Listen to NEAR fm's half hour summary of this session>>
View photos of this session via the Forum's Facebook page>>
THE PLENARY SESSION COMMENCED ON THURSDAY, 17TH APRIL 2008, AS FOLLOWS:
Opening remarks from Chairman Maurice Hayes
President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso
Concluding remarks from Chairman Maurice Hayes
Welcome all to this, the nineth-third Plenary Session of the National Forum on Europe. We are indeed honoured today to welcome back to the Forum the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso. Cead mile failte romhat ar ais or bem‑vindo de volta.
I would also extend a warm welcome to a distinguished delegation and, indeed, to welcome home the Secretary General of the Commission Ms Catherine Day.
Senor Barroso, for your first visit to the Forum we planned a discussion on the EU Constitution but the referendum in France and the Netherlands intervened and I recall you quoted WB Yeats very aptly to say all changed, changed utterly. I am glad you refrained from adding the next line.
Since then we have been engaged, as you know, during the period of reflection and we had a plenary session in February with your colleague, the Vice‑President of the Commission Margot Wallstrom. Since the beginning of this year we have focussed exclusively on the new Treaty, both in the plenary meetings and the series of public meetings which we have been conducting around the country. There has been a great deal of lively debate about the direction of Europe in general, but there are issues which are specific to Ireland and to our role in Europe. So far, we have had seven plenary meetings on this subject, like this one, and 14 public information meetings with speakers for and against the new Treaty. We have produced information materials to support the debate and we have facilitated other groups who wish to distribute their materials.
I think everyone in the Forum appreciates your willingness to come to the Forum, Senor Barroso, and to engage with us today in this debate on the apposite theme at the heart of an open Europe, Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty.
If my remarks of welcome have been brief it is because I don't wish to delay our discussions and I know that many members of the Forum would wish to ask you questions or comments as well.
So I now have the great honour to the call on the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso. (Applause)
I really have not come here to try to tell people how to vote. I have come here to do two things; to explain my reasons, both personal and as President of the European Commission for believing that Europe needs this Treaty, and I am passionate about this; and also to ask people to inform themselves and to exercise their right to vote on 12th June.
When I was growing up in my country Portugal, under dictatorship, what is now the European Union represented many of the things that the young aspired to ‑ peace, freedom, economic and social progress and the idea of working together across borders is possible.
Today, more than ever, I see the European Union as a force for peace and good in the world. The European Union is the world's biggest donor of development aid. We are involved in peace keeping operations in many parts of the world. In many of these operations, Irish nationals have served with distinction in Bosnia, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in Sudan and now in Chad where Ireland is the second largest contributor to an European Union mission. We are also leading the world in the fight against climate change. Around the world, more and more countries seek to emulate the European model of economic growth with high standards of social and environmental protection. They admire our deliberate focus on increasing standards of living across all of Europe's regions.
As President of the Commission, I am reminded on a daily basis of why we need the European Union to work well and to deliver for its citizens.
Globalisation is one of the defining influences of our times. I believe it is a positive force for change and for empowerment. It brings new opportunities for millions around the world. But it also brings concerns and sometimes fears. The pace of change is much faster than ever before. Jobs and skills can quickly become obsolete and there are concerns that Europe's high social standards will be under threat. These worries must be taken seriously and addressed.
The European Union so far has been one of the big winners from the open world trading system that developed after the Second World War. And Ireland has been among the most successful of the winners, building its current prosperity on attracting inward investment, investing in a well‑educated, skilled labour force and a strong system of social partnership.
The current European Union agenda mirrors the Irish approach in many respects ‑ a clear case of how smaller Member States can shape the agenda and indeed "punch above their weight". Let me tell you that when I was Prime Minister of Portugal I looked very closely at the Irish model to see what we could learn. And you are certainly aware that many of our newer Member States look to Ireland for a lead on how to get the most out of their European Union membership.
And closer to home, the new devolved administration in Northern Ireland is looking south to try to figure out just how Ireland managed to do so well out of the opportunities the European Union offers. Following a visit I made to Belfast last year, the Commission has set up a Task Force on Northern Ireland to give them an extra helping hand. I appreciate the support that we have had in this work from the Irish government and civil service. The first report of the Task Force was well received when Commissioner Hübner presented it in Belfast earlier this week.
Equipping Europeans to face globalisation with confidence is one of the key messages of this Commission. We have put growth and jobs at the heart of policy agenda. We are building a knowledge economy, emhasising the role of research and development and links between it, the education and innovation. This goes hand in hand with a modern social agenda, based on providing access, opportunity, solidarity so that no‑one is left behind. We are promoting a new approach to flexicurity so that, when they need it, people can be supported to move out of jobs that do not have a future and be helped retrain for those that have a future. I am pleased to say that our approach has the backing of the social partners at European level.
Many of the challenges on the European Union agenda today are long‑term challenges that go beyond the ability of any of Member States to tackle on their own. Demographic change is shaping a new social reality in Europe, calling for the modernisation of our social policies. All of our countries are facing what is a relatively new challenge for Ireland ‑ migration. As you have seen, migration can bring very positive benefits. Ireland has benefited not only from mobility of labour between Member States but also from further afield. However, there is a need to manage migratory flows from outside the European Union for political, social and economic reasons. This can be done more effectively through certain common policies at European Union level.
I have already mentioned climate change. In moving Europe to a low carbon future, we are on the brink of a new industrial revolution. Changing the way we produce and consume, will create major new opportunities for jobs and innovative technologies, here in Europe and across the world.
So, if we already have an ambitious agenda delivering results for our citizens and if we are concentrated on delivering results for our citizens, why do I believe that we need a new Treaty?
Essentially for three reasons:
* efficiency, making the European Union work better;
* accountability, giving people a greater say over what "Brussels" can and cannot do, and giving Europe a stronger and more coherent voice in the wider world.
The Lisbon Treaty, if ratified, will bring several changes to make the European Union more efficient and effective. The European Council, which sets the main policy directions for the European Union, will have a President. This new post will help to ensure continuity between meetings. Continuity is particularly important when you think of the long term challenges facing us. Our present system of rotating Presidencies that change every six months cannot do this in spite of the great effort of all of the Presidencies.
We will have more qualified majority voting, which should help to speed up decision making. However, here in Ireland, knowing that taxation is a sensitive issue, I would like to underline the fact that the Lisbon Treaty does not change the rules on taxation. They remain subject to unanimity, giving each Member State a veto. Nothing can be agreed on taxation issues without Ireland's consent and nothing can be imposed on Ireland.
Making the Union more accountable to citizens is another key feature of the Treaty. I reject the idea that "Brussels" is some kind of super state, taking decisions behind closed doors, very far away from "the people". We hold more public consultations than ever before so that people can be involved and make their views known.
Two years ago, I decided that the Commission would send all of its proposals to national parliaments and invite comments. My main aim was to try to get debate going at national level on what is being discussed at European Union level. I have been very pleased with result ‑ so far, we have had over 200 opinions from almost 30 different national parliament chambers. Here in Ireland, two Joint Committees of the Parliament, the Committee on European Affairs and the Committee on European Union Scrutiny, have been very active in European Union matters. They have contributed several very helpful opinions on issues such as our social reality stocktaking, on the European Union framework decision on the fight against terrorism, on obesity, on climate change as well as on the better regulation agenda.
Once the Lisbon Treaty is in force, national parliaments will have the right to challenge Commission proposals on the grounds that they do not respect subsidiarity. Of course, the Commission is very respectful of the rights of Member States and conscious of the limits of our powers so we will try not to give them grounds to object!
Let me tell you, on a personal basis I have been, as some of you know, Prime Minister in my country so I also do not like when I receive instructions from abroad. So I think it is important to understand that the European Union is a union of Member States, that they are democratic Member States and that we have to have the right balance between those different powers.
The European Parliament will see its roles and powers strengthened under the new Treaty. There will also be a possibility for "people power" ‑‑ if I may use the word ‑‑ in the form of a citizens' initiative whereby one million people across Europe can ask the Commission to take action in areas of concern to them.
