Mr. Bill Cullen, Mr. George Hook, Professor Richard Aldous, Mr. Eamon Dunphy

 Senator Déirdre de Búrca:  I welcome all the speakers today and thank them for their very interesting and thought-provoking contributions. I wish to address one point to each of the speakers, starting with Mr. George Hook. I apologise for missing the beginning of his contribution. I believe he objected to what he would see as some of the restrictions on the independent broadcasting sector, particularly when it comes to debates on European treaties and the obligation to provide equal or balanced coverage to both sides. Having access to the airwaves, independent or public, is a privilege. In this country we are lucky that we do not have the scenario that applies in the United States where, as Mr. Hook said, there are many right wing talk-show hosts on radio stations. We are lucky to have that sense of balance, particularly on something as important as an EU treaty. We are now in a phase of considering the possible consequences of the decision we made on the Lisbon treaty and how that might affect the future of the country. It is important for the Irish people to get an opportunity to hear both sides of the argument on a treaty.

If we were to give independent media completely free rein, opinion could be expressed regardless of whether it was on a treaty or any other matter. Many of the radio stations are privately owned often by rich business people with their own agendas, Rupert Murdoch being an example. Does Mr. Hook not believe there would be a danger of those individuals’ agendas being played out on the radio stations and through the particular talk-show hosts that they use, resulting in nothing equal or balanced or in the public interest? Does he not believe the restrictions on the independent media are very good and healthy and will hopefully ensure a good and informed debate on any subject of interest but particularly one as important as a European treaty?

Mr. Cullen said it was up to politicians to sell the treaty and we need to do a better job. In recent EU referendum campaigns there seems to have been a greater divide between on the one side politicians, for whom there seems to be a credibility problem, which is likely to continue, and on the other side civil society groups of ordinary people that form because of strong beliefs – loosely they may be described as political groupings. This results in the politicians versus the small people and very often that in itself helps to influence public opinion.

Does Mr. Cullen not believe that the European project belongs to all of us and is not just a politicians’ project? Anybody who believes in Europe has a responsibility to promote it, regardless of whether it is just talking to friends and family or expressing views about it. If we want to see European treaties passed in future we will need to have coalitions of political parties and high profile credible public figures like the witnesses before us, who might be interested in being part of the civil society element, if one likes, of the “Yes” campaign. That is likely to be far more successful than leaving it to the increasingly discredited political class to sell treaties that are very hard to sell and probably need the kinds of skills that people such as the witnesses have.

Mr. Dunphy said that most people know that Europe is not most politicians’ first preference, but I disagree with him. Europe was my first preference and that is where I would like to see myself eventually. He might call me a failed politician.

Deputy Timmy Dooley:   No.

Mr. Bill Cullen:  He did not say that.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca:  I know he did not say that, but I believe he said the European Parliament was a home for failed or retiring politicians. I disagree with him. Any time I visit Brussels I find it full of the best and brightest people, whether they are in the Commission, the Parliament or the Council of Ministers, which contains all the ministerial representatives of the various member states. I regard Europe as an amazing project that has been extremely successful despite all the challenges it has faced. I would argue with him that what happens at member state level is often considerably less interesting, progressive and exciting than what is debated at European level.

He also said he would like to see a reformed Europe. What kind of reformed Europe does he seek? The matters he mentioned were a more human face, a more readable constitution, more consultation with people and more accountability. It seems that he could support the Lisbon treaty and still push for all those things to happen. The Lisbon treaty does not preclude them from happening, nor does it make them happen. Often when people are opposing a treaty they have an opportunity to express some of their concerns about the European Union, which are often not directly related to the content of the treaty. They may be expressing generalised concerns over the lack of accountability or that they cannot relate to the people in the European institutions and so on. Does he not feel he could seek to have many of his concerns addressed and still support the Lisbon treaty? Does he not feel he could push for the political representatives he has in the European institutions to bring about these changes but not to halt the entire project in its tracks?

