Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 69: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs the way he will deal with the World Trade Organisation talks in the aftermath of the Lisbon Treaty Referendum. [23155/08]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government's approach to the WTO negotiations remains unchanged following the Lisbon treaty ratification.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Freudian slip.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Freudian slip, it is a word that is all over.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should change his script writer.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He should do this before Friday.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will continue to focus our efforts on securing a balanced outcome which takes account of the particular circumstances and challenges facing the agriculture sector, the opportunities presented for exports of our goods and services, and our commitment to promoting the interests of the world's poorest countries.

We want to see a successful outcome to the negotiations that is fair to all sides. However, we remain concerned at the clear lack of balance in the negotiations at this critical stage in the process. Our view is that a disproportionate burden is being placed on European agriculture.

Intensive activity continues at ministerial and official levels aimed at ensuring Ireland's concerns are brought to the attention of key figures in the negotiations. The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, together with the Minister of State with responsibility for trade and commerce, have overall responsibility for co-ordinating Ireland's policy with regard to the WTO talks and are very engaged in promoting our interests. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for his part, is active in putting forward Irish views on the negotiations related to agriculture. The Taoiseach and I also make strong interventions in support of Irish interests in contacts with European counterparts and with the Commission. This level of intense engagement will continue in the future. The Government will emphasise Ireland's concerns and insist that the negotiations provide an agreement that is fair and balanced to all sides. We will spare no effort in our defence of Ireland's interests.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I represent many farmers in my constituency, I want to see a balanced outcome that treats farmers and other interests fairly. I am more interested in this issue as it pertains to Lisbon. Can the Minister confirm that Ireland has used its veto just once, in 1983, since it joined the European Union? Does he agree that the way to do business in Europe is to establish alliances and build relationships? That support can be used when one is in a tight corner. It seems to me that people were deliberately confusing the World Trade Organisation talks and the Lisbon treaty. I understand that the Lisbon treaty strengthens the Irish position in that it does not affect our veto in any way but does provide for an additional measure whereby any agreement will require the oversight and approval of the European Parliament. Why was that not clarified at an early stage? Is it not important, in the context of the future developments which we all want to be brought to a sensible conclusion, for us to get that issue clarified fully? We need to make the facts of the matter clear, regardless of whether a new agreement is reached. It may be called Lisbon 1, Lisbon 2 or something else. Our position will remain the same as long as we do not lose every friend we have in Europe as we try to get the best deal we can.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I broadly agree with the Deputy. He is right that Ireland's engagement with, and performance in, the European Union has been based on brain power. I do not mean to sound arrogant when I say that. We have built alliances with key countries on specific issues. We have been involved in all issues and taken a genuine interest in them. We have shared the concerns of other member states when they may not have been our concerns. Dr. Garret FitzGerald put it well in an article about the definition of goodwill in The Irish Times over a fortnight ago. He said that a "No" vote would put at risk 35 years of accumulated goodwill. Ultimately, that accumulation of goodwill and mutual respect should strengthen Ireland's ability to negotiate well and effectively. Ireland has had a strong alliance with France in the area of agriculture for quite a long time. We have had good relationships with various Commissioners, including Commissioners from Germany. Personal friendships and relationships of some quality have been developed over the years between Irish Ministers and Commissioners from other countries in various areas, particularly agriculture.