The third ear area I want to highlight is external policy. The new Treaty will greatly simplify the voice and even the face of the European Union for the rest of the world. We have to admit that our current arrangements are complicated ‑ for example, since he came to power in 2000, the President of Russia, President Putin has been faced than no less than 16 different Presidents of the Council and two Commission Presidents only. Such a rapidly changing gallery makes it difficult to stick to a coherent, long term message, even when we have great capacity of those Prime Ministers, they invest a lot, but you understand that changing 16 times the President of an institution is not the best way to show the continuity of the image of the European Union. Under the new Treaty, the Presidents of the European Council and of the Commission will represent the European Union externally, with the support of the new High Representative who will, at the same time, be a Vice‑President of the Commission. This streamlining will give us a more effective voice internationally. We will be able to build up longer lasting relationships with key partners and to press Europe's point of view on an ongoing basis. For me, this enhanced ability to promote Europe's values and interests around the world is one of the major benefits of the Lisbon Treaty. We need this now if we are to be able to tackle the challenge of globalisation and make sure that this is positive for Europeans.
Having set out the reasons why I think Europe needs this Treaty, let me also comment on some of the concerns that I understand are being expressed here in Ireland. Let me focus briefly on three issues ‑ taxation, neutrality and the "Irish model".
I have already said that the unanimity rule for taxation stays in the Lisbon Treaty. You can say it confirmed, set in stone by the Lisbon Treaty. Following the debate in Ireland closely through the media, I see you have been having a lot of debate about the consolidated tax base (the CCCTB). This is an issue of interest to several Member States and is being studied by the Commission. It is a complex area also from a technical point of view, so before making any proposal, we would need to know what options exist and what implications any Commission proposals might have. No decision will be made on whether or not to present a proposal until we know all those implications. But one thing is already crystal clear ‑ no Member State, either under the current rules or under the Lisbon Treaty, can be obliged to accept a tax proposal to which it objects.
A few moments ago, I reflected on the close match between the "Irish model" and today's European agenda. Let me now refer to one specific aspect of your model ‑ agriculture and rural development. I often think that the Common Agricultural Policy is much maligned, inside and outside the European Union. Many of its detractors do not fully appreciate just how much it has changed ‑ thanks to a process of reform launched by Ray McSharry. I do not see the CAP as an old policy to be phased out, but rather as a successful one that offers great potential for the future, provided it continues to modernise. We want to promote strong rural communities and a vibrant rural economy. The Commission will be making its formal proposals for a "health check" on the CAP in May and I think they will fit comfortably with the changes that Ireland has been making in its agricultural policy.
We will continue to work for a WTO agreement that is in Europe's interests. At this time of instability in global financial markets, a break through in the Doha negotiations will give a needed boost to global economic confidence. A balanced deal will bring huge benefits to Europe in the area of goods and services and ensure that we deliver on our commitment to giving the developing countries a greater stake in the international trading system. In the agricultural negotiations, we will stick to our mandate and within the 2003 CAP reforms. I know that there are particular concerns in the farming sector and that, if we reach agreement, Ireland, like others, will have to focus more on the market and on high quality food production. But this should not be too big a challenge for you ‑ with your extensive grassland production. We are working hard in the negotiations to get the best possible deal in the agricultural sector and I believe that Ireland is already well positioned in the quality end of the beef market. Even more importantly, a WTO deal this year with bind in our 2003 CAP reform to the WTO and provide a stable framework for international agricultural trade at least for a decade. We then can address future CAP reform free from external pressure. This is a big prize for the agricultural community.
So honestly I believe it is better for the agricultural sector in Europe to get agreement as soon as possible before we come to the end of the cycle of reform of the CAP.
The Lisbon Treaty will make some changes in the way the European Union deals with defence and security issues. But I can categorically state that there is nothing in the new Treaty that will affect Ireland's tradition of military neutrality. Here too unanimity will continue to be the rule and each Member State retains a veto over proposal or crisis management missions. In fact, the Treaty explicitly says that the policy of the Union on these matters "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States", so Ireland's distinctive national position is, indeed, fully protected.
To conclude let me tell that as you know Ireland is the only Member State holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. This means the [ice|eyes] Europe, if not the world, will be on you in the run up to 12th June. Speaking in Dublin over 40 years, President Kennedy quoted an Irish poet AE, George William Russell and said: "I believe profoundly ... in the future of Ireland ... that this is an isle of destiny, and that that destiny will be glorious ... and that when our hour has come, we will have something to give to the world". And President Kennedy went on to say that: "Ireland's hour has come. You have something to give to the world ‑‑ and that is a future of peace with freedom".
In a different context, in a country which is far more secure, more prosperous and more confident that the one that Kennedy addressed, I echo his words. On 12th June the Irish people will be sending a message to the rest of Europe, and the wider world. I hope it will one that says you want a more efficient, effective and accountable Europe. That you want to see the European Union play its unique role in helping to spread peace, progress and responsibility around the world. That Ireland wants to continue to be at the heart of an open Europe and to bring its unique contribution to all of the fora where decisions are taken. This is, of course, an individual choice. Whatever your views, I hope that you will exercise your right to make them heard through the democratic legitimacy of the ballot box.
I made my choice long ago and every new development in the European Union confirms to me that I made the right one. Now of course it is up to the Irish people. Go raibh mile maith agaibh. (Applause)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much indeed, Senor Barroso. We will now throw the thing open to the Forum. And I must say if everybody else sticks as rigorously and faithfully to their time slot as you did we will get a god few people in. So I would appeal to people today to try and let us get as many speakers as we can in. I call first of all on Mr Dermot Ahern, please, Minister Ahern.
MINISTER AHERN: Go raibh maith agat, Cathaoirleach. First of all on behalf of my party, Fianna Fail, could I again welcome the President of the European Commission here to the Forum. I want to thank him for the very clear statement that he gave on some very key issues affecting us, not just in the context of the Reform Treaty but also generally in relation to our relationship with the EU. And equally so, I think it is important that the people across the Union can put faces to the names and, indeed, the institutions, which sometimes are described as distant and faceless.
I know that you, Mr President, have taken this aspect of your role very seriously, both in your capacity as President and indeed encouraging your own Commissioners to visit Member States on a regular basis and to engage in discussions with European citizens. And I know again we have had a succession of Commissioners here over the years, for which we are very thankful.
Throughout your own term as President of the Commission, you have demonstrated especially strong support for the vital principle of solidarity. Over the 35 years of our membership, Ireland, in particular, has benefited from the Union's commitment to this principle. We have also benefited from the Union's commitment to the principle of equality between Member States, small and large, and these are two central principles of the Union at the core of how the Union operates, so by signing the Reform Treaty in Lisbon, all 27 Member States reaffirmed their faith in these principles. They are central to the continued successful operation of the Union in the years ahead. The practical effect of these two principles is visible in today's Europe. It is the most peaceful and prosperous region on earth.
My party, Fianna Fail, has long supported European membership for Ireland. Our membership has provided opportunities for us to make great progress as a nation, to improve our standard of living, to stem the terrible flow of emigration and to create a country where we can plan a stable future for the next generations. These achievements are the result of the past Irish decisions to pursue our sovereign interest within the European Union. The Union has been a great catalyst for our nation's advance; liberating Irish workers and their families from the stark choice of the dole or the boat, empowering our social, cultural and economic development from unhealthy dependence to equality with Britain, projecting the values and interests of Irish people on the human rights issues and trade and development aid from the core of the Union across the globe. And, indeed, and most importantly, to somebody who lives in the border areas, to securing peace on this island.
So the sovereign choice of the Irish people to participate in the European project has delivered us from dependence to independence. It has given us a much greater voice to our own values and made, particularly my generation, the first since the famine to know that our children can stay and can thrive in Ireland.
So the Reform Treaty secures these national gains. It secures, as you have said, neutrality and tax sovereignty. It empowers Ireland to deal with the significant global challenges ahead, of which there are many, but we can only do that, we believe, in the context of working with our friends and our allies. It is in our own national interest, I believe that is the bottom line.
