Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 8: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the Special Summit of EU Heads of Government with the US President in Prague; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15140/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 9: To ask the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in the EU-US summit in Prague on 5 April 2009. [15142/09]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 10: To ask the Taoiseach the foreign visits he plans to undertake during the remainder of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15546/09]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 11: To ask the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the June 2009 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15566/09]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 12: To ask the Taoiseach the foreign trips he will undertake during the remainder of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15569/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 13: To ask the Taoiseach his plans for official trips abroad for the remainder of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15590/09]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 14: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the Special EU-US Summit in Prague. [16421/09]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 15: To ask the Taoiseach his priorities for the June 2009 European Council meeting. [16422/09]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 16: To ask the Taoiseach the international official visits he plans for the remainder of 2009. [16423/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 17: To ask the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the June 2009 summit of EU leaders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16715/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 18: To ask the Taoiseach his plans to meet other EU leaders in advance of the June 2009 summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16716/09]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 18, inclusive, together.

On Sunday 5 April I travelled to Prague to participate in the EU-US Summit. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin. This meeting, attended by President Obama, took place against the backdrop of the London G20 Summit on 2 April and the NATO Summit on 3 and 4 April. The EU-US relationship is of paramount importance, bilaterally and in the context of tackling global challenges. Among the key issues we discussed in Prague were the global economic crisis, energy and climate change, and regional affairs, including the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On my travel plans for the remainder of 2009, it is my intention to attend the Eastern Partnership Summit on 7 May in Prague. I will also attend the European Council meetings scheduled for 18-19 June, 29-30 October and 10-11 December. I have not yet received an agenda for the European Council on 18-19 June and I currently have no meetings with other EU leaders scheduled ahead of the Council.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Is it the Taoiseach's intention that he will go to the Council on 29-30 October having held a referendum on the Lisbon treaty? He has had discussions with colleagues on the timing of that referendum but no date has been set. I presume the October Council will be the outer limit for having a decision here, or am I mistaken in that? Does the Taoiseach share my belief that it would be helpful to indicate a date early so the campaign in support of the Lisbon treaty could begin rather than having it deferred and distracted by other political issues that perhaps were a factor in the previous campaign.

Was there a discussion at those Councils on different models for addressing the banking crisis? The German approach deserves more attention by our Government. It requires the separation of the good element of banks from within the existing banks as opposed to what is being proposed by Government. Did he have the opportunity to examine different models and draw on the experience of other leaders as to their merits and suitability? The Taoiseach will know there is a growing opinion among the economic community that the solutions being pursued by most governments are expensive for taxpayers and uncertain in their outcomes for banks. An alternative approach that focuses attention on the creation of a good bank that could borrow is being championed by many. Taxpayers' effort focuses on the good bank, not the legacy, which is left to fend for itself over time. That is the right way. It will need co-ordination across countries so that it is not just one country pursuing it. It has great attractions and I would be interested to hear whether the Taoiseach was able to explore that.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot anticipate the date of the referendum. It will depend on how everything ends up at the June Council meeting. I take the general point that it would be important thereafter to try to come to a conclusion on the best time to hold the referendum and have everybody behind a "Yes" campaign who was behind it the last time. People are examining that as we speak. There is no great difference of opinion between us. I cannot say whether there will be a referendum before the October Council meeting. The Government will have to decide on that and in the context of our discussions we will have to ensure, as a precondition for our holding a referendum, that we get what we sought. Let that process proceed and things will become clearer after the June Council meeting, we hope.

There are EU guidelines on impaired assets. On that matter and the recapitalisation question, Chancellor Merkel emphasised at the outset that this is a tool kit and it is a matter for member states to choose. There is no uniform way by which member governments will come up with a solution to this problem across the union. There are different requirements, circumstances and types of problems. The broad EU guidelines that have been set out ensure it is done within a framework that is understood by everybody and involves the Commission, and ensures whatever action is taken is done in as co-ordinated a fashion as possible.

