Listen to NEAR fm's half-hour summary>>
Access Photos for this session via the Forum's Facebook page>>
THE SESSION COMMENCED ON THURSDAY, 3RD APRIL 2008
Opening remarks from Chairman Maurice Hayes
Concluding remarks from Chairman Maurice Hayes
Welcome all to the ninetieth plenary meeting of the National Forum On Europe. Since the beginning of the year the Forum has focussed exclusively on the new Treaty, both in our plenary meetings and in a series of public meetings which we are conducting around the country. Since our last plenary before St Patrick's day we have had six public meetings and I will talk about plans for forthcoming ones at the end of the session.
We have canvassed a very wide range of issues relating to the Treaty and it seems timely to have a more focused discussion on key areas for Ireland. One broad area of common concern which has arisen in the local meetings is the economic impact of the Treaty. The economic benefits of Ireland's membership of Europe have been widely acknowledged, but many of those opposed to the Treaty believes it poses economic risks, for example, to public services and to fair trade.
The theme for today's meeting then is: The Economic Implications of the Treaty: a good deal for Ireland? Today's meeting is structured around presentations, the main presentation by Peter Sutherland and a response to that by Mary Lou McDonald and then we will throw it open to the Forum in the usual way. Then both of them will come in at the end.
It is a great pleasure to welcome both of them to the Forum again. Peter Sutherland has spoken before, chairman of BP and Goldman Sachs International. He was the first Director of the World Trade Organisation and served as EU Commissioner for Competition Policy after a very distinguished political career in Ireland, culminating in holding the office of Attorney General.
Mary Lou McDonald, Member of the European Parliament for Dublin is Chairperson of Sinn Fein's Ard Comhairle. She is a regular contributor to our debates and she has agreed to make the case today against the Treaty's economic implications for Ireland.
So it is with great pleasure indeed that I now ask Peter Sutherland to address the Forum.
Let me preface my remarks by saying that in the end of the day the real issue about this referendum is whether we, as a people, subscribe not merely to an aspiration but to a reality in terms of the European integration process, whether we believe that our rhetoric and the benefits that we have achieved are going to be supplemented or damaged by the Lisbon Treaty.
What has created the longest period of sustained peace in Europe is the construction that is unique in the world. It requires a certain generosity of spirit as well as a political understanding to recognise that sharing sovereignty is an act of generosity but also an act of self‑interest.
The vision of the founding fathers of the EU was to create an example for the rest of the world, an example which allows people to live together in harmony and to develop with a context of inter‑dependence. For me, it is a noble ideal and one which I have always been proud to support. The history that has brought us to where we are today, starting with the Congress of the Hague followed by the Coal and Steel Community, then the aborted Defence Community of 1954, the Treaty of Rome and, ultimately, moving towards our own accession, and then the series of referenda that we have had since that accession around other treaties.
Ireland, I have always believed, has a particular contribution to make to European integration. A small country making up now less then 1 per cent of the total population of the European Union, but even before its successive enlargements a tiny part of the European Union has been given, at various stages, a very prominent role to play both in terms of the personnel and we have held, I would argue, the three most active and probably most important commissionerships in the European Union, currently the Internal Market, previously Ray McSharry Agriculture and at an earlier stage my own portfolio of Competition. Today an Irish woman is the Secretary General, the highest civil servant in the European Union.
We have made contributions as various stages and I would like to pay tribute at this moment in time in the context of today's discussion to the contribution made by An Taoiseach to the Constitutional Treaty itself which has provided the core for the Treaty which we are now debating because the adoption of that following the Convention was a contribution made by an Irish Presidency and that is something which should be recognised and remembered, and certainly I want to make that point here today.
I believe, in general again, before getting on to the specifics, that we can only make the contribution that we should make as a people, a unique contribution because of our history, a unique contribution because of our linkages with other parts of the world through missionaries and through NGOs, if we are in the core group of the European Union committed to this process of integration which, to me, is so important.
This particular Treaty is, by far, in my opinion, the most minor of the treaties that have been put before the Irish people in the succession of referenda that we have had to face over the years because of the strictures and strictness of our Constitutional provision. It does not surprise me that no other country, representing the other 99 per cent of the population of the European Union, appears likely, at this stage, to have a referendum.
The Treaty of Lisbon is, however, a complex document. Previous amendments to the Treaty of Rome, which have been submitted to referenda here have also been complex documents and, unfortunately, that gives the opening for the most absurd and exaggerated propositions as to what the treaties actually contained. Who remembers today the apocalyptic scenarios that were treated in the debate about the Treaty of Nice? Who even remembers what the arguments were that caused us to vote against the Treaty of Nice? I remember reading an Irish correspondent who travelled after that No vote through Poland being remonstrated with, as he reported it in one of our newspapers, by everybody in the central and eastern European block who had waited so long to join the European Union because we, of all people, had voted no, presumably terrorised by arguments which we now cannot even remember and which had clearly no substance, no more than any of the previous arguments that we had heard advanced at the time of our accession, the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty. One can go on and on. Dealing with arguments which have not merely been rejected everywhere else, in this case in every parliament in Europe by overwhelming majorities with one or two exceptions, and by an overwhelming majority in the European Parliament. Have we got some unique capacity to divine real meanings in the words of treaties that nobody else sees? Certainly the history of the No campaigners does not lead to any confidence that that is an accurate description, quite the reverse.
Of course, the Treaty itself is difficult and complicated. It has to be difficult or complicated. If it was written like the US Constitution in a series of headlines, then the arguments of the No campaigners, conjuring up all types of appalling scenarios, would be given free reign. One can imagine what would happen in the extreme right in the United Kingdom, which has been probably the most viscerally anti European of all. One can imagine what they would say the interpretations of the Court of Justice would be to this, or the interpretation would be to that. They point to the fact that the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which was anti‑slavery, has been used by the US Supreme Court to alter company law and they would be right. They would look at our own Constitution and they talk about the promulgation of the rights of the individual which are not in the Constitution, but have been read and interpreted from it, even though when it was presented in the Dáil prior to the '37 adoption, we were told or the Irish people were told that it was a headline for the legislature no more.
I don't object to what has happened. That is the nature of Constitutions which give wide scope, wide scope for interpretation and, therefore, this is complicated but I don't apologise for it. It is complicated and the Forum, thank God, is here to help us to interpret it. And this Constitution, the original Constitution I should say, was adopted by the parliaments and peoples in a couple of cases of 18 countries overwhelmingly.
But now we have a Treaty which has had a painful birth in the sense that after that those votes in the Netherlands and in France, incidentally motivated by everything under the sun other than the Treaty itself; motivated by not liking Mr Chirac, motivated by worrying about Turkish accession, motivated by migration, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, those votes took place.
Now the question here I have been asked to address, which is difficult enough, is what immediate effects has this Treaty on the Irish economy. Well let me say that there is very little and there is certainly nothing in any of the opposition arguments that I have read that links any dramatic change in this document to economic policy.
I should say also, before going further, that if I had my way, I would have gone a lot further in this Constitutional Treaty than they actually have gone. The argument to me is not that they have gone too far, it is that they have not gone far enough but it was as much as we could get, particularly having regard to the some of the opposition from a couple of Member States that inhibited the further direction of the European Union towards greater integration.
Before making specific observations, let me make a couple of general ones on the economic aspects of Irish membership. The Chairman has made the point that nobody could do other by implication, he said, than recognise that the European Union has been vital for the Irish economy. It has been the essential base for the dynamism, particularly over the period since the early '90s, because the 1992 project and the Single European Act that brought in Qualified Majority Voting in respect of various provisions previously requiring unanimity has created an area of free movement of goods, persons, capital and services of which Ireland is the greatest beneficiary in Europe, which has been a tremendous success for us.
I needn't tell you how this has changed us, as also has the generosity and transfers that we have received at various stages during our period of membership of around 4 per cent of GDP during the '70s and '80s incidentally. But we have not been alone in this. Some of the comments by the No voters here say that somehow peripheral countries, countries on the extremes are somehow losers in Europe. This is absolutely at variance with the facts.
Denmark, Finland, Austria and Sweden have had significantly higher growth than the central core countries of the European Union. Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria and ourselves have done likewise. So have Spain. The countries that have the greatest benefit of having an internal marketing function and which, incidentally, broke the unleveraged previous economic relationship, which was all that we had, with the United Kingdom, has been provided by the European Union.
And so also with our joining the Euro bringing us into a single currency area, I am quite sure a courageous step I should say, I should say also had a significant effect on inward investment of a kind which we today, incidentally, should be particularly grateful for, having regard to turmoil in other markets.
But in purely political terms as well, we have been transformed for the better. Without being a member in good standing, and let me underline that word, in good standing of the EU, how often would our Taoiseach have bilateral meetings with the Chancellor of Germany or the President of France? How would our opinions count at the Councils of Europe? Not at all would be a fair and accurate description.
So, where we are now, following all of the referenda that have been so vigorously fought on totally spurious grounds, totally spurious grounds in the past is facing yet again the same arguments. We are hearing arguments about neutrality. Spare me. We have heard this so many times and it has proved to be a totally illusory argument from day one. Our special position has been dramatically and effectively included in various treaties, including the Lisbon Treaty. Unanimity is required. The arguments simply don't hold water but I would be interested in hearing any of them because I will respond to them.
Now, if we have arguments about the various referenda that we have had in the past and the issues that they have given rise to, what real issues can we argue about or can we see as being substantive in terms of this debate? One argument that is advanced is that we will lose a Commissioner for one‑third, one five year period out of 15 after 2014. Now that, incidentally, was accepted in principle in the Nice Treaty but let's assume that it wasn't and that this is something we had to do or consider. Does anybody not think that this would be something that might worry France, Germany, the United Kingdom that they won't have a Commissioner? Would this not be considered to be something that they might be concerned about? But perhaps they have recognised the absolutely clear fact that having 26 or moving to over 30 Member States of the European Union and treating Commissioners as if they are national representatives, some of whom will have no portfolios at all, even though they have all taken an oath, incidentally, to put Europe ahead of their own national interests, is utterly destructive of the Commission. And the Commission is vital for the future of Ireland and the support, in particular, of the countries that are smallest in the European Union. So, to me, this is an non argument.
Then there is an argument that there are additional powers or competences. I have seen a figure of 105 new powers. I would love to see a list of the 105 new powers because there are not 105 new powers. Basically the competences, apart from Justice and Home Affairs of the European Union under the Treaty are not touched.
The arguments about the effect of a No vote, because that also could lead to economic consequences, are worth exploring a little bit.
If Ireland were to vote No in this referendum and if, as appears highly likely, everybody else votes Yes, what happens next? Well we know what happened next after the Nice Treaty but what happens in this particular case? I think that there would, first of all, be a sense of outrage which would permeate Europe as a whole. Secondly, the point might be made that you would need a very good argument which was peculiar to Ireland or had a substance that nobody else in Europe had been able to divine, as I said earlier, to justify the position. There is no such argument.
This argument falls by the wayside because this is a Treaty which merely deals with efficiency, transparency and more democracy. More democracy by giving a greater role by far to the European Parliament. More transparency in terms of national parliaments, the time that they have to consider and the opportunities given to reflect upon. More democracy even with this petition procedure, although I think it unlikely to be greatly used that is allowed for the peoples of Europe. So I cannot see how this argument holds any water at all.