So we believe that the Reform Treaty sets up the Union to continue to take the interests of all Member States, small or large, into account. It recognises our common interests while, at the same time, respecting vital individual national interests, such as taxation and defence, in our case, where decisions can only be taken by unanimity.
Membership of the European Union has been an overwhelmingly positive experience for Ireland. In many respects we have found our feet and, indeed, our voice, as a nation, over the past 35 years. Under the Reform Treaty I believe, and we believe in Fianna Fail, that we can continue to make that progress. Under the Reform Treaty the Union will continue to make, we believe, that progress. This Treaty will be good for Ireland and good for Europe.
I firmly believe that past behaviour is a good indicator of future performance. For this reason Ireland has nothing to fear and, indeed, everything to gain by supporting the Treaty. I am not naive enough to believe that membership of the Union has not provided us with some current challenges and the need to compromise, but I have no doubt that we will continue to make demands.
I know, Mr Chairman, you are trying to get me to finish and I just want, again, to emphasise the incredible effect that the European Union has on, not only dealing with our peace process and assisting our peace process both financially and indeed from a personnel point of view, but equally so it has helped to heal the age old problems that we had with the our next door neighbour, Britain. And for that I think we are very grateful and for that reason I believe the Irish people should continue to be positive about the European Union and vote yes in this Reform Treaty.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Enda Kenny, please.
For my party, as for people here, we are associated with the European People's Party, which is the largest voting block in the Parliament. Long before this became a real campaign, we made it perfectly clear that we would support the process of Europe, that we would support the EU Reform Treaty and that we would publicly campaign on that very strongly, and set aside our political national differences with government on health issues or economics or whatever, because we believe so strongly in this process for the future. It is about our children, it is about our country and about our continent.
From that point of view, I find it so exciting to attend public meetings all over the country, where there are people with different viewpoints who are not in favour of the EU Reform Treaty and I respect their right to have an opinion, but I also expect that the facts will be debated and that the matters are clarified and the people are properly informed so that they can make their minds up on June 12th when they actually go to vote.
And when you think about it, that a person of 18 years of age, who is on the register for the first time, is being asked to question, a fundamental question for their own future: do they want to have the institutions of Europe, principally the Commission, the Council and the Parliament, sufficiently flexible, professional and able to cater for a population of 500 million people as distinct from 250 million when we had only 15 countries in the Union? That is a really fundamental political question which, as I say, is both a privilege and a responsibility given to our electorate in this small country of just over four million people; to decide the fate of the institutions for 500 million people. I think we should think long and very carefully about that and, for our part, we are very strongly of the opinion in urging people that they should vote yes to building those platforms which will allow us to do this. There is nothing radical in this Treaty that people need to be afraid of and the issues that are being raised that are of concern to people, and have been for many years, are all answerable, every one of them. I expect that over the next number of weeks this debate will be carried throughout the length and breadth of the country.
I want to finish this short contribution, Mr President, by asking you a question which is of great significance which you have referred to. And that is the WTO round of talks. Now, obviously it is a separate matter from the EU Reform Treaty and we have been very careful to keep it separate, but it is an issue of interest across many sectors in Irish society and the Irish economy, particularly the agri sector. And from that perspective could I ask you just two questions. In your contribution you have referred to the fact that Europe will stick to its mandate of the 2003 CAP reform. Can you comment in your response as to whether or not Commissioner Mandelson has actually acceded that mandate in what he has put on the table at the moment? Because that seems to be a very strong impression that the Commissioner has gone beyond the brief given to him by the European Commission. This is a critical question for many people to which they would want the answer to.
And the second half of that question is, when this deal is concluded ‑‑ and I agree that it should be, that it has to be dealt with ‑‑ if it is not a balanced deal as you refer to, if it is not a fair deal as you refer to, can you confirm whether or not each country has the right of veto when that comes back before the General Affairs Committee? Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Niamh Bhreathnach, please.
MS BHREATHNACH: Go raibh míle maith agat, a chathaorlach. Ba mhaith liom, ar dtús, a rá “fáilte romhat”, ar son muintir Páirtí An Lucht Oibre. You came and you said “Go raibh míle maith agat”, so I am repeating “Go raibh míle maith agat” to you! I think it actually spells out for us the differences that we can enjoy within the European Parliament, the different languages, the different cultural backgrounds but all under the same umbrella. And I am certainly very happy that the Forum is hosting you here today to allow you to share with us and the Irish people why you think this voting in the Treaty is important and why you think for those who are voting why a yes vote would be important. Because, as I have said before, where people in the opposition see a plot I see a plan and I am glad that I am speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, whose idea for this Forum it was from us grew. And if, as you said, Mr Barroso, that the Lisbon Treaty, if ratified, will continue on its way, I would just like to ask you and the government parties how we are going to raise to this challenge of continuing the debate? We will be worrying about saving the planet, feeding the poor, issues that are outside the remit of passing the Lisbon Treaty. But if we pass the Lisbon Treaty, I think, out of this debate, there are lessons we must learn.
We have been to different public meetings, some of us have chaired more robust ones than others. But I will say, we say to people, there has to be, absolutely everybody must vote the same way and up comes the word passerelle. And then we say QMV and somebody else shouts something else. We say CAP and it is Peter Mandelson. We say neutrality and they shout triple lock. So even as we have progressed the debate here through the Forum, there still seems to be a reluctance for both sides to listen to each other.
So I would say there is a trust in the existing political system here in Ireland where previously those of us who are ministers and who attended at Council level really didn't have to come back to be that accountable to the Dáil. Now, that is slowly changing, but actually will challenge that it has to change much more. The ability to create the debate that can reach down.
And I would just say to you, Mr Barroso, to take the message back to the Commissioners and certainly to the government parties back to your cabinet colleagues that this debate and this Forum which, Chairman, you have handled through thick and thin to allow both sides to have an opportunity to speak, that we must, in some way, make sure that that sort of debate can continue. Otherwise what we will see, the first thing we will see will be the Citizens' Initiative high‑jacked. Now we must not see that high‑jacked, we must see it used and that would be my message as I continue with the Labour Party to bring a positive message out there to people to encourage them to vote on the 12th and to encourage them to vote yes. Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. It might help actually in dealing with that, if I can say that the Steering Committee meeting the other day has asked me to prepare some sort of report and some set of proposals that we can all consider about the future. It may be the half life of the thing that is in it but there we are. Deirdre de Burca, please.
Just two issues I would like to raise with him. I suppose the first one is to do with the perceived democratic deficit of the European Union. And most people would accept that the European Union is a very ambitious and successful political project which certainly has the support of the political classes in Europe. But the whole issue of the support of the peoples of Europe is not quite as clear and unambiguous and I think the Laeken Declaration recognised this when it spoke of the need to bring the institutions of the European Union closer to the citizens.
And I would just like to ask President Barroso whether he feels that this potential disconnect that exists between the institutions of the European Union and the citizens has the possibility of presenting a serious weakness in the Europe Union in the future where the support of citizens may be needed for the introduction of certain measures. And does he believe that, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, that the period of consolidation that we are promised will follow it. That this should be very much a period during which the democratic deficit would be addressed by the European Union through its institutions, by means of outreach with citizens, education, dialogue, structured dialogue in consultation with citizens.
And also to echo something that Minister Ahern just referred to, putting a human face on the institutions of the European Union and bringing them closer to their Member States through visits to parliaments and to fora such as this by members of the Commission and other representatives of the European institutions. Certainly, as far as the Green Party is concerned, that would help to bring Brussels much closer to its citizens.
The second issue I would like to touch on just very briefly is the issue of the values of the European Union. I think it is a very welcome feature of the Lisbon Treaty that the values are laid out very clearly. And I think these values will help to inspire public support for the European Union because I think the values of equality and solidarity have been synonymous with the European project since its very early days and I think there has always been very strong public support in Europe for State intervention in the economy in order to promote public welfare.
However, I think there is a degree of concern that possibly the policies of the European Union, certainly in the area of economic policy, may be shifting slightly to the right and we may see Berlin moving closer to Boston and I wonder whether the President would just respond to that and clarify whether he believes that is happening or whether he can reassure the citizens in that regard. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mary Lou McDonald, please.