We work on the basis of advice from people with market ability and experience in the NTMA and others. We have put forward our proposals on the basis of seeking to protect taxpayers' interests in a way that will, hopefully, try to overcome this problem. The challenge is to underpin domestic and international confidence in our banking system and at the same time have people face up to the writing down requirements that exist to deal with the legacy issues, as Deputy Bruton describes them, separately from the core franchise in which banks should operate.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it still the Government's intention to have agreement concluded at the June summit on the texts required to enable the Government to bring forward a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty? What progress has been made on the development of those texts and at what point will the main Opposition parties be advised as to that progress? Did I detect from the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Bruton that there is some doubt that the agreement on those matters might be concluded at the June summit?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, I was being appropriate in not presuming on agreement until agreement and approval is provided. The Council meeting is the format in which a formal decision will be taken in that respect. In the meantime much preparatory work is being undertaken. We are working with the Presidency, which has had its own difficulties in terms of the Czech Republic's domestic politics. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has been in discussion with Mr. Alexandr Vondra from that Government on many occasions and continues to do so. Work at a technical level continues with the legal services people and the Commission. I spoke to President Barroso on the last occasion I attended a Council meeting and I intend in the coming weeks to discuss the matter with Opposition leaders.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the EU Council meeting in June address the so-called guarantees which the Taoiseach and his Government indicated have been won in principle? Will those guarantees be addressed at the EU Council meeting? Can the Taoiseach advise what stage these guarantees have reached? Are they in draft form? Have they moved forward from principles to actual texts? Is he prepared to publish those texts? If not, will he indicate the stage he is now at in the preparation of texts and when he hopes to have a conclusion with regard to same with his EU Council member participants? Concerning that, what mechanism is intended to make these guarantees legally binding? That is the critical interest of many people, including this Deputy.

Will the summit consider the report on active dialogue with citizens on Europe which was recently adopted by the EU Parliament? Has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to read the report? If so, did he note and does he agree with what I can only regard as its insulting conclusion that "the less educated and the less affluent a Union citizen is the more likely he or she will be to oppose further European integration".

We see here a report that equates lack of affluence with ignorance. That is an outrageous view and it was adopted by the EU Parliament. What it actually shows is the arrogance of the EU elite. As the report goes on to state, there certainly is a failure in communication but the failure is not on the part of the EU in communicating its position. That is understood. The failure is on the part of the EU to listen to its citizens. That is exemplified in the Government's position and that of its counterparts within the European elite in respect of the referenda results regarding the EU Constitution-Lisbon treaties vis-À-vis Ireland, France and the Netherlands.

If the Taoiseach has not had the chance to read the report, will he do so? Would he agree it is an outrageous assertion to imply that a lack of affluence means ignorance and that this is insulting to citizens of the member states and to the Irish in particular? What steps will he take to have that report challenged? Will it be addressed at the EU Council meeting in June? Will the Taoiseach accept that in the changing economic circumstances, and with the advent of a new EU election——

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a very long question.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——on 5 June, we now have an opportunity to enter into negotiations for a new treaty and to allow the Lisbon treaty to be buried with some dignity?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Obviously, I do not agree with the analysis of the Deputy in many respects, regardless of the specific report which I have not seen and on which I cannot comment. A more benign interpretation of the situation might be to say that unless we have a socially inclusive Europe, the relevance of Europe to ordinary citizens is not as obvious as it is to those who see the benefits of the economic and social construct of the European Union at present. I would be very surprised if the report were to be, given the Deputy's interpretation, but I have not seen it and am not in a position to comment on it with any degree of accuracy.

However, that would be my understanding of the point that people are trying to make. Europe must be meaningful for everybody and this must be on the basis of the social market economy which we are trying to develop. The integration of the European Union and its economy has brought us very many benefits. It has enabled us to earn a standard of living for our people far in excess of anything we might have hoped for if we had been dealing simply with a free trade area or an area that did not have common rules or was not so protective of the integrity of the Single Market that enables smaller countries, or smaller economic actors, among the big developed economies. We have been able to compete on the basis of a rules-based system that is at the centre of what the European Union has been about, namely, consolidarity and developing the Union and the nation states within it to the greatest extent possible on the basis of common policies. That would be my analysis of the situation, rather than the Deputy's. We must agree to disagree on that.

The other 26 member states asked us to deal with the concerns we have identified in respect of our rejection of the Lisbon treaty. An all-party sub-committee met and was very ably chaired and attended by Members of the House. The House did itself a great favour with the quality of the work that was done and the report that emerged. I commend everybody who was part of that process which enhanced the parliamentary process in Ireland. The majority of that committee came to the analysis, backed by empirical survey evidence, that the Irish remain very pro-European in sentiment and are supportive of the Union but obviously have concerns they want addressed. On the basis of very broad consultative process, listening to the varying views of people and various sides of the argument, the all-party sub-committee helpfully came forward with a very coherent analysis of the areas we must address to try to assuage people's concerns.