So to come back to the question as to what would happen next. I don't believe I need worry about this greatly because I believe that the Irish people are certainly going to vote yes. But if it were to happen, I think the European Union would turn to Ireland and say don't ask us what we are going to do next, we are going to ask you what you are going to do next. Do you really believe that you should stop something that everybody else in Europe wants to proceed with? If you don't, what do you now intend to do? Step aside?
Then we have a question which bemuses me, but it was a headline in one particular report, that in some way the headline was: Peter Mandelson's control over Irish farming was going to be enhanced. There is no change apart from enhancing the powers of the European Parliament, not merely in respect of the budget but in respect of agriculture and every other policy. I don't know what that can possibly refer to? Where on earth did it come from? The only charitable thing I can say is that maybe it is related to the rotation of commissioners and in some way that is being dragged into that argument.
In the magisterial report of the House of Lords in Britain, which is a very comprehensive analysis, or if you look at the Danish Department of Justice or the Dutch Council of State Reports you will find that there is no evidence whatsoever of any change in any interpretation of agriculture powers, or indeed in competences generally and yet we are told that there are 105 new competences. But perhaps they have all missed something that they should have spotted.
There are references to a number of policy areas; climate change, energy and so on, and very proper that they should be included as well. They were not, of course, excluded from previous activities of the European Union because they were brought in under other headings, like the internal market or competition policy and so on. But it was felt that in the nature of the times in which we live that it is important that there should be a clear legal base, a legal base which is specific for the discussion and development of policies in these vital areas for the future of mankind. That, to my mind, is absolutely clear. It is absolutely clear and clearly necessary.
Finally, coming back, because so much of the debate here seems to revolve around it, to this absolutely illusory, in my opinion illusory issue of neutrality. As I have said, the Treaty goes to great lengths to deal with the Irish case. Unanimity is preserved. So, too, is the virtual compulsory and embarrassing, to me at least, reference to our special position, but I know some people believe that that is very important. And Ireland, finally, still has all the triple lock that has been referred to in the past - of parliament, Dáil, government and UN mandate as a requirement for any action on these areas. Otherwise, frankly, I don't see what the argument is about, but I am hoping to be enlightened this morning and to have the opportunity to respond. (Applause)
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed for that. Now Mary Lou McDonald, please.
I came with the intention of focusing my remarks solely on economic matters, because I understood that that was our principle concern, but as Mr Sutherland has broadened the picture, I will return in kind as I make my remarks.
I want to start by saying that Lisbon is not asking us, the Irish people, to adjudicate on whether or not Ireland should be in the European Union. Ireland's place is in Europe, at the heart of Europe, we are in good standing and we will remain so. But it is important that Ireland has a strong voice at EU level and that we use this strength positively and effectively in the national interests and in the European interests.
One of the key reasons why Sinn Féin and I oppose this Treaty is that it continues the onward trend of centralising power within the European Union. We believe this is not just bad for Ireland but it is bad for the European model. We believe that the Lisbon Treaty would undermine Irish influence in the EU institutions. If Lisbon is passed, Ireland will lose our automatic right to a Commissioner and this will leave us without a voice at a critical table of decision at critical times. And some may argue a rather spurious equality argument that equally countries such as France and Germany would find themselves in the same position. But the point is this, Ireland is a small Member State, in the power structures that are the European Union it would simply be delusional to imagine that we occupy the same position of power and influence or strength within the EU institutions as those countries. Under Lisbon our voting strength at Council of Ministers would be halved. The EU would have additional powers, over a hundred of them.
I am happy to tell Peter I have a list of them here. I should also inform him though estimates on the number of figures differ. That the Irish Government reckon that the figure is somewhere in the thirties as does this Forum, unlike us who have actually gone through the Treaty, it seems that the Government are relying on the Schumann Foundation for their figures.
In addition, Article 48 of the Treaty gives the EU power to amend its own treaties and provides for a shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting in a broad range of areas, including taxation. It is my view that the Irish government absolutely failed to protect the Irish national interest during the negotiations both for the EU Constitution and its offshoot the Lisbon Treaty. I believe the Treaty should be rejected in the upcoming referendum and that EU leaders and, in particular, the Irish negotiator should be sent back to the drawing board.
I want to address a number of economic issues, some of which have arisen here and others that have been commented on as our debate has unfolded. You see, I agree with Peter Sutherland when he says that Europe is crucial for Ireland and indeed building a prosperous and an equal economy is at the core of Sinn Fein's vision for Ireland. But this in no way contradicts our opposition to Lisbon.
I think it is deeply misleading of those proponents of the Lisbon Treaty who have to insinuate that somehow if the people of this State vote in referendum that we will undermine our capacity to attract foreign direct investment. I believe that this, and it has been regularly used, is nothing more than a scare tactic from those who are unwilling to debate the actual substance of the Treaty.
Foreign direct investment to Ireland has been a significant factor in the way in which our economy has developed and thousands of jobs have been created, particularly in the IT and pharmaceutical sectors. And I believe that foreign direct investment will indeed continue to form an important strand in Ireland's economic development. Indeed, next month Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness will be leading a major investment conference on this matter in Belfast.
Ireland must ensure that we remain attractive as a location for investment in the future, and we must equally ensure that we don't make the mistake of focussing exclusively on FDI to the exclusion of the development of our indigenous sector and small and medium sized enterprise, because, as we know, it is the SME sector that continues to create most jobs across Europe.
It is very clear that Ireland is facing a number of challenges. The challenge of an economy in transition, international circumstances, oil crisis, the value of the dollar, the international credit crunch pose serious challenges to our economic health. We have a slow down in construction on which the economy had become over reliant. There has been a string of job losses recently and we face serious competition from low wage economies.
We are also carrying very serious domestic deficits in terms of physical infrastructure, in terms of public services, education, research and development, and I don't happen to believe that a one size fits all economic policy is what Ireland needs. Our economy, one of the most open in the western world, looks as much west to the USA as it does east to Europe. What is critical is that we develop a strategy for the next generation of jobs in the Irish economy. We need to integrate our economies north and south, we need to invest in indigenous business and we need to find new ways of attracting foreign direct investment. The fact is that we can't compete with emerging economies on the basis of low cost. So we need to improve competitiveness by investing in infrastructure, in education, in particular, and in research and development. We also need to address our high cost base by investing in housing, health, childcare and public transport.
I want to say very clearly that the need to be competitive must not be used as cover to attack workers' terms and conditions or to casualise the workforce, pitting displaced Irish workers against cheaper migrant labour. Every successful economy that lies ahead of us in international competitiveness has invested in workers' rights and entitlements. A content workforce, a secure work force fuels a successful economy. And we, ladies and gentlemen, will face all of these challenges as full members of the European Union.
We need to ensure that EU policies and institutions do not hinder our efforts to ensure that Ireland is economically and socially successful. I think we can all agree that we need a strategy on all of these matters and that the Lisbon Treaty must be considered on its own merits. There are growing concerns, not least amongst Irish business, regarding how the Lisbon Treaty might impinge on taxation; corporation tax, in particular. The EU Commission has repeatedly and explicitly stated that it wishes to create a common consolidated tax base for the European Union. This, in the words of Commissioner McCreevy, would prove a trojan horse to setting common taxation rates.
Let there be no doubt about this, the EU, having secured its position in relation to monetary policy, now has its sights set on fiscal policy. Tax harmonisation has been repeatedly endorsed by the European Parliament, including by MEPs from Fine Gael and the Labour Party. The EU Commission has drafted proposals for introducing a common EU tax base but has postponed its publication for the time being.
Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty would permit the European Council to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in key areas, including company taxation. Proponents of this Treaty point to the fact that unanimity is still required on taxation matters. What they fail to add is that a mechanism to remove that very veto is contained in the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish people, therefore, would be reliant on every future Taoiseach to hold the line and given the political timidity that has been demonstrated, I believe the government is not convincing when they claim that they would defend Ireland's interest on this matter, irrespective of the political wishes of our EU partners.
It is worth noting, for instance, that the Irish Government wanted to keep a permanent Irish place at the Commission table during the talks on the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, but they gave in. Is there any reason for thinking that they would not do the same on the key matter of company taxes once these powers have been passed to the Council by ratifying the Lisbon Treaty? It is my firm belief that the system of taxation is properly a matter for this State to decide and the government ought to have secured an opt out for Ireland on all taxation related matters. They failed to do this.
There are other issues within the Lisbon Treaty that will negatively impact on key economic issues such as competitiveness, growth and social inclusion. The privatisation agenda of the EU has served Ireland badly. Look at the debacle at Eircom. Six ownerships since 1999, massive profit taking only matched by the company's debt creation and then, of course, there is the whole fiasco in the failure to invest in broadband network.
The liberalisation of the electricity market has led to higher energy prices to encourage new entrants we are told, while we slip behind in investing in and developing renewable energy sources which are so abundant on this island.
An EU survey showed that Irish consumers already pay 42 per cent more than the EU average for housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels, 25 per cent more for education and 24 per cent more for health. I believe the Lisbon Treaty will make the situation even worse. I believe that a particular concern is the possibility of our education and health sectors being open to privatisation.
The EU Commission, which leads negotiations on trade and services, including health and education at the WTO, the Council of Ministers appoints their negotiator, that is currently Peter Mandelson. Under Lisbon not only is the Commission given greater scope in the negotiation of international trade agreements, but Ireland loses its vetoes in all but a small number of cases. Under current arrangements the Council approves all trade deals with the exception of health, education and cultural and audio visual services by qualified majority voting. The Lisbon Treaty removes the requirement for unanimity in these four areas other than in exceptional circumstances. So, in other words, a government could not veto a deal unless it could show in advance that it would risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and, of course, there is no definition or sense of what this means and I believe that this could have serious consequences for health and education.
We are all aware of the need to manage inflation, but Article 2 of the Treaty makes price stability an aim of the EU rather than a function of the European Central Bank. This could be used by the EU to exert indirect pressure on Member States to reduce public spending and we need to consider this very closely because at a time when our health and education services are crying out for investment I believe this just does not make sense.
As we enter a period of economic uncertainty, it is clear to me that the Lisbon Treaty does not add anything in the way of equipping Ireland with the tools necessary for sustainable economic development or social inclusion. In some senses the debate in Lisbon is a debate about different visions for the future of the Irish and the EU economy. It is certainly a clash of ideas in terms of the development of Irish society.
Supporters of the Treaty offer a future of greater liberalisation, more competition, privatisation which will invariably lead to greater inequality, which will do nothing to address the very serious issues of poverty that we confront in Ireland and across the Union.
Mr Sutherland makes the points that some of the issues we address in this debate have been addressed before and he is right. That is, indeed, the case. Because the issues that are contested at the heart of the European project are ongoing ones. So, there is a clash of ideas, a clash of ideas over whether competition and the market must also be king; a position advocated by Mr Sutherland and others who share his view. And then there is another view that says there are certain sectors that are absolutely sacrosanct and that in fields such as health and education it is not desirable or appropriate that those services be run on a profit making basis. Those areas ought to be ring‑fenced and protected from market forces, because those services go to the very heart of citizens' rights and their enjoyment of a decent standard of living.
The neutrality issue is an issue for us again, of course, and I am sure, I feel certain that Peter Sutherland has read the Lisbon Treaty in full and no doubt repeatedly, so I am really astonished that he would have missed very crucial new provisions in this Treaty; provisions that would allow numbers of Members States to undertake ambitious military adventures that Ireland could not veto or stop, admittedly initiatives that Ireland would not necessarily have to commit troops to. But let's be very clear about this, that if groups of States undertake a military adventure in the name of the European Union, it is simply farcical to suggest that Ireland can distance itself from those initiatives. I think that anyone who argues that Irish neutrality is safe and sound need look no further than Shannon, look no further than there and see what has happened there and tell me in clear terms that Irish neutrality has not been undermined.