It is no surprise, of course, Mr Barroso, that you are here to give a full and fulsome endorsement to the Lisbon Treaty. We would expect no less. I don't share your analysis on it. I think it is a disappointment and, in fact, a failure in terms of democratic reform. I believe if this Treaty is passed by the people, that, in fact, the democratic distance that my colleague Senator de Burca has referred to will be aggravated and will grow.
But in the time available to me, Mr Barroso, I would like to raise two matters with you. Firstly, I noticed that your assurances here today on the issue of taxation are a lot less fulsome than those that you gave in the Irish press. Because you are on the record now telling the Irish people that there will be a 0.000% chance of a common consolidated tax base becoming a reality and this, as you know, is in direct contradiction with the facts because the Commission has made its position clear. It wishes to bring forward such harmonisation of the tax base. The European Parliament has repeatedly supported this move. The Commission has welcomed this parliamentary support. And while the Commission, it is true to say, removed corporation tax from its priority list last December, I presume to be helpful to those campaigning for a yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty, the fact is that the Commission expects to bring forward such a proposal in September.
Now, Mr Barroso, I share your call for people to inform themselves. I think it is essential to this debate. But what is equally essential is that the authorities here and at a European level are straight with people. As you will know, it has come to light that your Commission is actively colluding with the Irish government to bury contentious political matters or sensitive matters relating to the out workings of Lisbon, and presumably this new found sensitivity is to add to the passage of the referendum on Lisbon here in June. I put it to you very directly, Mr President, that it is unacceptable that the Commission, or any institution of the European Union, would act in this fashion.
A lot has been said, you know, as we deliberated on Lisbon about Ireland's standing and the potential outcome if the people of this State vote no to the Lisbon Treaty. Given what we now know through our free press, I think the more pertinent question is actually about the standing of the EU institutions. It is essential that we have confidence in the transparency, the straightforwardness and the truthfulness of information debates at a European level and how they are presented to the public.
And I, finally, say to you, and indeed to the yes campaigners, if the plan is to leave people in ignorance of the content of this Treaty, if the plan is to assume that the Irish people will act simply as a rubber stamp for this Treaty, well then I think you will find, to coin a phrase, that the response will be no way Jose. Thank you. (Applause)
CHAIRPERSON: Senator Fergal Quinn, please.
You talked about how good the Union has been for Ireland and how correct you are. I remember in 1972 voting in favour and when we look back and see the success that we have had, we appreciate all that has happened since then, as well as the way we have used it in Ireland.
I have 11 grandchildren, none of whom have yet got the right to vote, so I feel an obligation to represent them and to study this and to make sure that the onus of responsibility that I have on me will ensure that they don't come back to me in years to come, as I think we went back to those who voted 208 years ago when we in Ireland, those who had a right to vote, joined the union with Great Britain. So I have got this responsibility. So I have tried, done my best to go through the 346 pages, it is very difficult. I want to be able to say to not just my grandchildren but to all of those others who have asked me for advice, you know, are you sure, do you understand it, and I must say I don't fully understand it, but I know that there are one or two issues that still concern me.
Let me just bring one issue and that is the issue on Article 113. And the previous speaker Mary Lou McDonald has talked about taxation and my mind has been put at rest in regard to harmonisation of taxation. That is all right but I think that is correct and I accept that point. But there were six words added to this Treaty and they are and to avoid distortion of competition. Those six words being added in Article 113.
Now it seems to me I believe that this, or at least put my mind at rest, will this give the Commission and the EU Court of Justice the power to erode our corporate tax base on sales abroad. I am not talking about harmonisation but let me give you the instance that I understand here. If an Irish company at the moment has 10% of its sales in Ireland and 90% of its sales abroad, is it possible that it could be regarded as a distortion of competition that if it was decided that the tax on that 90%, let's say, in Britain where the corporate tax is much higher, that the Irish company should pay the British rate of tax on those goods that it exports to Britain? Now if that is so, we will still maintain our harmonization here, there is no question about that, but it would have a dramatic effect on the ability to compete in the manner that we have up to now. That is the one question I would like for you to be able to answer me.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Seumas O'Brien, please.
During the course of your presentation you made remarks which I would very much I agree with. They are the sentiments that we thought were the result of the 2003 agreement. But, in practice, they are not perceived to be as such by the farming community in Ireland or in Europe.
Just to remind you that we are a small country, as you have said, but we are a big agricultural industry in relative terms. We produce food for approximately 36 million people. 300,000 people contribute directly or indirectly to do that. Thousands of farmers and representatives of the agricultural industry are demonstrating in Dublin today because of your visit, to illustrate to you their real fears about what is happening in world trade. You used the word balance, but, as we perceive them presently, the negotiation is centring specifically in agriculture. We would have expected an equal proportion of discussion on industry and services.
We note that Mandelson's proposals coming from you, the Commission, have very serious reductions in tariffs, which certainly would not contribute to balanced trade. If you reduce a levy on beef from 97 cents a kilo down to 35 or 40 cents a kilo, you will not have a level playing field and you would wipe out the European beef industry. And there is already a precedent which we got assurances in 2003 in relation to sugar beet and it is kaput, it is gone. Very real fears exist in relation to the beef, and aspects of the dairy industry.
Our economists have worked out that it would cost Ireland 4 billion annually or Europe 20 billion and that would be doubled in terms of its wider effect on the European and Irish economies and that is not a balanced situation. Today we find ourselves in a very, I won't say unhelpful, but certainly a more chaotic situation in terms of food production in the world today, and that sort of upheaval at the present time would be disastrous for the whole infrastructure of agriculture. You talked about quality of food. Yes, we have, I believe, the best quality of food in the world, but you can't compete with food coming in that does not have the same demands. And all you have to do is look at the Brazilian beef issue, which you have handled extremely well, eventually.
I accept it does not affect the Lisbon Treaty ‑‑ Chairman, just a moment, ‑‑ but you can't tell the average farmer and agricultural industrialists out there that it does not, because the perception is that you are trying to construct and consolidate Europe, which we support and always have done, but it is perceived very clearly that what is happening in world trade is destruction and that is not acceptable and I fear that 20th May will be our referendum on Lisbon and not 12th June. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. (Applause)
I appreciate that Mr O'Brien has been raising an issue of enormous public interest and of interest to his members, but I would ask others now to be as succinct possibly as they could so that I could get more speakers in and give the President the opportunity of responding. Mr Naoise Nunn, please.
MR NUNN: Thanks very much, Mr Chairman. You are very welcome, President Barroso.
I have two brief questions. The first is on the Commission in the context of your statement that the Treaty was needed to bring in greater efficiency, particularly in the context of the reduction of the Commission. Why then does a statement on the Commission, your own Commission's website read:
The accession of ten new Members in 2004 and of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 has not slowed down decision making. The EU's institutions continue to function. New members of the European Parliament play an active role in its political groups. The Barroso Commission works effectively with 27 Commissioners and the Council takes decisions as well as before.
And also in that context, does he agree with his Vice‑President of the Commission, Margot Wallstrom, when she said in the context of the reduction of the number of Commissioners in the Lisbon Treaty:
Whatever we win in efficiency we might lose in democratic legitimacy because we need someone who can speak their own language and be acceptable to their people and stand up for them.
My second queston is a repetition, to some extent, of Senator Quinn's except I will put it in a more muscular manner. Will the President, will Mr Barroso give us a cast iron guarantee, will he stake his reputation on the fact that Ireland will never be subject to an EU sales destination tax under the enhanced cooperation arrangements? And furthermore, will he stake his reputation on whether the European Court of Justice will ever hear a case against Ireland's tax rate citing distortion of competition as provided for in Article 113A?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Joe Higgins, please.
