland's influence and voting powers.

As of 1 November, under the provisions of the treaty dealing with the voting system in the Council, key decisions will now be made on a straight population basis. We have moved away from the consensus approach, with a clear shift in power towards the larger states. The new provisions have led to a doubling of Germany's voting weight from 8% to 16% and increased the weights of France, Italy and Britain from 8% each to 12% each. At the same time, the changes have seen a reduction in the voting weight of smaller and middle-sized EU states - in Ireland's case, that reduction is from 2% to 0.8%. Were these changes marked at the European Council meeting? Was the increased democratic deficit discussed or was it business as usual, with the changes written off as progress?

Before the European Council meeting, MEPs voted to extend the Council's proposed 2015 budget by €2 billion, a position that may lead to tough negotiations. It is clear from the discussions last year that a minority of influential member states will seek to continue austerity policies and further reduce the EU budget in real terms. Sinn Féin, together with many others across Europe, is of the view that in this time of social and economic crisis the EU needs to invest in and spend more on cohesion projects, creating real jobs, sustainable economic growth, tackling poverty and disadvantage, and addressing the causes of youth unemployment. There are clearly two groups in Europe, one arguing for more stimulus and investment and the other pushing the austerity line.

We are all agreed that there is fat to be trimmed from the EU budget. Last month the European Parliament sat in its second home in Strasbourg. This once-a-month travelling circus is estimated to cost nearly €170 million per year. This continues despite the fact that a majority of MEPs are against it and have voted to scrap the Strasbourg Parliament. Surely this is one of the areas in which cuts should be sought, rather than in vitally important social and economic programmes. What position did the Taoiseach take on behalf of the country when the Council discussed the EU budget? Was he on the side of those who want to invest in member states' economies, stimulate economic growth and jobs and improve quality of life for workers and families across the EU? Or did he place Ireland on the side of the harsh austerity advocates who wish to see the budget decreased in a way that will leave it not fit for purpose, failing people and locking more and more citizens into poverty, including intergenerational poverty?

The Taoiseach mentioned that the European Council had extensive discussions on the EU's climate and energy policy framework. I welcome the commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030. It is only a first step, however, and, sadly, watered-down energy efficiency and renewable energy targets of 27% were agreed for 2030. We all got a wake-up call this week following the publication of the intergovernmental report on carbon credits, which spoke about pushing for zero carbon emissions by 2100. Some countries spoke out in favour of the report while others began to talk about derogations. People do not want meaningless formulae; they want real action. We have the capacity to move towards a low-carbon economy, but what is lacking is ambition and responsible political leadership. As one of the largest polluting blocs in the world, surely the EU should be playing its part in rectifying our coal and fossil fuel reliance. Will the Taoiseach agree to champion something better than these weak proposals at the next Council meeting, something more in line with the strong binding targets suggested by European parliamentarians?

The Taoiseach referred in his statement to increased investment in afforestation. Will he expand on that? We all want to see that type of investment, but there is a difficulty in this regard concerning the State company, Coillte.

There was also reference to the nonsense of buying carbon credits from developing and poorer countries.

Again, I question the validity of how this nonsensical approach will help our planet. Rich countries and companies will continue to pollute the planet, while smaller and poorer states supposedly offset, through reforestation and so forth, the environmental damage caused by them.

See this speech in context