We had a similar argument about qualified majority voting. It was suggested that the new modality under the Lisbon treaty would be less advantageous to Ireland. That ignored the fact that, under the proposed new system, it would take 55% of member states to approve a proposal. Under the old regime, we constituted 2% of the Union. We were not depending on our size to be of influence when proposals were being considered and changed. We were getting in much earlier to make our views known. Deputy O'Keeffe is right in this respect. While I agree with him that clarification was required, I remind him that clarification was provided by the European Commission and the independent Referendum Commission. We thought we had clarified these matters. As I said in response to questions asked by Deputy Timmins about the referendum, the nature of referendum debates is that a person on one side of the argument speaks for five minutes, saying that something is black, before a person on the other side of the argument speaks for five minutes, saying that the same thing is white. It is difficult for punters — voters — to arbitrate between the two points of view.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The farming and fisheries lobbies are two of the most significant lobbies in Ireland. The votes of farmers and fishermen were instrumental in deciding the outcome of the Lisbon treaty referendum. Fishermen were worried about issues like decriminalisation, quotas and the dumping of fish at sea. I am pleased that the Minister, Deputy Smith, and the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, have met representatives of the fishing federation. We need to admit that we have been misrepresenting an entire industry at local level — not just at EU level. I respect the groups in question. Although the farming lobby secured a last-minute deal, I believe most farmers did not vote "Yes" in the Lisbon treaty referendum. Many farmers will say that. Should we not try to spread out the workload of the Ministers and Ministers of State who are working on behalf of the farming and fisheries lobbies? It is not right that a single Minister — the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith — is trying to fight the case for fishermen and farmers at two separate tables.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is going beyond the question before the House.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do we have an opportunity to offer the Minister some extra assistance?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure that is a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fine Gael, before last year's general election, called for the establishment of a single Department of the marine. I would like to hear the Minister's opinion on that proposal.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a Minister of State with responsibility for fisheries. The existing model is potentially an effective way of representing this country's fishing and farming interests. Ultimately, we need to continue our collective dialogue with the two domestic interest groups mentioned by Deputy McHugh on the issues they have raised. Continuing dialogue and engagement is equally important in the context of the European Union. As Deputy O'Keeffe said, we need to build friendships and alliances if we are to encourage others to understand our case. That is one of the significant challenges this country faces in the context of its membership of the European Union. Notwithstanding recent events, we need to try to maintain those alliances and preserve the goodwill that exists, in the interests of the farming and fisheries industries. The result of last week's referendum does not alter this country's requirement to engage with the EU's institutions and personnel, including Commissioners, on these specific issues and policies.

Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like some clarification. We have to face the fact that we are entering difficult times in terms of Ireland's place at the heart of Europe. A great deal could have been done to inform people. In particular, we should have ensured that farmers understood the implications of a "No" vote. I do not believe that was done. I wonder why we did not hear from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during the debate on the Lisbon treaty. If I understand it correctly, the mandate given by the EU to Commissioner Mandelson for the WTO talks is based on the 2003 CAP reforms. We are due to have a CAP health check later this year. That will ultimately form the basis of the final deal that is done at WTO level, which will affect the farming industry in this country. My most significant fear is that the interests of Irish farmers have been exposed, as a result of the rejection of the treaty in last Friday's referendum. How do the Minister and his Government colleagues plan to deal with the exposure of the Irish farming industry, in the context of the WTO talks?

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If we are to go back to the people, I want the farmers to be on board. They have always been strongly pro-Europe. I get the feeling that the WTO talks are running into the sands.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are dead.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that the case? I do not expect the Doha round to be concluded in the foreseeable future.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Creighton referred to the CAP health check as a precursor to what will emerge from the WTO talks. She is right to suggest that we face a significant challenge in this regard. As I said earlier in response to Deputy O'Keeffe, we can negotiate from a position of strength if we build alliances and ensure that we are at the heart of things. We face significant challenges in terms of negotiating well. We are committed to that. It is important that we secure the best deal we can for Irish agriculture. We will work on that basis with our European Union colleagues.

I assure Deputy O'Keeffe that some momentum is coming from the WTO itself. Pascal Lamy is trying to arrange a ministerial conference. It was meant to happen in June but as far as I am aware that is now unlikely. Commissioner Mandelson appeared clear in his mind during the last meeting held in May that the conditions were ripe for a ministerial conference.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope the Minister told him to dream on.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I offered the strong opinion, as did other countries, that we did not believe the conditions were ripe for a ministerial conference and that the package presented was not acceptable under any heading be it NAMA, emerging economies and so on. Several countries stated there that was no point in agreeing a deal simply to meet a particular timetable such as the conclusion of the presidential elections. In other words, that we had better move now before the new president is elected as he or she may have a different perspective on protectionism or free trade issues.

There is no point in rushing into an unacceptable deal knowing a new president may take a different approach to this. It would make far better sense for us to stand back and re-evaluate where we are. The world is changing fast in terms of food security and what are now termed as emerging economies. The next decade will bring much more than emerging economies from what I can see. We need to be careful in terms of how we proceed. From our perspective very little progress has been on the NAMA issues. Also, the agricultural deal is unacceptable to us.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As there is not enough time to move on to the next question, I invite Deputy Timmins to ask a supplementary question in regard to the WTO round and its consequences for Lisbon.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no further questions for the Minister.