MR HIGGINS: Go raibh maith agat, Cathaoirleach. Senor Barroso, it is quite clear from the leaked memo to the British foreign service that the EU Commission, your Commission, and the Irish government have been conspiring to subvert a democratic discussion in this country on the Lisbon Treaty and to avoid an honest discussion on the real implications of Lisbon. And, I have to say, that the e‑mail has the absolute ring of truth about it when it says the tactic of the Irish government is not to discuss the details of the Treaty, but instead to predicate everything with the arrogant McMillan‑like doctrine: you never had it so good, thank the EU, how dare you ask questions, now vote yes. And that is what has been happening in the debate so far.
Now we are hearing all morning, Mr Barroso, I don't know if you are aware on the airwaves, that the Taoiseach was to ask you to say that each Member State will retain a veto on changes to corporate taxation. In other words, your visit to Ireland, with your consent I have no doubt, has been turned into a circus where the Taoiseach holds up the corporate taxation hoop, knowing full well that you will effortlessly jump through it, land on your feet to the applause of the onlookers, at least some of them. And I have to say it is rather typical of the Taoiseach and our government that the single issue he chooses to clarify and dazzle us with this morning is to reassure speculators and big business, who have been raking in massive profits in the ten years of his tenure, that they have nothing to fear; that they can continue to do that at the expense of working people and other people, the very morning that the OECD, incidentally, wants to hammer the wages of the working class and their living conditions.
Now can I ask you if you will jump through a few hoops, Mr Barroso, that we have not choreographed together very briefly? Number one, Article 188C, paragraph 4 in the Common Commercial Policy in trading and services, do you accept that it removes the absolute veto on trade in social, education and health services? In other words, mandates them to be opened up to the multinationals for profit, et cetera? It removes an absolute veto I say. Do you agree? And then what does it mean if it does not mean that? And why is put in there?
Do you agree in regard to Article 28A that it mandates increased military spending and increased spending on armaments, increased resources for the obscene trade in armaments that already sees 50 to 60 billion wasted on it in the EU each year and which you and the Commission, incidentally, facilitate at every hands turn? Do you agree that the same paragraph provides for an elite military alliance of the more powerful military states within the European Union? Otherwise what does it mean when it says those Member States whose military capabilities fulfill higher criteria shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework?
And also, and this is very important as well, do you acknowledge that from here on out if Lisbon is passed, you crush the right of any Member State to have an independent foreign policy? Any State that differs with the EU majority is obliged, according to that Article, and its embassies abroad are obliged, and it is written in clear English, to support and to implement what that foreign policy is? Now is that true, because we can't get the government heretofore to answer it.
And the last point, Cathaoirleach, is we have been told again and again by the yes champions that the Charter of Fundamental Rights, been given a certain status in Lisbon will stop worker exploitation and the race to the bottom. They say that the Laval judgment, whereby the European Court of Justice underwrites the right of construction bosses to break trade union agreements and to exploit workers in effect, that that could not happen after Lisbon, if it is passed? Will you say that that is false, that all Lisbon guarantees and the Charter guarantees in the case of Ireland is €8.65, the minimum wage, an hour, for any worker and that that is already guaranteed in national legislation in any case?
Now you would do us a big favour if you would answer, as precisely as you can, on those four. Because we have been endeavouring to get those answers for months and neither Minister Roche, nor any other minister that has been sent out, has been prepared to give us straight answers on these issues. Go raibh maith agat.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Patricia McKenna, please.
I think it is completely inappropriate for the Commission to come here and to interfere in the internal decision of the Irish people. Our rights under the constitution were provided to us through our constitution and it is only the people who can actually make that decision if they want to hand over those rights. And I think the Commission is bound by the existing treaties and lobbying to change those to your own benefit, I think, you know, raises serious questions.
Now it is clear that there is a conspiracy between yourself and Bertie Ahern in relation to trying to hoodwink the Irish people on the issue of taxation. And I would say that yourself and Bertie Ahern have quite at lot in common, I suppose. I was just reading about a motion of censure that was tabled in the European Parliament in 2005, which forced you to appear before the Plenary to explain, and, I quote, how you could have received a gift to the value of several thousand euro from a billionaire businessman who then went on to receive the green light from the Commission ‑‑
CHAIRPERSON: I think ‑‑
MS McKENNA: But if I could finish. This is on the record in the European Parliament.
CHAIRPERSON: I think we can keep personalities out of it.
MS McKENNA: If I can say it is similar, your explanation was about private life and hospitality, so it would have a similar ring with ‑‑
CHAIRPERSON: I would ask you to address the question.
MS McKENNA: Now if I could go on to the taxation issue itself. There were three issues. One has been raised by Senator Fergal Quinn and Naoise Nunn in relation to Article 113. The second one is in relation to the simplified revision procedures of the escalated clause. Now this, at present, there can be no shift towards qualified majority vote on indirect taxation because the constitution of Ireland would have to be changed to permit it. But if we ratify the Lisbon Treaty, the constitution would be changed so that only the Taoiseach of the day would stand in the way of the European Council moving to harmonised taxes on companies, at least as far as Ireland is concerned and at present the Irish people have a veto on EU indirect taxes. But if we ratify this Treaty, it will be the Taoiseach alone who will exercise this veto, or the Dáil, the majority that he would control. The veto that the Irish people have at present on EU company taxation would be replace by a reliance on the Taoiseach of the day's determination to say no indefinitely.
And the second provision within the Treaty is on the own resources provisions where the European Union can provide itself with the means necessary to obtain objectives and carry through its policies and it can also establish new categories of own resources. Now this Article would allow the EU Council of Ministers to finance attainment of new European Union's very wide objectives by means of new categories of own resources. Now these could include virtually any kind of tax; income tax, sales tax, company tax, property tax, carbon tax as along as it was unanimously agreed and approved by the Member State in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, which, in Ireland's case, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, it would mean a majority, a Dáil approval, a majority Dáil approval. Now one of the aspects ‑‑
CHAIRPERSON: Could you ask your last question, please.
MS McKENNA: Yes. The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the High Representatives and by the Member States using national and Union resources. Now that is especially worrying.
Now there are three different aspects that have been mentioned today. Article 113, the own revision, the Union's own resources and the escalator or Article 48 provisions. Those three do affect tax and for you to say that taxation is set in stone is completely misleading to the Irish people and the Irish voters and I think these issues have to be addressed.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Catherine McGuinness, please. (Applause) Mairead McGuinness. Sorry. Mairead McGuinness, MEP.
There were lots of places mentioned ‑ Berlin and Boston. Can I just say that the streets of Dublin today are resounding with the footsteps of men and women from Ballydehob , Ballybay and Bandon. And in a former life I kept my ear to the ground and I listen to what people say and perhaps more than other MEPs, I come back to Ireland more often so that I am in touch.
I support absolutely the Treaty of Lisbon. I am worn away campaigning on it and I will continue to do that because I accept all of the points you make in your very strong endorsement of it. We need this Treaty. There are no conspiracies in it, although I am in a corner that frightens me physically here at the moment. But still I will punch above my weight or at least I will try.
I have to take issue with you on one point, if I may. Perhaps it is your script writer rather than you personally. You say on the WTO issues that Ireland like others has concerns, that they will have to focus more on the market and on high quality food production. I need you to know that Irish farmers and the food industry are very focussed on the market and on quality food production, but they do need a fair market place. No European producers of food can compete with low cost, different standards of production and you must give us the reassurance, I know it is not part of the Treaty and I apologise for mixing it, but we need a reassurance that these issues will be acknowledged at world trade level, because never were concerns about global food security more on the agenda than they are now. And I need to go back to the men and women from Bandon, Ballybay and Ballydehob with your reassurance.
But can I reassure you that I will be voting yes and urging other others to do likewise. But it is going to be, under current circumstances, tough. And I show you this headline, I think the print is large enough for you to read it. It says Lisbonyes hangs on WTO.
CHAIRPERSON: I am anxious to get other people in and could I ask people if they could restrict themselves perhaps to a little more than a minute. And if anybody has a temptation to give a gazetteer of Irish place names, could they please resist it.
Ms. Mae Sexton, please.