I don't believe that the Irish people will ratify a Treaty that, on the one hand, carries such dangers for vital public services, but which, on the other hand, asks us to sign up to open ended and ongoing commitments to military spending. I just don't believe that the public will buy that. I don't believe that it is in line with people's ambitions for Ireland or for Europe.
I want to say, because I am sure I am running out of time, just to finish up ‑‑
SPEAKER: (Inaudible).
CHAIRMAN: Please have a bit of courtesy, please.
SPEAKER: (Inaudible).
CHAIRMAN: No, please have a bit of courtesy.
MS McDONALD: We will have a chance to debate these matters.
We come at this debate in a very positive manner and I know for certain sure that Europe has offered some very good things to Ireland. I also believe that it has brought us some negatives. But what I am most clear on is that we need to have a full, fair and respectful debate about the type of European Union that we wish to fashion and Ireland's precise role in that. Those of us opposing the Treaty argue for a more sustainable and egalitarian future. We want economic development based on social inclusion. We want more than lip service paid to the environment. We demand high quality public services, greater democratic control over the management of the economy and a more equitable global order. Go raibh maith agat. (Applause)
CHAIRMAN: I've a lot of people asking to get in and I want to give the speakers adequate time to respond both in the middle and at the end, so I would ask people to be succinct and address their questions or comments to one or other or both of the speakers and to try and do it in two minutes or three at the outside. Mr Thomas Byrne, please, Fianna Fail.
DEPUTY BYRNE: Go raibh maith agat, Cathaoirleach. Cathaoirleach, with your indulgence, may I first just briefly pay tribute on behalf of Fianna Fail's delegation to An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. I think his contribution to the advancement of Ireland's place in Europe and its place in the world has been immense. I think his initiative indeed in setting up this Forum, and your appointment, Chairman, has been of huge benefit to public debate in discussing European issues.
Our delegation looks forward to his continuing role in the referendum, even as an ex‑Taoiseach and, indeed, we welcome his announcement yesterday, even in the height of all of the excitement and disappointment, of the date for the referendum of June 12th. I think passing the Treaty will not only benefit the country, but it will also be a fitting legacy to the Taoiseach's work on the European cause. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman, I would also like to apologise for Minister of State Dick Roche's absence. He is in the Dáil piloting the Referendum Bill at the moment and he has asked me to convey his apologies.
Fianna Fail believes that the Lisbon Treaty is a very good deal for Ireland and that its economic implications are only positive. So we welcome Peter Sutherland here today who is, I think, human proof positive of Ireland's central role in Europe. His example has been foreshadowed and repeated by a long line of distinguished Irish Commissioners, including Dick Burke, Michael O’Kennedy, Ray McSharry, Padraig Flynn, David Byrne and Charlie McCreevy.
I also welcome Mary Lou McDonald here today. Even though she might continue to claim that small countries are losing their voices, she is making a good go of things herself.
SPEAKER: Good point.
DEPUTY BYRNE: When we look at the economic data over the years, we see the overwhelming evidence, Chairman, of the benefits of Ireland's role in membership of the EU. In 1973 when we entered GDP, Irish GDP was 60 per cent of the then EEC average. It is now 144 per cent. The Single European Act has resulted in an increase of Irish exports in the last ten years from 45 billion to 87 billion.
I remember, Chairman, as a ten year old child, I think, whenever the Single European Act referendum was on, my parents keenly and eagerly going to the polling station to vote Yes, because they wanted a better future for all seven of us, and I think they were proved right then.
The Euro zone and the Euro currency has meant the end of disastrously super high interest rates. When the DeutscheBank increased interest rates we all knew what was next on the following day's news, the Irish Central Bank would have to follow suit because we had no real power in the world and at times we were flailing around in the international markets as a country and now we have a real and direct role in the currency and in the policy and its setting of interest rates. One million extra jobs have been created since 1973.
CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).
DEPUTY BYRNE: I know, Chairman. Let no‑one doubt this. This is a huge economic achievement and it is clearly a result of our European membership. Who would have thought this. But, Chairman, those who had the foresight and the vision to support EU entry and then enlargement were right. The short‑sighted people who were wrong at the start and wrong again and again are wrong now.
There are a number of claims made today, Chairman, and I think it is important that Fianna Fail responds to them. The issue of corporation tax is completely wrong, but it is also ironic, because I believe that Sinn Fein in their heart of hearts would only too ‑‑ delightedly raise corporation tax if they could.
The issue of a self‑amending treaty is another canard that is raised again in this one. The loss of our neutrality, again and again it is raised and again and again it has never been an issue. Massive transfers of competences and powers, this is repeated at every referendum and yet no examples can be given of how this supposedly disadvantages us. The loss of the influence in a new voting system, again and again at every referendum. The loss of an Irish Commissioner when the reality is that we have the same status as every country, even the big ones that the antis talk so much about.
The issue of privatisation and this thing about health and education, this needs to be nipped in the bud. This argument comes from a complete turning around of the words, the actual words of the Treaty and anyone who has concerns about these issues, I would urge them to look at the provisions Sinn Fein talked about, because it is a total turning around and misreading and deliberate misreading of the actual wording of the Treaty.
So, Chairman, measaim fhéin go gcaithfidh muid a bheith láidir agus go gcaithfidh muid ár n‑intinn fhéin, mar náisiún, a dhéanamh suas. Ach má dhearcann tú siar sna tríocha blianta Eorpach atá imithe uainn, tá an rogha éasca. Is féidir linn fanacht linn fhéin, ar nós tradaisiún pháirtí Sinn Féin, nó is féidir linn céim sontasach agus dóchasach eile a thógáil, céim don toghchaí na tíre seo. Go raibh maith agat, a chathaoirleach.
I would like to express disappointment that the President of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams and Declan Ganley, the head of Libertas, failed to make it here today, because I think it would have been instructive and interesting to hear their contributions on this Treaty that they are campaigning so ardently against.
I would like to make the point, firstly, that Ms McDonald has stated that Sinn Fein believe that Ireland's place is in the heart of Europe. Now, I find that statement difficult to accept, given that Sinn Fein has never ostensibly supported the European project, has never acceded to the fact or to the argument that Ireland's interests were best served within the European Union and Sinn Fein has campaigned against every single European referendum, including in 1972 in advance of our accession to the European Economic Community in 1973. So I think that we need to be very clear on where Sinn Fein stand in relation to this debate.
Just a few points that have been raised by Ms McDonald. Firstly, this myth, and it is the first point that is made by Sinn Fein representatives at every meeting, public meetings that I have been to in relation to this Treaty to date and that is the issue of Article 48, this allegation that this is a self‑amending Treaty. The opposite is, in fact, the case. I think that if we are to present the facts of this Treaty into the debate, it would be helpful if Sinn Fein would acknowledge that for the first time the Lisbon Treaty sets down the requirement to have a convention process for any further Treaty. A Treaty, as we know, will be required for any substantial change to the institutions or, indeed, to the policies and competences of the European Union in the future. Not only that, we have a constitutional safeguard that is referred to in the Treaty, the constitutional requirements of each Member State must be respected and we have our own judgment in this country in the form of the Crotty judgment, which obliges us to have a referendum in this country. So this concept that we will be forced to amend further treaties without referendum in this country is spurious. In fact, this Treaty sets down a very clear and transparent process, the convention process, first used in 2002 in drawing up what are the bones of this Treaty and I think that that was a very positive process involving civil society, involving representatives from NGOs and I would like to see that repeated in the future.
Now I really cannot reconcile some of the points that Mary Lou McDonald has made. Firstly, claiming that this Treaty, if we vote No to it will have no impact on foreign direct investment. We will remain as attractive as a destination for foreign direct investments for companies from the United States and elsewhere. This is simply not the case. Why do we have such a high level of foreign direct investment in this country? Why is Ireland so attractive? Because we are English speaking; because we are at the heart and centre of Europe; because we have participated fully as a key partner and a shaper of policy within the European Union. Sinn Fein wants us to retreat, to step back and stop influencing the future of Europe. To, I suppose to coin a phrase, to draw back into ourselves, sinn féin, ourselves alone. It is quite ironic really when you think about it.
Mary Lou McDonald has also referred to the challenges that lie ahead. International oil crisis, job losses, the need to invest in research and development. This Treaty equips us to do that. This is the first time that the European Union sets down in a Treaty that these are objectives that are fundamental to the European Union. Tackling climate change. To state that the European Union has no interest and has not prioritised tackling climate change and global warming is simply untrue. The European Commission has recently published a very serious and a very far‑reaching initiative to deal with the challenges of climate change and this Treaty will further equip us to do that.
Finally, and I will make this point in relation to the common consolidated tax base. The European Commission has, in the past, raised the issue of a common consolidated tax base and certain people within the European Union are proponents of a common consolidated tax base. That is democracy. We are all sovereign states. Do you want a European superstate where we all are obliged to have the same views? We pool our sovereignty. We have not given up our sovereignty and we are entitled to put forward ‑‑
CHAIRMAN: Look, I have got to ‑‑
DEPUTY CREIGHTON: We have a veto in relation ‑‑
CHAIRMAN: I have got to move on, please.
DEPUTY CREIGHTON: ‑‑ a veto in relation to taxation and it is absolutely imperative that Sinn Fein stop misleading the public in relation to that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have 20 people looking to get in and the first two speakers spoke for four minutes and six minutes. So you are eating up the time of your colleagues and we have a certain time to finish and I do want to give the speakers time to respond, so I would appeal to future speakers to try and limit their rhetoric.
Mr Joe Costello, please.
CHAIRMAN: The short answer is yes, I will be announcing that at the end.
DEPUTY COSTELLO: Right. So that is going to happen. Well, I certainly look forward to that occasion.
At the outset, too, could I just agree with Deputy Thomas Byrne that I would like to pay tribute to the Taoiseach's contribution to the Constitutional Treaty which I agree that 90 per cent of it is here in this particular Treaty as well. Undoubtedly, the origins of the European Union was on the basis of peace, stability and prosperity for Europe in a very war torn Europe at the time and it certainly has succeeded in doing that for both Europe and for Ireland and we have benefited enormously from transfer of funds, from the opening up of markets from the Euro zone, but particularly we have benefitted from being able to move from the single British market to the single European market. From 75 per cent of our produce going to Britain at British cheap food prices to only 15 per cent at the present time and open up to the European market. It has liberated us economically and I would have thought that Sinn Fein would recognise that because true liberation comes with prosperity, with the liberation of the people as well as political liberation and no credit has been given there.
Could I say in relation to what Peter Sutherland has said that I would take some slight exception to this being the most minor of treaties. I think that there are very significant benefits in this Treaty. Firstly, the Charter which will inform all new legislation coming from Europe and the social clause likewise. Also the role of national parliaments. This is an extraordinary new development in terms of decisionmaking in parliament and I think that has to be recognised.
The last two points in relation to the legal base that is given to the environment, climate change and to the eradication of poverty, these are extremely significant and I think they should be recognised.
My two questions to Peter Sutherland are: there is concern amongst the farming community in relation to the trade talks under Peter Mandelson and can we take it that it is quite clear that anything that Peter Mandelson agrees in those talks, they come back to the Council for decision making and you might just elaborate a little bit on that. My second question is in relation to this vexed tax regime, the common consolidated tax base and I would like that to be just teased out a little bit further.