At the Council meeting in December we saw a lot of goodwill and solidarity towards Ireland and acceptance and respect for the fact that we have had these concerns. Our partners wish to help us address them adequately so that our people can look to this issue again. The contention that the rejection of the treaty means that the people are opposed to the European Union or opposed in principle to the integration of the European economy does not hold water when one analyses the sentiments people expressed. We must address certain questions and reassure people on certain issues. One of the great problems is that exaggerated arguments are made to the contrary in respect of issues that are not in the treaty at all. That does not contribute to an informed democratic debate. There have been many instances of this.

A far more moderate and accurate assessment of the situation is that, out of respect for the vote of the people, we seek to address the issues identified as those which have caused most concern and on which people need reassurance. In respect of the guarantees we received, it has been made clear by our colleagues that they do not wish to reopen the re-ratification of the treaty in their own national parliaments or in their own countries. However, they are prepared to give legal effect to those issues for which we sought legal guarantees in respect of subsequent accession treaties that would be ratified, and to incorporate them in that way. That is a mutually satisfactory conclusion at which to arrive given the necessity for us to try to address the issues involved and at the same time to respect the decision of others to ratify the treaty under their own constitutional arrangements.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Contrary to what Deputy Ó Caoláin asserted, in the lead up to the Lisbon treaty the EU was more involved in listening than it had ever been. The Minister of State, Deputy Carey, and Deputies from all parties were involved in exhaustive work, preparing the ground for the treaty. It is not that the elite is not listening. However, given the very good work of the sub-committee on Ireland's future in the European Union, does the Taoiseach envisage any further work for that group now that the Forum on Europe no longer exists? Does he believe it has a continuing role?

Finally, in respect of the frameworks for financial dealings with the banks, the EU has not included in its list the type of framework suggested by the famous economist, Joseph Stiglitz, and several other people including George Soros, namely, this "good bank" creation. Would the Taoiseach seek to have that as part of the framework, so that at least this option would be on the table and examined as part of the menu? The Government has not looked at it to date and I believe it offers really good prospects for governments right across the EU. Could he, perhaps, pursue it as a matter that should be put on the list?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach did not respond to my specific questions on whether the guarantees have been committed to paper in text form, what point this process has reached and what measures he envisages bringing forward in terms of their legally binding status. While Deputy Bruton referred to my point about not listening, he spoke only about the lead-up to the Lisbon treaty. My point is that the Government has failed to listen to the result of the referendum, and since.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I do not wish to be argumentative, I do not accept that we have not been listening. We have been involved in an all-party initiative on trying to come up with constructive proposals that move us forward while at the same time upholding our national interests. Ultimately, the people will be the arbiter of these decisions. That is part of the democratic life of the country. I do not accept the idea that we must not discuss this matter any further or decide that there are ways forward other than — as Deputy Ó Caoláin would contend — a total rejection of the treaty, seeking to impose a position that the other 26 member states must accept. They want to help us find a solution to this problem other than the one Deputy Ó Caoláin suggests. In my opinion, his suggestion would have very severe consequences for our national interests. That is my strongly held view and the idea that we can come to decisions on various issues while believing there are no political consequences is very naive.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, it is not.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is very naive in my view.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a neutral position.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is my view and the Deputy has a different view. That is fair enough and we will accept that.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will accept that, but I did not brand the Taoiseach's opinion and I do not like mine being branded either.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The time is practically up anyway.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not brand his opinion, so he should not brand mine. It is genuinely held and a wholly sustainable position.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should let the Taoiseach finish.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is absolutely sustainable in its own terms, but it has no political consequences that would add to our position. That is the problem. It just brings everything to an end and leaves us there.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, it does not.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It absolutely does and it suggests——

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a new beginning.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a new beginning without us at the centre. That is the problem.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, not at all.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

More relevantly, on the Deputy's question, obviously the deliberative process is ongoing. When the texts are agreed and become available, we can discuss them and argue them out. However, while discussions are taking place, there is a deliberative process in train which has to be gone through. We are engaged with the Presidency and legal services on these issues.

On Deputy Bruton's point, we should examine how the Oireachtas might use this democratic forum as a means of helping to put forward views and listening to various ideas. We should consider it in the context of how we might add to people's understanding of the broad issues and the context of the decisions we will have to take. I have no problem with that.

Regarding the "impaired assets" to which he referred, obviously ECOFIN and the eurogroup will look at any ideas that are put forward to see whether they can be agreed and incorporated into the wider framework. That is a matter, in the first instance, for the eurogroup, which will come before the European Council in due course.