So, Mr Barroso, can I say you are extremely welcome here. Like Mr Ahern I have to say that you are the face of the Commission, you are bringing the Commission closer to the citizen of Ireland. I think the farmers turn out today gives them the satisfaction of knowing that this remoteness that is, well is talked about is not quite what it appears to be. They can access you. It is a democratic country and they can access you if they need to do so, even when you are here as a guest to speak at the Forum, which perhaps is to do with the WTO talks.
However, I think what Mairead is saying is extremely important. It does unnerve people when the WTO talks are going the way they appear to be and your reassurances are most definitely needed here today to ensure that it does not get mixed up with the Lisbon Treaty. And our party, I have to say, are very much pro the Treaty.
So I think the remoteness factor between the Commission and, indeed, all of the institutions has to be addressed after the Lisbon Treaty, because I think that is where over the years we have been losing people.
Thank you. And again you are very welcome here today, Mr Barroso.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Minister Roche, please
Mary Lou McDonald notes that you are for the Treaty and suggests somewhat cynically that she would expect you to be so. She omits to mention, however, that so too are the vast majority of the democratically elected members of the European Parliament. So too are the vast majority of the members of the democratically elected national parliaments. So too unanimously, are all the democratically elected governments of the 27 Member States. I don't know about Mary Lou McDonald, but I take some comfort in the fact that the President of the Commission is in touch with the democratic will of the people of Europe as expressed through all of their representatives.
I just want to draw your attention to two specific things. I very much welcome the clarity of your views on taxation. The suggestion has been made that there is a massive shift in power to the European Commission and, in fact, to the Union. I wonder how do you view that particular view? Because in my reading of the Treaty it is, in fact, a modest move in that direction.
The second view, which is widely propagated here in Ireland, and, in my view, mendaciously and falsely propagated is somehow or other this is a self amending Treaty. That does not accord with my reading of the Treaty and I would like to know does it accord with your reading of the Treaty.
And again President Barroso, you are welcome to Ireland. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Billy Timmons, please.
MR TIMMONS: Thank you, Chairman. I, too, would like to welcome the President here today. He will have noticed that this is a very democratic forum. He will also have noticed that those who preach democracy in fairness very often don't actually practice it, it is a feature of Irish politics. He may also be aware that we have had a very vociferous no campaign since referendums came into this country on the issue in the '70s, but yet many of those on the no side openly acknowledge that Europe has actually been good for us. And I have yet to hear any of the no campaigners say, one, that we should pull out of Europe and this Treaty, for the first time, gives a mechanism to do that to countries. Or, two, I have yet to hear a positive proposal for them to address what they perceive is the democratic deficit of the Treaty. And I would challenge them here today, in the months ahead, in the interest of openness and fairness and bringing the message to the people to put forward some proposal how they perceive the Treaty might actually be improved, instead of moving from one false argument to the next in trying to create misinformation out there amongst the public.
Now you gave a very positive contribution here today and particularly when you made reference to the peace, freedom and economic progress, the kernel of the concept of the European Union which very often we forget. And, in the interests of democracy, I would like to ask you here today in view of the fact that your contribution has been so positive, and I agree with it all, is there any straw of comfort that you could give to the no campaigners? Is there any negative side or downside of this Treaty for Ireland, because I certainly have read the Treaty. I have not read it with a view to trying to misinterpret it, I have read it with a view to see what the positive things are. I see many of them which are articulated by many responsible people. I have yet to see one that actually is a down side for this country. So if you, or your staff could help me and show me where there is a down side to it. Thanks, President.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Brendan Butler, please.
MR BUTLER: Thank you, Chairman. And again a very warm welcome to President Barroso.
President, just to say very briefly from an economic perspective that you will be familiar that Ireland is a very small, open economy exporting over 80% of every single thing we produce. Through our membership of the European Union, we have had two major benefits. Firstly the €58 billion we have received in transfer payments, which have allowed to us support our agriculture sector, develop our infrastructure and train our workers. Secondly, through our membership of the EU, small Irish companies have access to the single market and potentially 486 million customers. The outcome of our membership over the last 35 years is very clear.
The organisation I represent have 7,000 members. Those members now employ two million people and since we have joined the EU in 1973, this country has created 1.1 million jobs. They are not low paid jobs. When we joined the EU in 1973 our wages were 60% of the EU average. Today they are over 130%. What we have in this country today is a prosperous and peaceful island within a proud and confident people. The business community strongly supports the Lisbon Treaty and will actively campaign for a yes vote. But I would make the point that there are issues at the moment, not related to the Treaty, that are confusing people and I think we need clarification on those issues, including CCCTB and WTO. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brian Meaney, please.
CLLR MEANEY: Thank you, Chairman. And welcome to President Barroso as well.
I would ask President Barroso to make a comment in relation to the reference to our, I think, it was Niamh Bhreathnach made it, that there are areas that have been introduced into the debate here that are outside the remit of the Treaty. But essentially reform of the Treaty is necessary and vital to allow Europe to deal comprehensively and effectively with issues such as climate change, which may have only a small reference in the Treaty, but also to what is beginning to emerge now as is going to be the dominant issue of concern as we move into the future, and that is food and food security.
Given what is starting to happen, we have three pressures coming on food in relation to the pressures coming from the biofuel lobbies, the weakness of the US dollar and we have issues in relation to an increase in demand. We are looking at a global population of nine billion and questions are starting to be asked of our agricultural process that we need to up production two‑fold in the next 30 years to be able to meet that demand. And you would have to ask in the context of what is happening in the WTO do they have their eye on that ball.
I would also ask ‑‑
CHAIRPERSON: I am trying to move on, if you wouldn't mind.
CLLR MEANEY: I will confine it to that.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. If people could try one minute if you would please. Carol Fox
And last December when you were explaining the Lisbon Treaty to parliamentary committees, you stated that the Treaty will introduce a mutual defence clause and solidarity clause, and you also mentioned that it will allow for the emergence of a true common European defence. So what I would like you to comment on is what is the significance of a mutual defence clause in the Treaty? Apart from Ireland, what is the significance for the European Union? And also could you explain how does the Lisbon Treaty progress, as you say, a true common European defence? And would you comment on the ideas of President Sarkozy now to form a European EU defence corps of six countries; Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy ‑‑ I think I might have left one out ‑‑ and the United Kingdom within the structures of permanent structured cooperation in order to move ahead towards a common European defence? I wish to you comment on those. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Rickard Deasy, please.
MR DEASY: Cathaoirleach, Senor President, a supplementary question on the world trade talks, to question the wisdom of signing up on agriculture before the other sectors have been firmed up and also signing modalities six months before a new administration arrives in the US to pick what Europe has agreed asunder. The point being that if confidence and trust are lost at the grassroots, the danger is that, as we are facing into an uncertain economic climate, that we, the Member States, fall in a rut of protection and isolationism and you can see the scenario where if Ireland followed France and the Netherlands down a negative vote, you would have three plebiscites showing the voters moving away from the leadership. That would jeopardise not only the results of fair trade but also the Lisbon Agenda on jobs and social security, peace and prosperity and the European project itself.
So my question to Minister Ahern and to Senor Barroso is to make sure we stay away from that vicious cycle of lose‑lose and that wiser counsels would prevail in the European institutions so that we can achieve a result where all of us can win. Go raibh maith agat.
CHAIRPERSON: I afraid this will have to be the last. Mr Alan Coleman.
And, in a related matter, I think what was raised by Carol Fox with regard to the common defence is quite clear. It is up to the Irish people and their representatives to decide whether or not we enter a common defence. It is very much a sovereign issue for us and nothing in this referendum, in this Treaty will corral us into making any decision with regard to that.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I know we are now extremely pressed for time and I am very grateful to President Barroso for extending his visit to the Forum in order to deal with these, but I now ask him to deal, as he may, with the questions raised.
Secondly, indeed not only I have the right to express what I think about the Treaty, but I have the duty to do it. According to the current treaties, the Commission is obliged to give an opinion on the new Treaty. This is a formal obligation of the Commission. And the Commission has approved formally the opinion on the proposed Treaty. This is indeed what is in the current treaties, so I not only have the right but we in the Commission have the duty to express our opinion and that is why I can tell you that my opinion is positive and I am very happy to repeat it today here in Dublin.