I disagree entirely with what Mary Lou McDonald has said in relation to that particular area and her assertion, her totally untrue assertion that the Labour Party has endorsed tax harmonisation. It was Ruairi Quinn, when he was Minister for Finance in 1995 and 1996, that actually established our tax regime, the one that is now the one we are defending and have always defended with a veto in Europe.
My last point is this, Chairman: I have heard all of these arguments from Mary Lou before, you know, with the loss of the Commissioner, the self‑amending Treaty, the ambitious military adventures we are about to embark upon. But really what I find most unacceptable is her assertion that, as she said again today and as she says at the beginning of all her remarks, Europe is crucial for Ireland. When has Sinn Fein ever supported any of the treaties? So what Europe is she talking about? When has their annual conference ever debated supporting Europe? They have never done so. So what is she talking about? What Sinn Fein is she talking about? What mandate is she talking about? She is throwing this in just to muddy the waters.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Dan Boyle, please.
I would have like to have heard discussion on the issues of energy security, on the question of evolving agriculture policy in terms of the fact that we should be pressing home our advantage to produce quality food instead of food in large quantities, the role of EU can play as a regulator of stock exchanges in the current uncertain world and the effect to protect pension funds as a result. These are the kind of issues that a debate like today could have and should have been covering and it has chosen not to.
I think it is unfortunate that we are continuing the constant name calling that has bedeviled debate in this country. I speak as someone who has chosen to support this Treaty because I don't believe it is a perfect Treaty but I think its benefits outweighs its flaws. And for anyone to be engaging in a debate on the grounds of bombastic arrogance is the reason why we have enlargements of people who, regardless of any argument in regard to any Treaty, will always be inclined to vote No because they feel they are being arrogantly lectured to and until we have the European debate in this country (applause) that people understand, people need to be talked to as adults and told that they are buying into something which, while not perfect, will better the lot of this country then we will have a more honest European debate. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Eoin O Broin, please.
MR O BROIN: Thank you very much, Chair. I have to say I am kind of disappointed by today's debate. I came here thinking we were going to discuss the economic implications of the Treaty, neither Peter nor Thomas nor Lucinda gave a single positive reason or made a single reference to the text of this Treaty as to why it would be good for the Irish economy. The only reference to the economy that Peter made in his opening remarks was in relation to agriculture and he got that wrong and I will come back to that in a moment.
I have to say for me one of the biggest concerns of our party is not issues of greater integration, it is issues of greater liberalisation. It is the rightward trend of European economic policy over the last decade and a half and that is the context that we need to place this Treaty in. We talked about 105 areas. There are 105 new powers. Like Mary Lou I have the list here, Peter. Of those about 30 or 33 are new legal competences, but there are a range other forms of powers, other new things that the European Union can do as a consequence of this Treaty which are here in black and white and I will present it to you afterwards if you are interested.
I would like to say Article 48 is a self‑amending clause, it does require unanimity, we are not challenging that. We are saying do you really trust the word of this government, or indeed a future government to stand by the commitments they are giving now on issues like taxation. But be very clear, Article 48 allows the European Council to add to or alter existing treaties without recourse to a referendum automatically and it is a concern.
SPEAKER: Not true.
MR O BROIN: But in terms of the economic issues, two of the biggest concerns for our party are Article 16 and Article 188. Article 16 gives the European Commission new powers to force, in my view, Member States to open up their health services and education services to competition, deregulation, liberalisation and, in turn, privatisation and that is a bad thing. We have already seen the consequences of a two-tier health system in this country. Why do you think the French voted against this in such overwhelming numbers? Because they are opposed to the rightward liberalising trend in the Treaty.
And Article 188 in relation to international trade agreements, it is here that both for Irish agriculture, for health and education services and for the developing world this Treaty is at its most dangerous and I think it is interesting that we have yet to hear convincing arguments from anybody on the Yes side as to why we should support it.
In fairness to the Labour Party, Joe Costello is the only person who gave some positive reasons. At least he is interested in having a serious debate, as his colleagues are on this issue. My worry is that while I think the wording of the social clause is positive, it will go the same way as the commitments in the Lisbon Strategy of 2000 on social cohesion and sustainable development. They are good words but they will fall by the way side, sacrificed on the pillar of a very narrowly defined economic competitiveness and, therefore, will not have any real utility in the future. So I am not opposed to the social clause, I just don't think the European Union and its institutions are serious about its utilisation.
My last two points, Chairman, are these. Sinn Fein does have a positive record on the European Union. You only have to look at what our MEPs do in the European Parliament in terms of what we support and what we don't support. Yes, we have been strongly opposed to treaties and if this was a debate on Sinn Fein's past engagement with treaties I would be happy to address it, but we have a strong, positive record. And, Joe, I will invite to you any Sinn Fein Ard Feis you want to come to, we have vibrant debates on EU policy all the time. And only the year before last we passed two lengthy policy documents on proposals for reform of EU institutions and suggestions as to how the European Union can assist all-Ireland integration.
My final, final point is on the assertion of Peter Sutherland, which he has made before, that if Ireland were to vote no there would be a sense of outrage. What an undemocratic proposition. The whole point of a referendum is to allow Member States to freely and democratically decide how they feel about something. Now if the European Union is serious about its commitment to democracy, then it will accept the rules and the standards it sets for itself, which is to abide by the democratic decisions of the people. And I have to say the very fact that Peter has repeated that again today is a demonstration of one of the fundamental problems at the heart of this Treaty revision process; that the political elites at the heart of this project, the business elites at the heart of this project are not listening to people, which is exactly why we need to vote no, to re‑open the debate to secure a better Europe for Ireland, the European Union and the rest of the world. Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. (Applause) Ms Mary O'Donnell, please.
MS O'DONNELL: Thank you, Chairman. I just have a couple of points. There seems to be a little bit of confusion here between domestic issues and EU issues, such as the privatisation of ESB and telecoms. I agree you do need indigenous industries, but it is my opinion for years the IDA have been supporting and helping smaller industries and when they are developed they will need export markets and who are they going sell them to. I think the EU is very important for that.
Again, as has been said also, there is a veto on taxation and neutrality, so I don't know why the neutrality issue has been brought up again and again. As regards the Commissioner being rotated, that affects every country as has been said earlier, like Germany, England. The larger countries used to have two Commissioners. Also it is the Commission proposes changes but it is the Council of Ministers that implements it. So also the Council of Ministers, from what I have been reading around it, now is giving more power to our national parliaments in their 55 per cent majority. Is that correct? You can correct me on that.
And this question just referred to that if we vote No are we an absolute disgrace to Europe or not, because this has been raised again and again. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Senator Fergal Quinn, please.
The common commercial policy shall be based on uniform principles particularly with regard to changes in tariff rates the inclusion of tariff and trade agreements relating to trade in goods and services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, foreign direct investment, and some other things.
Could you put the minds of those who are really concerned that this may give power to Europe to interfere with the foreign direct investment that has been so important to our economy in recent years?
The second one, as I read it, it makes it easier for Member States to opt out of Europe, to leave Europe and looking at the feeling that you have mentioned yourself already in regard to Britain, the possibility of the United Kingdom leaving Europe would have some implications for us. Could you touch on that one as well, please?
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Joe Higgins, please.
MR HIGGINS: Go raibh maith agat, Cathaoirleach.
Mr Sutherland, can I say first, you know, as a socialist and a representative of working people and an opponent of this Lisbon Treaty I will not be patronised by you, sir, as you come here this morning and talk down to us, dismissing arrogantly the arguments without really putting any substance behind those dismissals. You, sir, are the one of the foremost representatives of big business not just on this island but on this globe of ours and, of course your support for Lisbon and Nice and all the rest of it is because these treaties hugely entrench the possibilities of big business to make massive profits from the rules of the European Union. You are a member of the European Round Table of Industrialists which brings together 40 of the biggest multi‑nationals in Europe. Not only have you ready access to the EU Commission and heads of state, but your organisation virtually writes the economic policy of the European Union and certainly the competition policy and you push privatisation at every hand’s turn, to the destruction of public services and public enterprises which you sponsor in the interests of your organisations reaping further profits. And, of course, you would have gone further in this as you wished. I am not surprised that you would want a more predatory, big business friendly environment. You are a member of the international organisation of Goldman Sachs which made an obscene fortune.
CHAIRMAN: I think if we could avoid ‑‑
MR HIGGINS: Sorry?
CHAIRMAN: I think if we could avoid the personal arguments and please try to ‑‑
MR HIGGINS: No, no, there is nothing personal. No, no, Chairman, there is nothing personal about this, it is business, believe me. (Applause) The point I am making is that if Mr Sutherland is part of an organisation that has preyed and exploited the most vulnerable people in need of a home in the United States making an obscene fortune out of that, what is his vision for Europe in the future going to be? Because, of course, your organisation cynically sold off your sub prime toxic debt.
CHAIRMAN: Look, I have to ask you to get back to the Treaty, please, if you wouldn't mind, Joe.
MR HIGGINS: Maurice, I am very surprised at you. No, I am surprised at you, to be honest. The point is this, and there's few enough opposition speakers here today, at least we should have our say. Now the point I am trying to make and I will say it again is this, if Mr Sutherland stands at the top of an organisation which acts in a certain way, he endorses that. He comes here and he proposes Lisbon to us. I charge him with the fact that he wants the same vision for Europe economically as the organisation that he represents. That is a fair point to make, Chairman.
In regard to the WTO and international trades, it was those agreements that laid the basis for the pillage of the natural resources of poor people, for example, water and gas in Latin America which were privatised under pressure from that. Deputy Creighton and yourself indeed should read Article 188C. It does remove the veto when it comes to the discussion on whether health and education should be opened to privatisation. It does remove the veto. You have to read the document, Mr Sutherland.
Where do you stand on the Laval case and the European Court of Justice endorsement of exploitation, in essence, of construction workers by contrast with the conditions and wages in the state of Sweden at that time.
The last point, Chairman is this, it is not illusory that the Lisbon Treaty further intensifies the militarisation of the European Union. Mr Sutherland, you must accept, if you have read it, which you have, of course, that Lisbon crushes the right of any Member State to have an independent foreign policy, full stop. Deny it if you can. And I will quote the provisions of the Treaty to say that that is the case.
Secondly, it does massively intensify the armaments industry but, of course, the European Round Table of Industrialists are in favour of that because your companies make massive profits from the obscene trade in weapons of mass destruction while hundreds of millions of people can't have even clean water. We are talking this morning, Mr Sutherland, about different visions for Europe. You represent a big business dominated vision for the profit of the multinationals, I represent a Europe democratically controlled by working people. Two different visions, never the twain shall meet. But anyway we will join the debate over the next few months and we will see what the Irish people decide at the end of it. (Applause)
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Blair Horan, please.
Sorry, I should have said just to thank both Peter Sutherland and Mary Lou McDonald on behalf of the Congress of Trade Unions for their contributions here this morning.
But, I do welcome the statement by the Commission which has just recently been issued that workers’ rights are not to be subordinated to the internal market and that the Commission will continue to fight against any form of social dumping. That is as we understood the position to be and it is welcome that the Commission are seeing it in that way because the Single European Act in 1986 gave rise to the 1989 Charter of Fundamental Rights of workers, it directly gave rise to Delors' Social Charter in 1992. The social dialogue, which is Article 138 and 139 of the Treaty which was effectively written by the social partners at European level and almost word for word put into the Maastricht Treaty has been of enormous benefit in terms of what it has allowed to develop in social dialogue terms. So certainly we welcome the statement by the Commission in the context of the issues that need to be addressed now from those European Court of Justice decisions.
