Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I begin by complimenting her on her presentation, particularly in respect of our Presidency and all the ways in which she has been preparing for that. It is good to hear that information, particularly the ongoing work to promote greater equality, social cohesion and inclusion in Europe, areas in which I am particularly interested.

I also want to compliment the Minister for State on her work in assisting the Taoiseach in the recent European Council meeting. In particular, I acknowledge the clarity of her communication with the Irish public during those two very stressful days. It is critical that the public knows exactly what is going on. These are complex issues, as the Minister of State well knows. However, she also knows that complexity should not be a cloak for less transparency. This is why I particularly welcome her support for public discussion and engagement in EU affairs during the Presidency and I will support her in any way possible.

My comments will focus on that two-day Council meeting. The Minister of State provided us with some information on that meeting, which was very helpful this morning. I still want to raise the question of how we should interpret the negotiations that took place during that meeting as well as the various statements that were released. Even with the Minister of State's presentation this morning, I am still left wondering about Germany's position. Are Germany's stance and Chancellor Merkel's statements merely a negotiating position? For example, is it possible that Germany may have accepted that retroactive recapitalisation will happen? That is, as the Minister of State is aware, the breaking of the link between sovereign and bank debt that could help us with regard to our historic debt. Is it attempting to improve the terms on which that will happen? Is it not the case that Germany first demanded that progress be made on the banking union before the ESM could be used for direct recapitalisation and that this was agreed in June, with most states aiming for the single supervisory mechanism to be established by 2013? It now appears that Germany is arguing that the ESM may be not be ready until 2014, raising the possibility that Germany is simply delaying the establishment of the ESM so that it can continue blocking the commencement of direct recapitalisation.

I was very struck by recent journalistic observations on collective EU decision making. Will the Minister of State comment on this? Collective EU decision making has been characterised by a tendency to make commitments only in moments of crisis. In this regard, one should consider the context in which the June bank recapitalisation deal occurred. There is often unwillingness to carry through on such commitments when matters have stabilised, as was a characteristic of the past week. Hesitancy exists over implementation. I am sure the Minister of State is frustrated with this also. It is problematic and can create the conditions for the next moment of crisis in which commitments will be renewed and ignored again.

There were other issues discussed at the meeting and it was great to hear the Minister of State outline some of those. However, as she knows, they were overshadowed in the Irish media reports by the confusion over the bank recapitalisation deal.

There was some discussion on the preparation for the European Union's next seven-year budget, which will be decided at the special summit next month. Britain, in particular, has opposed any increase in the EU budget, but the Commission is asking for ¤5.9 billion from member states. While it does not appear that the Government has indicated major opposition to the size of the proposed budget, it is possible that negotiations could stall and carry over into the Irish Presidency. This is doubtlessly a point of concern for the Government. Could the Minister of State provide us with information on the Government's stance on the EU budget negotiations?

I listened carefully to the information the Minister of State provided us with on the Council meeting. It appeared that the meeting ignored many of the social consequences of the crisis. That is disappointing given that the Council meeting was, for once, not taking place at a moment of acute financial crisis. We witnessed several events in the preceding weeks that could and should have pushed some of the social issues to the fore. These include the mass protests, strikes and riots in Spain, the protests in Greece and the growing strength and influence of the far-right political movement in Greece. There was some hope that moving out of a state of permanent financial crisis would have allowed leaders time to discuss the resulting social crises in peripheral economies. If the Minister of State has any more information to share in this regard, perhaps she might provide it to us. Has there been any discussion on the social effects of the crisis? When might there be a discussion on this? The European Union is a union of economies and societies. How can the link between society and the economy be made visible to citizens?