Now, about many issues let me try to give an answer. Maybe I cannot go into in detail on all the issues because some of them, in fact, are not related to the Treaty. They are very important issues for the European Union and for Ireland, but there is not a link with the current Treaty because the Treaty will not change on those matters. Or rather, it will confirm many of those areas, the current legal obligations.
Anyway I will try to address the concerns expressed and I will give you some of my opinions about it.
Now, regarding the question that was raised by many on agriculture and WTO. This is typically something that has nothing to do with the Treaty and you said very honestly that this is the reality in this, the problem is there are some perceptions. Our duty, I think, if we are honest, it is not to play with perceptions but to try to speak about the realities and facts. But there are some concerns and I want to tell you, since I am here in Dublin, that, in fact, we are very much attentive to the concerns of the farmers of Ireland and they have been expressed for a long time. We are negotiating now. It is ongoing. We are negotiating to meet the real concerns in Ireland and elsewhere.
We will stay within the 2003 mandate. Some of you have asked me this question. We will not accept opening the flood gates of Europe to beef imports. We are trying to protect the high end of the market. This is where, I believe, the Irish interests lie. We are negotiating in this direction. Let me tell you once again that in the WTO nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
In terms of the process we are now negotiating in Geneva the so‑called modalities. It is about agriculture but not only agriculture, non agricultural market access, what was usually known as NAMA. And there are other issues like rules, like respect for intellectual property rights, like geographical (inaudible) that will also be part, hopefully, of the overall agreement.
At the end of the process the Commission presents to the Member States ‑‑ we are negotiating on behalf of the Member States ‑‑ what we believe is the result of the negotiation. If it is good we will ‑‑ look this is the proposal we have for the Member States. And the Member States will decide on unanimity ‑‑ if they support or not the Doha conclusion; the WTO agreement.
By the way, not only for Europe, for the other members it is a case where unanimity is required; unanimity less one is not unanimity. So this is, I think, very important.
Now my general point, and I would like to take this opportunity to speak about the general point, is that the Doha negotiations, we believe, will be globally positive for Europe and Ireland. Ireland is a strong exporter in many areas. Ireland, for example, has 4% of global services market, yet just four million citizens. It is a major achievement of your country. It is impressive. I think it is the best in the world if you consider the relation between the dimension of the country and the relative weight in terms of that second services.
Ireland is also a major hub for inward investment, a major gateway to the internal market. So, I think that a successful outcome to the Doha round will bring forth that position. For example, it will eliminate US tariffs on our goods. It will also strengthen the Irish position in business and computer services and in telecoms.
We are also aware about the sensitivity on the beef and, so to be more concrete, I have to tell you the following. I think the beef industry in Ireland can look at the future with confidence. The beef market has enjoyed favourable conditions in recent years in terms of prices and the prospects remain good with declining European production and rising consumption in the new members of the European Union. If competition was just about price, the Irish beef industry would already be struggling, but it is doing well on the basis of a reputation for quality. And it should be more and more about the quality, about the brand, about the way the food is perceived by consumers all over.
While cereal prices are rising, meaning higher feed costs for beef, this is much less a factor in Ireland where cattle are easily grass fed ‑ another competitive plus of the Irish meat production and beef production.
European Union sanitary requirements mean also that only a few countries are allowed to export to the European Union. Some have indeed recently restricted their exports to avoid internal shortages in some cases.
So the negotiations then, have been tough and they are now nearing completion. But it is clear that we will be able to stay within the 2003 CAP reform, which is the outer limit of our mandate, and I insist on that point and I ask the Irish farmers, and first of all thank the Irish farmers, because I know they have been very supportive of Europe for a long time. I think it is important for you to understand that we need to cash-in this internal reform of the European Union on the CAP on the Doha negotiations, because the later we get an agreement, to put it very bluntly and very sincerely, the more pressure will come for additional reforms of our Common Agricultural Policy. And if you want to have a balanced agreement, I think we are close to it.
I cannot prejudge the final outcome. They are negotiating it at this right moment in Geneva and nothing was agreed, but, in fact, we believe that it should be supported if it is a balanced and comprehensive agreement. And I also want to tell you, because I have seen some reports suggesting that the beef was not considered as a sensitive product. This is not the case. In the negotiations so far we have already achieved that beef will be designated as a sensitive product in this Doha round. Indeed, we have worked very hard in the end game to have this clearly accepted precisely because of listening to Irish concerns. And it is now the working assumption in the agricultural negotiations in Geneva and it is, of course, an absolute condition for us to accept a deal, that we will be able to split the increased quota into two parts, and we will include high end beef in one set quota so no more than half the additional imports in the quota would be competing with the high end quality products. I think this is a very, very balanced agreement.
Don't forget we are discussing this issue not only among our 27 Member States but with 150 countries in the world and we have to see all the interests in place. So it is indeed a very challenging negotiation but I believe that there are some guarantees that we can work for a comprehensive and balanced agreement.
Regarding the issues of taxation, some of the questions were about it. I cannot be very technical, very precise and very detailed because we have no time. But let me tell you on one specific question regarding this reference to distortion of competition. We will not say that the example that was given is a distortion of competition. No. Because in the Treaty the tax is dealt with in a separate part of the Treaty and is subject to unanimity. I repeat, taxation is kept as unanimity. In fact, what that Article defines is that it requires both unanimity and a distortion of competition. So there is no concern to be had on this matter. So the distortion of competition is not put as a principle against the rule of unanimity for tax matters. On the contrary, it is something that is added and this is the general rule in Europe as you know.
So, once again, Ireland cannot be forced to change its regime or to participate in enhanced cooperation. And those who are in enhanced cooperation cannot impose their views on those who are not. Tax in the European Treaty and in the future Lisbon Treaty, if the Treaty is ratified, requires unanimity. So this is quite obvious from a legal point of view. And now speaking also as a lawyer let me tell you there is no possibility to put this in question according to the Lisbon Treaty.
Some of you spoke about the way the Commission will be if it was stronger or more representative or less representative. So the Commission is ‑‑ and I think this is very important ‑‑ representing the general interests of Europe. You have the Council where all the Member States are represented. The Commission represents the general interests of Europe. And it is important for the Commission to have that authority.
Let me tell you, by the way, traditionally the Commission has been seen as the institution that is more open to the interests of the small and medium sized Member States because it is really independent. I come from a country, I have many members in my staff also from different countries, but they are not there representing a country. We don't receive instructions from any country. And this is precisely the originality of the European institutions to have such an institution like that. So I think it is important to have the respect for this institution if you want to build a stronger Europe and to defend the interest of all Member States, big or small, old or new, rich or poor.
And what comes out of the Lisbon Treaty is that there will be more democratic legitimacy for the Commission because the President of the Commission will be the only person in the system that will be elected both by the representatives of the national governments, he has to be elected by the European Council where all the Member States are, and by the European Parliament. So a reinforced legitimacy for the Commission. And he will be elected by the European Parliament.
And so if I can address this issue some of you said about how close we are to citizens and the concerns of the democratic deficit. Look, what happens in Europe is the following: We are a democracy working with 27 democracies so of course the system is more complex. Of course any treaty has to be more complex than a national treaty because they are very different realities.
From a legal and formal point of view, we are respecting all the principles of accountability because we have a parliament, a European Parliament that is directly elected by the citizens and the Commission is accountable to the Parliament. The Parliament may put down the Commission. So we are from, let's say, a democratic steering point of view, a democratic system, no doubt about it but it is true that we have to do more to be closer to the citizens. That is why, for instance, myself, already in this Commission we have introduced the principle of sending all of our proposals to the national parliaments and we are already receiving the opinions. That is why myself and my colleagues have been more than 200 times in national parliaments. This is completely unprecedented to explain our policies.
So I mean, with the Lisbon Treaty we are enforcing democracy and accountability precisely because we give a say to the national parliaments. The European Parliament is also reinforced because being the directly elected body by all the European citizens it should be reinforced. It has more powers in the system but the national parliaments also have a say. We introduced this petition, this right of initiative to the Commission so that there are many mechanisms that indeed reinforce the democracy and the accountability and the transparency in the European Union, and the Commission has, I believe today, higher standards in terms of transparency than the majority of our national administrations.