But I have two questions, if I may, for Peter Sutherland. On the one hand we have pension provision for workers which, because of transparency and accountancy rules called FRS 17, because they have to be put on the balance sheet effectively have meant that many employers have exited from defined benefit schemes and it has been of enormous disadvantage to workers to find that contribution schemes, because of the difficulties in the market, don't have the value that people might have expected they would have. But on the other hand The Economist reported last week that part of the problem that gave rise to the credit crisis is all of the complex conduit and SIV instruments which, in many cases, are off balance sheet which, you know, and has allowed this crisis to develop and I would just like to know what Peter Sutherland's view is of how that contradiction between how workers are treated and how business is treated needs now to be addressed.
Just one other question. Some of the conditions in the American economy now remind me of the conditions in the '70s when you had rising inflation, massive fiscal expansion now in the United States, a very weak dollar and an enormous deficit in the American economy. At that time America exported inflation and we didn't have the euro in order to cope with that. Now they are exporting the credit crisis to Europe. On the one hand we have the euro now which is a protection in the context of that, but yet on the other hand, in an Irish context, because 40 per cent of our exports go either into the UK or into America, the strength of the dollar is a difficulty for us. And we have had a situation where the dollar has fluctuated between 85 cents at its weakest now to up as far as 159, nearly 160. Just a question, Mr Sutherland, is it time to look at a Louvre or a Plaza Accord in terms of managing the currency in a more structured and positive way or is it possible to do that given the amount of currency trading now. It is about 30 times what is actually required for international trade and investment. Is it possible to do that nowadays or what is your view on that?
CHAIRMAN: Mr Brendan Butler, please.
MR BUTLER: Thank you, Chairman and also a big thank you to the two speakers. I want to look at this from a business perspective. Do we look at Europe and the Lisbon Treaty as an opportunity or as a threat? Certainly all the speakers so far, I think, have generally said Europe so far has been beneficial and beneficial to business. What I would like to know is what is threatening to business in terms of the Lisbon Treaty. People have said there is nothing specifically in the Lisbon Treaty for business. I would fundamentally disagree with that.
We are the smallest, one of the most open economies in the world. The EU International Monetary Fund recently produced a report that said that Ireland is the third most open economy in the world. We export over 80 per cent of every single product and service we produce. Therefore, what happens internationally and what happens throughout Europe has enormous implications for Irish businesses large and small.
The Lisbon Treaty, in my view, will give a significant further boost to the single market, which has been of tremendous benefit to Irish business. It will continue, as Mary Lou wanted us to be, at the heart of Europe and, therefore, attractive to foreign direct investment. US companies today have more money invested in Ireland than they have combined investments in India, China, Brazil and Russia. We want to continue to attract that investment.
We also don't compete just in Europe, we compete throughout the world. What happens internationally has a huge impact on Irish businesses, large and small, and therefore Europe, which will be enhanced in this Treaty, negotiating on our behalf internationally helps Irish businesses and Irish companies.
I am surprised at Mary Lou's comments about, you know, we need competitiveness. Mary Lou, you have made a point that, in fact, you have been unhappy with the move towards liberalisation. I put it to you that a lot of Irish businesses, large and small, are now competing throughout the world in areas such as air transport, road transport, energy, waste facilities, water facilities, telecoms. If we had operated in the past where they were monopolised State industries, Irish companies would not have had those opportunities and we can't ignore the fact that Irish businesses have benefited and we have got Irish jobs as a result of that.
I just want to ask one question and I want to ask it to both Mr Sutherland and to Mary Lou. This issue of corporation tax, a yes or a no answer. If one of the 27 Member States objects to a change in taxation, business taxation or other taxation, does that mean that that matter cannot proceed? It is either a Yes or a No. Does every country, not just Ireland, ten Member States in Europe have corporation taxes of less than 20 per cent. Three Member States in Europe have a corporation tax below Ireland. The question I am asking is if any one of the 27 Member States objects to a proposal in relation to taxation, is that proposal dead in the water? Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Seumas O'Brien, please.
MR O'BRIEN: Chairman, I would like to compliment both speakers, but I would like to refer mainly to Mr Sutherland. As a representative of agriculture and the Irish Farmers’ Association, I would have to say that I have strong support to your sentiments in terms of the Treaty, but the aspect about agriculture that you referred to and the paragraph in your press release would give me to believe that you have a grave deficiency in terms of our attitude to Mr Mandelson. Let me say that there is probably 300,000 people within the farm gate and beyond the farm gate who live Europe everyday of their lives so they are a very informed constituency in terms of voting on Lisbon, but they see a situation in relation to Mandelson where we have had perhaps eight years of preparation for these world trade talks and they are being fought every inch of the way and we have finally agreed with the procedure. But there is no doubt, there is no doubt that Mr Mandelson goes way beyond those agreed procedures and if he does it will be a very, very bad deal for Irish agriculture and the Irish economy. And the farm organisations and the farm industry yesterday in a press conference estimate that if Mandelson has his way the cost to this economy would be four billion annually and in economic terms that is an enormous amount of money. Now the question is in relation to the Lisbon Treaty, no, he doesn't have control over the Lisbon Treaty but what we see is that whether you vote Yes or No for Lisbon, if he pursues, or any of his successors in the future pursues the precedent he sets, it sets serious alarm bells going in Irish agriculture and that issue has to be solved and it has to be solved before 12th June or else, no matter what the leadership of organisations say, the foot soldiers would not be pro the Lisbon Treaty.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms Patricia McKenna, please.
MS McKENNA: Thank you, Chairman. First I would just like to concur with what Dan Boyle has said in relation to respect for, you know, people's points of view. I was quite shocked by the presentation by Peter Sutherland today because he showed total disregard, I have to say, for the views of people who oppose this Treaty or, indeed, past treaties. I think respect is due to everybody regardless of their political beliefs. You should also take into account that with the exception of Sinn Fein which would have funding, and Libertas which seems to be well heeled, the vast majority of people on the No side are ordinary citizens who are putting in their own free time and effort and with no resources pushing for what they believe is a better Europe. So I think, with all due respect, you should listen to the No side and not dismiss them in the very negative and arrogant way you did today. I just want to say that from the outset.
Dan Boyle was the first to raise the issue. I expected, because the title of this presentation today was that it was the economic implications of the Treaty of Lisbon and I think Dan Boyle was the first speaker today to mention some of the economic aspects which were not addressed. I was quite surprised to hear you talk about neutrality because, to be honest, I am sure it is not an issue you are particularly concerned about yourself and I thought that would be for another time.
On the neutrality issue you said that we have all scare-mongered and come out with spurious arguments in the past. You just look first of all what is in this Treaty, there is a utual defence pact and that has been recognised by the current European Presidency which circulated a document to that effect. You also have the extension of the Petersberg Tasks; you have the incorporation of the European Defence Agency or the European Armaments Agency, or whatever you want to call it; you have the solidarity clause. There are a number of aspects in this Treaty alone which are relevant to the neutrality issue and particularly I would say the mutual defence pact, but I know there are other people who will speak on that.
But just looking back on what people have said in the past, we did say that Europe was becoming more militarised. From the time that I have been involved in this issue first, we have been told we were scare mongering. Now you have a European Rapid Reaction Force, you have European battlegroups. You have European defence or armaments agency, you have Ireland involved in all these different military activities. So look, be honest, Europe has progressed militarily despite the fact that we were told we were telling lies in the past.
Another point in relation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights which was brought up, and people need to look at that and I suppose other people will raise it about the Charter of Fundamental Rights may be limited to the interests of the market and if you look at the judgments, and indeed Joe mentioned one of those in relation to the Laval case.
But coming back to this debate this morning, I just have one serious concern to raise in relation to it. First of all, Fine Gael, Lucinda Creighton referred to the Crotty judgment. I would advise Lucinda Creighton to go and read those judgments before claiming what they guarantee because it is quite clear from the Crotty judgments what is guaranteed in relation to our entitlement to referendums, because we followed this for many years and it was actually because of Fine Gael, in fact, that we had the Crotty case in the first place. So just a word of advice there to Ms Creighton.
Now on the issue of this debate this morning, I was quite surprised because Peter Sutherland comes from the same sort of big business perspective as Libertas' Declan Ganley and, to be honest, I feel there is a certain manipulation going on here because I would have liked to have heard a debate from two people coming from the same perspective targeting the same sort of votes. Lucinda Creighton regretted the fact that Declan Ganley wasn't here. There are political games going on here and there is no doubt about that. Ganley would probably be targeting the same sort of votes as Lucinda Creighton and Fine Gael and I think trying to set him up against, with Sinn Fein who are coming from a different perspective was a very clever tactic and I would just like to draw people's attention to a study that was produced by Notre Europe, a think tank set up by Jacques Delors and they funded a study on securing a Yes vote in Ireland.
CHAIRMAN: If you are making an attack ‑‑
MS McKENNA: I just want to ‑‑
CHAIRMAN: If you are making an attack on the Forum ‑‑
MS McKENNA: No, no.
CHAIRMAN: ‑‑ say so. Certainly there is no setting up of people. I can tell you this much, it is bloody agony to get people to come and talk anyway.
MS McKENNA: Can I just finish this point, Chairman. (Applause)
I think you should treat the Yes and No side equally, but that is beside the point. I just want to focus on this, because as we see it the only place really where the no side are represented is in the Special Observer Pillar and, by the way the short for that is SOP. Well I would like to remind you that we are not sops and we do want to have equality here. We are talking in the Lisbon Treaty about amending our Constitution and the Constitution does not belong to the political parties, it belongs to the people. But just securing the yes vote, it was funded by the European Commission and it is published in 2005 and I think just if people would listen to just two points. This is going back to the Nice Treaty, in relation to the Green Party they said they were identified as the biggest threat to the Yes campaign, identified as clean and honest, a political group that would not lie to you, they had high markings on the honesty stakes and were therefore very likely to be believed by the voters. So there was a definite objective to have the Greens on the Yes side in this campaign.
MR BYRNE: (Inaudible).
MS McKENNA: The second thing was in relation to Sinn Fein. The high negative ratings of Sinn Fein among our target group of voters made their presence helpful in many ways in that they acted as a positive spur to Yes abstainers to support the referendum and vote Yes. So, I think people should take that into account. There are a lot of political games going on here and I think it is grossly unfair to the vast majority of people in the Special Observer Pillar, the NGOs that have no political representation within the Dáil, we need equality and equal treatment in this Forum or else it is going to be a farce to continue participating in it.
CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well it is not my fault the way people vote and I do try to give rather more time to people in the Pillar and I think I have done that consistently since the start. I have kept very careful notes of that. (Applause)
I am now going to ask the two speakers to respond and when they have done that, if we have time I will take others and others from the Pillar who have not spoken and from the parties. But Mr Sutherland, would you like to respond?
But having said that let me deal specifically with some of the issues that have been raised. I said at the outset that the economic aspects were largely tied into the institutional. I said that because that is the assessment of every independent analysis that has been given to the Treaty objectively around Europe. I said it because the view of, and I mentioned them earlier, a number of parliamentary commissions and committees that looked at the Treaty have found no essential change to the economic competences or powers in the Treaty at all. And it is difficult to make an argument against an argument when there is nothing there of substance to be argued against.
