I welcome the members of the delegation and thank them for their presentation.  On the question of Commissioner Mandelson, I would not disagree with anything any speaker has said about him and the way he has engaged with the current round of WTO negotiations.  It is important to say that, generally, the position on the issue of trade policy and negotiations within the European Union is unsatisfactory.  Trade negotiations lack transparency.  To date, the European Parliament has had no role in the formulation of trade policy or in overseeing trade negotiations.  It is very difficult for citizens and interest groups to find out what is going on.  Accordingly, the role of the Commission is often a lot more powerful than it should be.  Its clear role, defined by various treaties, is to negotiate on behalf of member states.  However, the original negotiating mandate that it receives comes from the Council of Ministers.  Before trade negotiations can be wrapped up, the Council has to approve whatever the Commission has negotiated.  It is a source of concern to see a Commissioner going beyond what is seen to be his brief.  It highlights the current unsatisfactory way in which trade policy is developed by the European Union. 

This is an area that national parliaments should examine more closely.  The Article 133 committee represents Ireland and Irish trade interests and the inputs into negotiations carried out by the EU Commission.  Perhaps the IFA could look at that if they have access to the representatives on that committee.  They should be looking out for Irish interests and communicating any serious concerns to the Commissioner, particularly those pertaining to agriculture.   

The second issue raised by the IFA delegates was food security, an issue the Green Party has been highlighting for some time.  Food security includes food safety, which is tied up with consumer protection and also includes, as my party sees it, the issue of food independence.  With the emergence of a global economy there seems to be a certain agnosticism about where food is grown and produced, along with a notion that we can easily import food from other parts of the world.  We are facing an emerging global energy crisis which will make it more difficult to transport food over long distances.  Food independence and the ability of the EU to produce enough food to feed its citizens will be key issues and farmers will play an important role here.  In terms of food policy within the EU, the security and independence of food should be paramount and should be factored into any trade policy that we negotiate.  

In the matter of Brazilian beef, also raised by other speakers, an important precedent was created.  Farmers have always supported the EU because it has protected their interests.  If they see the EU engaging in the kind of trade negotiations that would expose farmers to the race to the bottom, and to the kind of agricultural standards that pertain in other parts of the world, they will see a situation of unfair competition created where farmers in the EU are expected to meet certain standards while those in other parts of the world are not.  We are importing products into the EU that are being sold on the shelves of supermarkets in the same way as foods produced within the EU that have had to meet much higher standards.  Farmers will no longer see the EU as a political system that is defending and representing their interests. 

There are options open to the EU.  What it did in relation to Brazilian beef was not protectionism, as far as the Green Party is concerned, but an instance of the EU insisting on fair trading terms with other parts of the world.  It may be solely a farming issue now but there will be other interest groups looking at this situation in the future and saying that it is not acceptable to allow imports into the EU be sold under the same terms and conditions as EU products that have had to meet totally different standards.  It is not fair competition and the EU must use its muscle within the WTO to insist on higher standards and fair trading terms.  If it does not, many groupings that to date have seen the EU as a defender of their interests will no longer do so.   

I welcome the fact that the IFA is supporting a “Yes” vote to the Lisbon treaty.  What actions does it intend to take and how will it involve its members in discussion of the treaty?  Will it produce any literature specific to the farming community that might highlight relevant aspects of the treaty?

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS • LISBON TREATY: DISCUSSION WITH IFA
Tuesday 19 February 2008 • 14:40 – 16:15  

Filed under:
European Affairs, Joint Committee on European Affairs by Deirdre