When some of you say that there are problems of confidence in the European institutions, let me tell about the survey of public opinion that we have from all Member States in the European Union that generally speaking European institutions are better viewed in our Member States than many of the national institutions, and sometimes much, much better than the national parties. This is the truth according to the independent surveys of public opinion.
What there is, in fact, is a gap and if we are serious we have to recognise that this gap exists in all our Member States and in politics in general, a gap between the political leaders and the population in general. But this is not a specific problem of the European institutions. It is a general problem of democracy and the mass democracies we have now. And this is a general problem and I believe that all responsible people, all those that want to speak not in terms of perceptions or fears but in terms of facts and they want rational arguments, they have to fight against those populist tendencies of the extremes that try to put in mechanisms that we have for democracy.
So the Treaty of Lisbon reinforces the democratic mechanisms in the European Union, the accountability of the institutions typically with the Commission and the Parliament.
Regarding the High Representative that some of you mentioned. The High Representative is today accountable only to the Council. Now, it will become, at the same time, Vice‑President of the Commission precisely because we want to put together what our traditional competence of inter‑governmental cooperation with the competences of the Commission so that we appear more coherent to the world.
Today, in fact, when we meet other powers, we have a High Representative and we have the Commissioner for External Relations. For the future, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified and implemented, it will be the same person. I believe this gives more coherence, more visibility to what we are doing externally and I think it is a good development of the Lisbon Treaty compared to the current situation.
I think it is important to make these common-sense remarks.
We should not discuss the Reform Treaty compared to an ideal situation. We should compare the Lisbon Treaty with the current situation, with the current treaties. Is it advancing the current situation or not? This is the point. Is it giving more efficiency or not? Is it giving more democratic accountability or not? Is it giving more coherence on external affairs or not? On all these issues my answer is clear, it gives more positive response in these areas. But if you tell me no, this is not perfect, of course it is not perfect. No‑one is saying that it is perfect. But I believe in matters of common sense it brings this equality compared to the current situation, compared to the Nice Treaty.
But, of course, those who are now defending the current treaties were the same who were opposing them before. They are opposing all the time what we have. But the question is to compare, to compare what we have. If you tell me, is this bringing benefits compared to the Nice Treaty? Of course it brings a lot. It is obvious. But now I see that some are defending so much in the current treaties but they have not done it before when they were introduced some years ago. So I think this is important.
In terms of the defence, of course, we are trying to have a more coherent approach in Europe, this is obvious, but it is through unanimity. So, if the countries do not want to have it, they will not have it. But it is not a militarisation of Europe, not at all. Unless you consider the militarisation of Europe sending to those that desperately need our help, for instance, sending peace keeping missions. This is, of course, a very important thing to have the possibility to send peace keeping mission under the United Nations mandate and with the European flag. Why not? I think it is good. It is a way of the European Union showing its generosity, that we care about the situation that are happening in some very troubled areas in the world. But this is not militarisation.
We have, of course, some countries in Europe that are members of NATO. We know that. But no‑one will be forced, Ireland or any other country, to be a member of NATO or a military alliance in the sense of a military alliance, but it will have some mechanism for increased cooperation in issues like peace keeping. If for those who wish to have European defence effort, of course it is, I think it is a good development as well.
CHAIRPERSON: I am conscious of your time.
PRESIDENT BARROSO: Yes, but there are so many questions.
About the question of trade unions and social rights. We are against any form of social dumping or disrespect of workers rights. We also want to underline that the recent European Court of Justice judgments do not jeopardise Member States choice of organisation of industrial relations, including the model here in Ireland.
By the way, in Ireland you have a very clear model where you have a minimum wage, so the problem that sometimes people refer to as social dumping will not apply because any worker coming from another part of Europe will have to be in receipt of the minimum wage or the minimum social conditions of Ireland.
And as a rule, because there was a general question about it, the goal of the European Union is not at all to go the American way. We respect very much the American way, but we believe we have a European social model. We believe we are, and this is the originality of the European social model- competitive and open. Don't forget that we are the biggest exporter in the world, the European Union, so it is self defeating. If you send protectionist signals it is self defeating. We have all interests being the leader in the world trade at the same time we are competitive and that we are the model of economic openness and dynamism.
We believe we should not leave those who are not winning the battle of globalisation on their own and think that it is their fault. We should all the time have a kind of cohesion policy, social and economic cohesion, give them a helping hand, try to have high social standards and high environmental standards and that is why we are leading also the fight against climate change.
So the European model is the best way and if you want to protect our interests, if you want to protect our economies, including our farm sector, it is not by closing yourselves, it is by forcing others to open as much as we are open. It is to do everything we can to make others introduce workers rights and also to have higher environmental standards. So the best way to protect Europe is not to close Europe, it is to ask others to be as open as we are.
This is the great thing about the European model. It is to put things up and not put things down. And when you look at Europe, are we better now or are we worse than 30 years ago? Is Ireland better or worse than before joining the European Union? And is it fair to say that the European Union gave a contribution to the development of Ireland? I believe the European Union gave a very positive contribution to the development of Ireland, to the solution of the Northern Ireland problem, or at least to progress in that matter. It has given a lot of progress to many countries.
I speak a little bit passionately about it, you know, because I remember when I was 17 years old in my country there was no freedom. I could not read the books I wanted. I could not listen to the music sometimes I wanted. And all those countries of the central and eastern European Union, they were subject to totalitarian regimes. Some of them were not even independent, like the Baltic States that had been occupied by the Soviet Union and now we are free countries. 27 free countries living around the same values. Some of you spoke, values of peace, of freedom, of solidarity. It is an amazing experiment, the European Union. It has succeeded a lot. But it is not putting a power against national powers. On the contrary, it is giving added value to our national (inaudible).
I mean Portugal counts more now because it is a member of the European Union. I have no doubts to say Ireland counts more because it is a member of the European Union. But not only Ireland, France, Germany, Britain. Someone said once that in Europe there are no big states, the problem is that some still think they are. And it is true because if we compare even the biggest Member States of Europe, if we compare them to the great financial or technological power of our American friends, the demographic magnitude of China or India, the geographical dimension of Russia, are we too big? In fact, we can be much more influential in the world, shape the WTO negotiations for our interests as well. And climate change to come to an agreement globally and to defend our interests and protect our values, if we do it together.
So this is, think a little bit. How is the world going to look at Europe if you cannot solve these issues of getting our institutions right and to put them at work? The institutions are not an end in themselves. It is not a Treaty that is going to solve all the issues, let me be frank about it. I never suggested. The Treaty will re‑enforce the European Union's capacity to act. But more important than the capacity to act, or at least as important, is the will to act. The will to do things together. The will to protect our interests and to protect our values. And this is the great opportunity that we have. Adding value to what we have at national level, not reducing the capacity.
Some of you asked me are we, in fact, centralising more power? No. The sense of the Lisbon Treaty is indeed to add power or influence to our Member States acting together and projecting its interests together. And when I think how Europe was when my country was 30 years ago, my country would (inaudible) of Europe, Spain or Greece. When I look now in Poland, in Gdansk; when I was there in the streets. For them, for the new Member States Europe is a symbol of freedom and solidarity. These are the important values. The Treaty of Lisbon will not solve all the problems in Europe, honestly, but it will make us stronger to act together and to make our voice heard in the world better and keep to defend our interests and project our values. Thank you for your time. (Applause)
We meet next Wednesday where the Forum will hear the leader of Fine Gael Mr Enda Kenny, TD ‑‑ Thursday, I am sorry, next Thursday. And the following week Mr Gerry Adams, MP, MLA, the President of Sinn Fein.
Could I ask you to remain seated while I see President Barroso and his party to their next engagement.
Go raibh míle maith agaibh. Sin a bhfuil ann inniú.
THE PLENARY SESSION CONCLUDED
National Forum On Europe, Fóram Náisiúnta um an Eoraip © 2010