Let me deal, however, with a number of the specifics that have been mentioned. First of all, reference has been made to the issue about tax. There is no alteration in the Treaty whatsoever and no threat whatsoever, and the answer to the question incidentally specifically on this is no. If one country objects to a proposal in regard to either a common base, which, of course, is different from a harmonised rate, but to either of those proposals, it is stopped. It is stopped now, it will be stopped in the future and the Treaty makes absolutely no difference to this whatsoever.
So it is a complete canard and whatever people may think about the level of debate that we must have, it has to be said fairly and squarely that there is no threat and no other country in Europe finds that there is a threat to the issue of corporation tax harmonisation. You can be sure that the British parties, many of whom contain rabid Euro skeptics would have been the first to make the case that there was a provision in this Treaty which related to tax harmonisation if there were such a provision. There isn't and even they haven't. The House of Lords report, which is very voluminous, goes into this in considerable detail. So it shows what the British think about it.
There are some fears that Article 113 on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that is on harmonising legislation for turnover tax, excise duties and other form of indirect taxation, can, in some way, be used in the area of harmonising corporation tax. Of course it can't. The provision in question relates to the areas of taxation on goods and if you allowed individual distortions to develop in terms of any of these, excise duties or turnover taxes, then clearly the internal market wouldn't function and that is why the provision is there. Action on the basis of Article 113, incidentally is, in any event, subject to unanimity in the Council and the Treaty of Lisbon does not alter the requirement for unanimity in any way. So there is no argument there.
There has been an argument too which I found difficult, and I don't mean this in an abusive way, but I have to say that I found it very difficult to understand what this self‑authorising amendment of the referendum, without referendum to the treaties actually meant, because I have to say it also is totally without basis.
There are two ways in which one can modify the treaties after the Treaty of Lisbon has been adopted. First of all, there is the ordinary revision with or without a convention, the convention that we had, for example, leading up to the Constitutional Treaty and that requires Member States to ratify the result according to their own Constitutional provisions. The other is a so‑called simplified revision procedure, which only applies to amendments, incidentally, to Part III, that is Union policies and internal actions rather than the institutional aspect, and in this case revision can occur by the European Council taking the decision by unanimity, but that decision requires ratification by each Member State according to their own constitutional provisions. And in Ireland this takes into account the possibility of a referendum. Specifically Article 48, sub‑paragraph 6 deals with this issue. And again it is absolutely clear and there is no way I can put it other than bluntly, it does not exist. It is an argument without substance.
The argument that in some way this is a charter for privatisation. This is an argument which has been thrown in a rather personal way in Joe Higgins' intervention about business and business interest. The reality is the Treaty of Rome and all the treaties that have followed it, including the Treaty of Lisbon, is neutral on the issue as between privatisation and public companies. The issue in particular under Article 2 of the protocol on services of general interest, that is what the Commission and the Member States agreed to be non economic services such as education, which was referred to, as was health, is that, quote:
The provisions of the treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and to organise non economic services of general interest.
I don't know how one can be more explicit. Article 14 deals with the issue of establishing provisions that ensure cooperation and so on and so forth. So there is no argument there.
Insofar as it can be argued to be an economic issue, and it has been presented as an economic issue that there is some contrary intent than the intent of Europe to deal with humanitarian, poverty and equality issues, Article 208 specifically advances this particular area and this should be important to NGOs. I quote:
Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and in the long term the eradication of poverty. The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries.
There is a neutrality throughout the treaties in the issue of public as opposed to private ownership. The only argument in competition policy has always been based upon the distortion of competition or the denial of competition in areas which cannot be described as natural monopolies and sometimes one can have a debate as to what that is. But the essential theory remains exactly as it always was and that theory is one of equality on that particular issue. I think that there is no change, therefore, whatsoever in terms of challenging the State's participation, involvement and running of education or health services. It simply does not exist.
With regard to the World Trade talks and the agricultural issues that were mentioned by the IFA representative, the reality is that the global trade talks are being conducted on the basis of a mandate which was and has to be agreed by the Council of Ministers and that also has to be debated and is debated in the European Parliament. If that were to change that would have to be changed by the Council of Ministers, not by Peter Mandelson. Peter Mandelson is an instrument of this. It is not germane, however, to this particular debate because it does not or is not altered in any way by the Treaty of Lisbon. And as to whether the trade talks will change or not, I don't know.
With regard to the issue as to the influence of Europe on the global trading system or the global economy as a whole, the Treaty, by creating a special representative, although it is a purely intergovernmental position, is trying to create a greater operational standing on the world stage in terms of negotiating and developing trade and other policies. That, I think, is an important point to make because Europe, if anything, is under represented in terms of global trade affairs, global economic affairs more generally and so on and I think that that is a helpful point.
The question has been asked as to whether there is any change as a result of the Treaty in the whole area of foreign direct investment. Well I am glad that that particular point was raised by Senator Quinn because the power to govern external tariffs as part of the common commercial policy, but now we have a situation which relates to the development of positions in regard to investment policy. The Treaty provision in question is to empower the Commission and the European Union to negotiate globally, not to change individual Member State provisions in regard to direct foreign investment. It is related to creating, for an example, the locus for the community to ensure that the investments of Irish companies around the world are secured in terms of investment regimes elsewhere. And insofar as it any implications, and I don't believe it was intended for that purpose in regard to people investing into Ireland as opposed to Irish companies, for an example, investing in China or in Malaysia or anywhere else, that implication is not in any way, does not in any way change our powers in terms of our foreign direct investment policy in Ireland. They remain absolutely as they were, subject to the rules and subsidies, entirely within the control of the Irish people and the Irish Parliament.
The provision with regard to opting out of Europe, this seems to me to be clearly a signal to those who are less than fully intentional Members in good standing of the European Union that they cannot rely on what some have done in the past in saying we are not allowed to even leave the European Union because there is no provision that allows us to do so. That may be directed at certain reluctant European Member States, not as a forcing or an inducing mechanism to get them to leave, but at least to say well, that is their option should they wish to do so.
I am sure that I am missing some points and I can't even find my notes now.
CHAIRMAN: You will have an opportunity at the end.
MR SUTHERLAND: Okay. Well I will try and find them before the other opportunity at the end. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Mary Lou, please.
I am very heartened to see that people are so enthusiastic for Gerry to come to the Forum. I will certainly pass that message on and he is delighted to do so.
SPEAKER: (Inaudible).
MS McDONALD: I also think that courtesy is a great thing in a debate.
You see, the position for Sinn Fein is not one of isolationism. We don't have the space to do it here, but I think if you were to examine Irish political parties in turn, what you would find is that Sinn Fein stands very much as a party with an international perspective, and with values like solidarity, old-fashioneds like that at the core of our politics. So we don't argue for retreat. What we argue for is assertion and for advancement. Very often this kind of one dimensional, almost a caricature of a Euro critical voice is afforded, and of course they are called Euro skeptics, you know, and they are lampooned. We are not Euro skeptic. We are people with progressive politics who insist that the Union must be democratic, that it must be accountable to the people, that it must protect public services, that it must be unashamedly and unavowedly a social Europe. Now there is nothing skeptical in those positions. Those are democratic and progressive values and I am proud to assert them.
I should say just in response to the controversy as to who is on the panel today, I speak from a very particular prospective, obviously from a republican one and I don't claim to represent every No voice that is out there.
So corporation tax. You see this is not canard. It simply isn't. Brendan, you put a very direct question. If one Member State gives this the thumbs down is that it? Peter Sutherland has told you that your understanding is correct. Commissioner Kóvacs disagrees with him. You see, here is the issue, because the Commission believes that in the absence of unanimity what they will do is proceed along the lines with enhanced cooperation. They have said this publically, they have said this privately, they have responded to questions along those lines. So, let's not play games here, that is the position and that the Commission intent.
And what I was raising in my earlier remarks was the following question, because we don't dispute that the unanimity requirement is in the Treaty; that is true. But what is also in the Treaty is the avenue to remove that veto under Article 48. And let me continue my sentence. That is categorically there and the question is do you trust not just the current administration but future administrations to actually defend that position?
Let me just remind you that in the course of the election campaign last year, Fianna Fail took quite a heavy run at our friends here on my left‑hand side and queried their capacity to, in fact, hold that position, and they did it for a specific reasons and that was because Fine Gael and Labour MEPs have voted in support of this common consolidated tax base. Their votes on are the record. Joe, if you are in any doubt just have a word with Proinsias and I am sure he will clarify matters for you.
The issue of privatisation. You see, the European Union has form in this regard under the guise of competition rules, under the guise of trying to rein in State interference, the fact is that we have seen in Ireland very tangible consequences. I mentioned in my remarks Eircom, I mentioned Aer Lingus, and I am saying to people at this stage, because the Treaty does open up very significantly the possibility of elements of health and education coming under those same market forces to look very carefully. Now the argument is made around services of general interest versus services of general economic interest. Now we could sit here all day and debate our understandings as to the differentiation between those. The fact is that it is the European Court of Justice who adjudicates on these matters. And the fact is that the European Court of Justice definition of services of general economic interest cover a very broad remit. Anything that has a cost factor that generates money, and it is not just services that are directly paid for by the consumer. And under that understanding health, education fall very neatly within that remit, and that is why we have had such a controversy on this matter at a European level. And yes, there is a protocol attached to the Treaty. When you talk to people in the Commission what they will tell you is that is simply a restatement of the status quo. They hope that in some ways it will clarify matters for people, but it in no way represents any new departure in terms of bolting down the differentiation between services of general interest and services of general economic interest that is required to actually safeguard those services. So you can use whatever terminology you want. I didn't actually use the term a privatisation charter, but if people use that term I would have to say that it carries a very strong truth.
On the Laval judgment, and I see that Congress welcomes the Commission statement that says that workers' rights will not be undermined. Again the difficulty with that is that Laval clearly illustrated that they are. And the fact is that the Lisbon Treaty, and I know the Labour Party made great play of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is a charter, by the way, that we support, but the fact is that neither Commission statements nor the Charter of Fundamental Rights alter the fact that Article 49 of the existing treaties actually was vindicated in the Laval judgment. So, there you go. That is the balance that is articulated in the Lisbon Treaty.
On foreign direct investment, as you can probably guess I was in part trying to formulate my own remarks and trying to anticipate things that others might say, because I notice that IBEC and, indeed, I think virtually all of the political parties have sort of sounded the siren bell on Foreign Direct Investment and have made an argument that we will be so debilitated and discredited that FDI will essentially dry up. That is the view that is being put out into the public arena. I want to make this very clear. I have not argued for complacency. On the contrary, I have identified, I think very clearly, serious issues that confront us infrastructurally in terms of our skills pool, in terms of our cost base that need to be tackled. There is no doubt about that. But what I would say to you again is that I simply don't accept an argument that around the boardrooms in corporate America that the defining factor in an investment decision will be whether or not the Irish people supported the Lisbon Treaty. I think that is actually farcical. And I think even the people who advance that argument know that it is a nonsense.
What is for sure is that if we don't get real about the knowledge economy, if we don't invest heavily in education from the start, if we are not serious about developing our skills pool, then unquestionably at some point in the future there will be a doubt over our ability to attract high end investment. And, more importantly, it will bring for us serious and long term social consequences.
The developing world. And Cathaoirleach, I promise you I will stop at this because I know time is ‑‑ because I don't think this can be let go, because there is a view that is proposed that in some ways the EU is the benign benefactor of the developing world and constantly the fact that we are massive contributors of humanitarian aid is made reference to and I don't doubt the generosity of people and I don't doubt the veracity of that. But here is the difficulty because, you see, we have a contradiction at play. On the one hand you have humanitarian aid and we pat ourselves on the back. But on the other hand you have a European Commission which adopts not just an aggressive, an obnoxious and a vile agenda in terms of trade relations with the developing world. Witness this in its dealings in particular with the ACP countries where a demand is made that weak, impoverished states lay open their markets, lay bare and rid themselves of any form of protectionism, not just tariffs but non tariff barriers as well. That is a recipe for keeping the developing world weak. It is an indefensible agenda. It is an agenda that again is reasserted in the Lisbon Treaty and I believe it is an agenda that should be challenged because I do not accept and will never accept an EU Commission acting on my behalf or on my country's behalf and conducting itself in such a manner with the developing world.
To talk about the opt outs from the EU I think is a diversion from the real debate that we need to have. I have said it earlier and because it obviously had such resonance with some people, let me repeat it. Ireland's place is in Europe, at the heart of Europe, in good standing in Europe and that is where will we will remain.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I will take a few speakers now and the briefer people can manage to be the more I can get in and then I will bring the two speakers in just for a final comment. And I think arising out of the last point, Mr Tom Arnold, please.
MR ARNOLD: Thank you, Chair. I very much take up what Mary Lou said at the end there, but I would start by saying that from the point of view of Europe's role in the world, I think the reality is that over the 35 years of membership it has been a positive role. I also think, and this connects with a comment Peter Sutherland made at the very beginning, that Ireland and Irish people have played a significant role in that regard, and particularly I would cite Garrett FitzGerald's role in the first Lomé Convention.
But the broader issue is that the European Commission has also facilitated a dialogue with civil society in Europe about Europe's role vis‑a‑viz developing countries. And it is the case, and this is a fact, that the vast majority of European NGOs have had an influence on the evolution of treaties over the last number of years. And Peter Sutherland's quotation of Article 208 is a very good example of where that discourse has got to and I do think Europe has played a positive role with developing countries. It is not perfect, of course not, but the overall balance has been very positive and the European NGO movement are supportive of it.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms Carol Fox, please.
MS FOX: Thank you. I just want to make two general points. One is that I'm a bit disappointed that you seem to dismiss referendums, Mr Sutherland, and I am wondering if there are examples in which you do accept that in terms of any treaties for Europe that there would be a referendum on, I think you have objected to the one that the Constitution being defeated by France and the Dutch in a referendum. Essentially, if we are going to correct the perception of a democratic deficit in the European Union I don't see why you shy away from actually asking the people what they think of treaties. They might be complicated but the people are not stupid. The EU Constitution was very well read by the French people. And one of the main objections they had in which President Sarkozy definitely recognised was the free, undistorted competition elements of the Treaty which were then placed into a protocol. So he made those shifts because of the sentiment that came up from the people.
So I know that Bertie Ahern himself had wished that more countries were having referendums, I think maybe to let us off the hook possibly. But let's hope there was also a belief that people should be asked about the European Union on which 70 or 80 per cent of our laws now emanate that we should have some kind of decisions in terms of that.
I didn't expect you to be going on about neutrality and we don't have much time, but I would just like to ask you your interpretation of the mutual defence clause which, for the first time, the European Union has a mutual defence clause placed into it. The Slovenian Presidency calls it that. Barroso calls it that. That is what it is. There is that phrase about the particular type of policies of certain Members States, there is also a recognition of NATO's position in that.
What I would like to know from you is why is that clause there in the first place? Secondly, do you not feel that having a mutual defence clause in the European Union somehow does affect our neutrality and the shape of that neutrality? I would have thought that you are not a defender of neutrality yourself, so your assurances on this matter are not actually taken very seriously. But I suppose one of your points would be that we still have the authority to decide when to send our troops in. But could I remind you that NATO members also maintain the authority as to when to send their troops in. There is a solidarity clause which has no particular policy ‑‑
CHAIRMAN: I think you have made that point before and I would like to move on.
MS FOX: So anyway, I would just like to know how you interpret the mutual defence clause.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Brendan Kiely, please.
MR KIELY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you to the speakers, particularly Mr Sutherland, who has debunked many of the myths which we have been faced throughout this debate. I have great difficulty in trying to make sense of some of the positions being put forward by Sinn Fein. You say this government, and I quote, have not gone through this Treaty, yet you accept through your comments that they negotiated it. You say that we should be at the heart of the EU, yet you advocate as a party that we unplug ourselves from the centre of the EU at a critical time, at a point of economic uncertainty which you also agree with. You say that you are pro Europe, yet you offer no alternative vision other than bland statements and scare mongering.
So we in the Irish Alliance for Europe believe that the people for Ireland should consider the benefits of a Yes vote, but also consider what benefits will be derived from a No vote, and this is the critical question, what would happen and it is not being answered.
Sinn Féin has said that we can renegotiate and I have heard this over and over again. This is plan B, there is no plan C. This is not the Northern Ireland peace talks, you can't keep going back and asking for more.
Peter, you suggested that a No vote would provoke outrage and a difficulty in terms of Ireland justifying it and I would ask both speakers to tangibly outline what the impact to Ireland would be, particularly economically given the tone of the debate if we vote No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Maire Ni Bheaglaoich, please.
MS NI BHEAGLAOICH: Go raibh maith agat. Maidir le Conradh Lisbon, faoi láthair, tá 80 faoin gcéad dár gcuid dlithe ag teacht ón Aontas agus le Conradh Lisbon. Bheadh na dlithe go léir ag teacht ón Aontas agus ní bheadh feidhm dá laghad ag na náisiúin, na parlaimintí náisiúnta a dhlithe a dhéanamh, ach bheidís ag cuir i bhfeidhm dlithe ón Eoraip. Maidir le príomháidiú na seirbhísí poiblí, do tháinig an European Services Directive agus beidh iach orainn faoi Chonradh Lisbon na seirbhísí poiblí, ba cheart don rialtas a chur ar fáil dúinn, a phríomháidiú, a oscailt amach don margadh, don bpraghas is airde. Ní cheapaim gur mion‑chonradh é seo ach gur díothú ár neamhspleáchais is ea é.
CHAIRMAN: Go raibh maith agat. Senator Ann Ormond, please.
SENATOR ORMOND: You are so negative, Mary Lou, I just wonder why you would want to be even a Member of Parliament. I mean you talk about you want to be at the heart of Europe and you listed all the negative things why we should not be in Europe. I don't understand how you reconcile all your thinking with that. Just that comment, give me your views on that.
CHAIRMAN: That’s a move from the Treaty but there we are. Mr Brian Murphy, please.
MR MURPHY: Two brief comments. First of all, again going back on this issue of taxation, because Mary Lou has come back on it again. It appears from her latest comments that not only her concern now appears to be not that the Treaty might remove the Irish veto on corporation tax, which it does not. The Irish veto is there. Her concern seems to be that she wants to have a veto on the cooperation tax rates that other countries would set, because if there is enhanced cooperation, enhanced cooperation is where countries who wish to sit down and discuss their policy, well frankly if the British Chancellor and the Swedish finance ministers ‑‑ and I choose those two countries deliberately ‑‑ want to sit down and discuss the imposition of higher corporation tax rates in those countries, let them do so. We don't and we won't be doing it. The related point in relation to tax and the general one, you talked earlier in your speech about a concern that people should not engage in scare mongering, you talked about FDI. You then proceeded to engage an entire speech of scare mongering when you talked about tax. You talked about health, you talked about education services, a whole range of things. You concluded and you came back in your comments at the end when you said: can we really trust our politicians. Well we live in a democracy. If we don't trust our politicians do we want everything in the European Constitution? Why isn't there a statement in the European Constitution saying that we are all opposed to hanging, because if we don't have a statement saying we are all opposed to hanging there might be a fear that governments will bring it in tomorrow. The peoples of Europe individually elect their governments. The position of the parties in the Dáil, not just Fine Gael, not just Labour, not just Fianna Fail, of the parties in the Dáil, as I understand it, including Sinn Fein after their reincarnation during the election campaign is that they all favoured the low tax policy in relation to corporation tax. So that is in relation to tax.
Briefly to Peter Sutherland. I would like to ask, you talked about Europe and I agree with the point that you made that really there is very little about economic policy in this Lisbon Treaty, but perhaps to address the issue of the extent to which Europe and the European Union is the instrument through which we can actually have a framework to deal with globalisation and to deal with global trade and business, because if we didn't have the type of structures and regulatory regimes that we have at a European level it would not be possible to bring a regulatory framework in place in relation to multinational companies.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms Niamh Bhreathnach.
MS BHREATHNACH: Thank you, Chairman and I welcome the speakers here. One comment for Peter Sutherland and another for Mary Lou. For us in the Labour Party the addition of the Charter is very important. It is something that we find exciting and I am wondering, given your past experience and the present hat which you wear, whether in proceeding with world trade talks, the addition of the social agenda in the Charter will have an effect globally, as well as for those of us within the European Union.
To Mary Lou, I just say you are too young, and probably Eoin O Broin is too, to remember the '50s when people in your class emigrated, when people without State employment lost their jobs. It was called protectionism. It was called a sinn féin policy. I would just say to you and to Sinn Fein you are playing the game here. You know there is political capital representing people who just have a normal knee jerk action to say no to things. But as Deputy Byrne demolished your arguments today, and I encourage him to continue coming to repeat the demolition of your arguments. I think all of your arguments have been absolutely demolished today because I have no reason to believe Mary Lou McDonald from Sinn Fein because if I look back, you are so negative in your agenda, I have no confidence in you if I look forward. But I do ask you as a party that is striving to come into the heart of the democratic body politic in Ireland as your arguments are demolished, will you acknowledge that and give up this game that you in Sinn Fein are playing with this particular Treaty? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Deirdre de Burca, please.
I was very struck by a comment that Peter Sutherland made in his opening remarks when he said that, to his mind, the pooling of sovereignty by nation states was simultaneously an act of generosity and of self interest and I would agree with him on that. Clearly Ireland's interests, national interests have been served by joining the European Union and participating in the European Union. I think particularly our membership of the European Union has been vital for the Irish economy and I think most Irish people will recognise that and I think they will take that certainly very strongly into consideration when it comes to considering whether they support the Lisbon Treaty or not.
However, I suppose the combined economic influence of Member States means that the European Union actually does form quite a significant and powerful global player. I suppose that is where generosity on its part is called for in terms of international trade agreements and its relationship and the negotiating position it takes within international trade agreements with less developed and poorer parts of the world. The Lisbon Treaty very accurately describes the EU's trade policy, which is part of its common commercial policy as an exclusive competence of the European Union so the Commission basically gets a negotiating mandate from the Council of Ministers and then comes back for approval following negotiation within the World Trade Organisation. The kind of international agreements that are being negotiated are very significant for the population of Member States, for example, the GATS, the General Agreement on Trade and Services where whole sectors of economies, including water, waste, telecommunications, energy and possibly even health and education are being put on the table by the European Union and offered up to form part of international trade agreements, liberalisation agreements and so on.
I want to ask Mr Sutherland would he accept that at this moment in time EU trade policy lacks transparency, that the issue of commercial sensitivity and the argument of commercial sensitively is frequently used to deprive civil society, NGOs and the citizens of the European Union, I would say, from gaining access to information about what is actually being traded as part of these international agreements in their name?
Would he also accept that the European Union's approach to developing countries has changed and is a cause of concern for many development NGOs, because it does appear that there is an increasing unwillingness on the part of the European Union to recognise what are called asymmetries or, as other people have put it, the differential status and the weaker levels of development of the economies of the developing world and that the European Union is, at best, agreeing interim periods where these asymmetries may be recognised. But there seems to be an attitude now that open markets and free trade will answer all problems, all the rising tides will lift all boats and so on and there is a good deal of concern about that, and that the Lisbon Treaty unfortunately ‑‑
CHAIRMAN: Okay.
SENATOR DE BURCA: My final question, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: No, no, I would ask you to finish there. I have given you a good bit of time now.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I had fixed 2.00 in my own mind as the time at which I would bring the speakers in and I will do that. I apologise to people who have not been able to get in on this occasion. So perhaps, Mary Lou, would you like to start, and any concluding remarks that you would like to make as well.
MS McDONALD: Just to add, I suppose, to the remarks, I would be interested to hear Peter Sutherland's answer to your question, Carol. I mean I think the interesting thing in terms of the neutrality debate is that we have a situation where you have a government, opposition parties that tell us, dewy eyed, of their commitment to Irish neutrality. We suggested, in light of that commitment, that the wise thing to do would be actually to look for a positive assertion of the rights and responsibilities of neutrals in the EU and to put it into the basic law of the Union. We thought if you have that commitment then it is the smart thing to do and it opens up an opportunity to clarify lots of things for us. That wasn't done. Of course Fine Gael, as you know, are not in favour of neutrality. They believe we need to move beyond neutrality I understand is the term they used, which I make the point simply in terms of when you are debating neutrality, I think you should make that clear to the public.
MS CREIGHTON: It is clear.
MS McDONALD: You hide behind that matter.
MS CREIGHTON: It is very clear.
MS McDONALD: Brendan Kiely says that I have made contradictory statements. He also then contradicts himself and says that I veer from bland statements to scare mongering, which is quite a change in tempo for anybody. You see, the thing is that we are not looking for Ireland to unplug from the EU, to use your term. Far from it. What we are arguing is that in considering the Lisbon Treaty Irish people need to measure up what type of direction they wish the Union to proceed in and then to look at the Treaty and its provision and ask themselves the questions: does this Treaty bring us there? Does it advance matters in any way? And the answer to that if you believe in the things that we believe in is a categorical no.
I also say to people that even our wildest detractors would recognise that Sinn Fein is a party with some experience of negotiations. So in analysing the Lisbon Treaty, we don't come at this from a position of naivety. You don't get it all your own way, and that is the simple negotiating reality. But I have yet to see or hear from the government, or from anyone else what the red letter issues were for this State and how they were secured. And I repeat again that I believe that the Government failed in that regard.
I am not scare mongering on tax policy. Enhanced cooperation is exactly as our colleague here described. But what I have said and what I have raised is that the assertion that this simply cannot happen is wrong, and that is the line that has been put out by the Government and others. I have told you that the mechanism for removing the veto vis‑a‑viz taxation is in the Treaty. And I have also made reference to the enhanced cooperation mechanism. And what is interesting about the enhanced cooperation is that it is clearly a tool to create a vanguard to push forward a particular policy or a policy direction and I have asked the question, and let me restate it: should this come to be, is it wise that we are dependent on the backbone of any particular administration to hold the line on this issue? I actually believe, because taxation is such a fundamental function of any State, because it is so central to everything that we do, not just economically but socially, that the only people who should have the power to concede on that veto is the people asked directly. That is my view. And if others differ with me that is fair enough.
I don't remember the 1950s but I tell you I remember the 1980s. I remember them very clearly. I remember friends of mine, within my own family even, people who finished their formal education or university on a Thursday and they were in Boston on the Monday. That was the reality of the 1980s. And let's not run away with ourselves when we describe the great benefits that the Union has brought to us, which I accept. But I don't accept the revisionists around this table who want to air brush out the 1980s in particular and imagine that Ireland, simply by acceding to the community which became the Union, was the solution to all our economic dilemmas. I don't accept that. I believe in the first instance, in the first instance in terms of innovation and economic development the key players are here domestically. That does not take from the value and the importance of the European stage.
One of our friends raised the issue about the IDA and small and medium sized enterprises. I mean I would argue with you that the IDA focus has been on multi‑nationals and foreign direct investment, very often government policy has focused in that way at the expense of the indigenous and the small and medium sized enterprise and I think that we need to recalibrate that, and maybe that is an argument for another day.
Look, debates, by their very nature, open up platforms for people from whatever perspective to come and to express themselves. That is the whole purpose of this and I frankly don't accept from any quarters that simply because I take a different view, have a different analysis of this Treaty, have different goals or ambitions in terms of the European project, that that brands me as negative. I don't accept that. I don't accept that to argue for Irish neutrality, to argue for decent public services, to argue for a decent relationship with the developing world are negative things. Those are, in fact, very positive things.
Just to assure our friend Senator Ormond that, in fact, the capacity to have a platform like the European Parliament and our engagement in Europe as a whole offers us immense opportunities to make really positive differences. But to do that we have to get the basic rules, regulations and laws right and that is why Lisbon matters and that is why, in our view, it is a bad deal for us. We can do better. And in the event that the people in their wisdom and judgment return a no vote, I don't believe that the sky with fall in. I don't accept that. I don't believe that we will be demoted down the league of Europe, I don't accept that. Of course, it will irritate no doubt very many people around this table and leaders within the European scene. But what it will also do is open up a real opportunity to revisit the issues and to actually secure something which is more than second best.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Sutherland, please.
MR SUTHERLAND: Yes, let me start with that final conclusion. Every parliament in Europe has been told by its Prime Minister that this Treaty is of vital importance for the future of Europe in terms of efficiency, in terms of transparency and in terms of the democratic involvement of parliaments around Europe. To say that if we were to vote no on this that it would be a trivial event or it would not be a very serious event or would not have very serious consequences I think is very hard to understand.
I did not, however, say, as the Sinn Fein representative purported, that I indicated that we could not vote no because it would cause outrage. I didn't say that. What I said was that we could only vote no if we had very good reason for voting no. I went on to say, and I don't hesitate to repeat it in conclusion, notwithstanding some of the comments that have been made, that there is no substance in the substantive arguments that have been raised. I was asked whether I believed in referenda. I believe that where Constitutional change requires it that a referendum is a good thing. As to what precise circumstances should require that change, require that referendum in terms of there being a constitutional change, that is a separate issue. But I am not afraid of referenda, but I think it is not unfair to say that when you have a referendum on a complicated treaty such as this one is, that there is a responsibility to fairly place the arguments and advance debates on the basis of coherent arguments that are clear from the document itself.
Therefore, for an example, an issue as to whether one should join or not join the European Union is a very clear issue. It is a very clear issue if there is something which flatly contradicts your own point of view in the Treaty or can be necessarily implied to do so. But I refuse to accept that I am obliged to make a serious argument about a non‑existent case on issues where Ireland maintains, for an example, vetoes, where unanimity is required, where there is no threat to our taxation policy, where there is no threat to our neutrality and so on.
The question has been raised about the Common Defence Policy just to deal with it. It is quite clear that apart from the special recognition in the common defence provisions of the Treaty, unanimity is required for any involvement and opting out of any operational activities or the funding of any operational activities is explicitly permitted. It cannot be argued that this is an attack on neutrality or any aspect of it.
Then there is the question of Europe's place in globalisation. First of all, I believe that there are European values and I think that they have been valid and important in the development of the globalisation process. I think that Europe played a positive role in the conclusion of the Uruguay Round and in the creation of the WTO. I believe that that continues to be enhanced in the Lisbon Treaty, that that involvement of Europe has provided a balance in international trade negotiations which has been valuable and helpful. It should be said that in those trade talks Ireland has been attacked for its position on agriculture in terms of the third world and our allegedly European protectionist position on that.
I remember at a WTO discussion once listening to the US trade representative making a point in Davros that in regard to the position of Ireland in regard to the negotiations of the Doha round that Ireland was the particular country which was having, with France, the most influence on those particular discussions. I don't make a qualitative judgment on that, but I making the point that Ireland, through Europe, for good or for ill, whichever your point of view may be, has a very real place at the table of those negotiations, and without it and without being a member in good standing we would not have that position and the interests of the farming community would not be protected and the immeasurable benefits, immeasurable benefits of the Common Agricultural Policy would not be available to Ireland in the first place. So that, I think, is an important point to make.
In globalisation and Europe's attitude to the Third World, there are pluses and minuses, as there are in every other part of the world but I think that we have not been bad. I think that we have generally played a positive and constructive role and an enhanced negotiating position in regard to the cohesion of the European Union which is allowed for in this Treaty will be helpful in further advancing values which I think we share as peoples, and which I think incidentally are demonstrated by the unanimity that will flow from the adoption of this Treaty. And if we don't agree with this Treaty, it would be an indication and be implied as being an indication of a difference in terms of our values and perspectives from the rest of the European Union as to where it is going.
I have been asked to comment on issues like the dollar. Of course, it is not germane directly to this debate, but I understand why it has been raised. Nor indeed is the Laval case or the issues in regard to contribution or benefit based pension schemes, the Treaty itself does not deal with it. But I do think that in regard to the second point the dollar or, indeed, the global financial system, the creation of a foreign representative who is both a member of the Commission and a member of the Council of Ministers as Special Representative will enhance the possibility that Europe will be able to be involved and take coherent positions in regard to issues like what amounts to the devaluation of the dollar which, incidentally, is not the revaluation of the euro, it is the devaluation of the dollar. And I would like to say how clearly in our benefit it is that Ireland is part of a single currency mechanism at this time of great threat to financial stability and where would we like to be if we were not. And it must be said that there are there are many here, some here who opposed joining that European single currency in the first place.
So to me at least there is, there is not a substantial argument against the case that this Treaty is in our economic interest, but the reason for that is that it makes the European Union more efficient in maintaining its external economic and commercial policies and developing its internal market which has been the essence of the development of our economy since we joined the European Union, but particularly during the period since 1990. Thank you very much. (Applause)
CHAIRMAN: Well thank you all very much indeed. I would like to thank both speakers for their presentations and their willingness to respond to the issues that have been raised. I apologise to those who I wasn't able to get in today, but I do thank all the Forum Members who participated. Could I ask you to express your appreciation to the two speakers. (Applause)
The next plenary meeting will focus on the Treaty's implications for the EU's institutional arrangements, and I hope it will be focused on that. We will hear from both David Byrne, the former EU Commissioner and from Susan George, a leading French opponent of the Treaty. The following week we will have two plenary sessions with European leaders, both actually in the afternoon. The afternoon of Monday 14th April we will hear from the Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and in the afternoon of Thursday the 17th the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso.
We have planned two further plenary sessions in the coming weeks. On 24th April leader of Fine Gael Enda Kenny TD, and on Thursday 1st May the leader of Sinn Fein Gerry Adams MP MLA.
Next week we will hold public meetings in Cork City on Monday where the speakers will be Brian Crowley MEP, and Kathy Sinnott MEP. The following evening we will be in Newbridge we will hear from Mairead McGuinness MEP, and Padraig Mannion, The Workers’ Party. We will publish details of these on our website and you will be able to follow this. And we also today launch a channel on YouTube, the popular interactive video website. It features short video clips and I hope people will make use of this. And, of course, we have a Submissions Day to come. We have extended by a week the time for submitting, making submissions and I encourage those especially from the Pillar who wish to make submissions to do so. But thank you all for your participation.
Sin a bhfuil, slán abhaile.
THE SESSION CONCLUDED
National Forum On Europe, Fóram Náisiúnta um an Eoraip © 2010