I agree fully with Professor Richard Aldous that the European Union has been looking inwards too much and needs to look outwards more. We are seeing a changing global order. People mentioned Barack Obama’s election. It will be a much more difficult presidency for him. America’s power is in decline internationally and we are seeing the emergence of countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China. We need to look at the values they represent as opposed to the European Union which describes itself as a community of values. It is interested in promoting human rights, equality, solidarity, the rule of law and democracy. I do not know whether Mr. Dunphy and others feel it has not done so. Certainly on the international stage it is a more impressive and convincing promoter of these values than any of the other powers that are emerging. It makes sense for the European Union to try to advance itself and make itself more capable of operating on the global stage. I agree fully with him on that. Does he have any suggestions about how that could be done to more effectively help the Irish public to understand the importance of the European Union as a global player?

Mr. George Hook:  I wish to respond directly to one of the points made by the Senator. I understand we were asked to come here to advise or suggest how the Oireachtas might engage with and inform the public on the issue of the European Union. I have pointed out that those who help to form opinions such as broadcasters are precluded from doing precisely this. Each of us is expected to operate as a chairman or devil’s advocate. We are expected not to hold a view. We cannot declare how we vote, or what our views on a particular subject are. I have made the point that the State broadcaster which is supported by the licence fee is a public service broadcaster, whereas the independent sector does not receive any money from the licence fee and, therefore, is not a public service broadcaster. There is a difference in that regard. While I would not support it, one could ensure there was public service broadcasting across the board by dividing the licence fee across all broadcasters. In such circumstances, they could all be called “public service broadcasters”. I suggest, however, one would not have the vibrancy of debate one may get as things stand. Fear has been expressed that the independence of debate could be damaged by businessmen who own helicopters, jets or châteaux, regardless of where they reside. I remind members that the Oireachtas established strong bodies such as the monopolies commission, the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland and the Press Council of Ireland to ensure a limited number of media outlets could be owned by any one person. If members are dissatisfied with this – if they believe too much is in the hands of too few people – they have an opportunity to make changes. Mr. Dunphy who has thrown his opinions from the ramparts of his château in Deauville this morning and I have substantially opposing views on this issue. Surely that is the best way to engage and inform the citizenry.

Chairman:  I call Mr. Dunphy, fresh from his château.

Mr. Eamonn Dunphy:  I will respond to Senator de Búrca’s point directly. I take it that she will be running in next year’s European elections.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca:  Yes.

Mr. Eamonn Dunphy:  I wish her luck. She has asked me why I am not prepared to approve of the Lisbon treaty by voting “Yes” and hoping something desirable, like reform, happens thereafter. I take the point she made about the intelligence and good intentions of those who work in Brussels. I am sure it is an interesting and stimulating place to be. The problem is that there is a lack of accountability. I voted “Yes” to the Nice treaty, but I thought it was time to take a stand in the case of the Lisbon treaty. I was concerned about the enlargement of the European Union to 27 member states. It is increasingly scandalous that the Union has failed, for 14 consecutive years, to produce accounts on which its auditors can sign off. That is not tolerable in any circumstances. It is outrageous. Whistleblowers have been treated very badly at EU level. A woman from Scandinavia, whose name escapes me, was kicked out because she refused to sign off on accounts. The European Union is the subject of many scandals. It does not have the redeeming feature of a human face. I would like everyone in Europe to vote on the same day. I would like the same slate of candidates to be put before all the people of Europe. I would like to do elsewhere in Europe as I do here. I would like a conversation and a debate. Dissent, approval and the acquisition of support and trust are the lifeblood of community and political life in any democracy. We do not have this within the European project. As Mr. Cullen said, we get our politicians to make our case for us in the national interest. I do not think that is sustainable in a 27-member Union. It would be sustainable if there was a smaller number of member states. I wish the Senator well in the European elections.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca:  I thank Mr. Dunphy.

Professor Richard Aldous:  Senator de Búrca asked me specifically about the international stage. I do not agree with her suggestion that the United States is in terminal decline. Rather like the report of Mark Twain’s death, it is something of an exaggeration. As Deputy Dooley said, the Lisbon treaty would allow the European Union to take a more engaged view of the big issues. It would stop it from looking inwards. It would enable it to look at the big issues. However, that can only be taken so far. The European Union is not like the United States. It will never be able to act in that way. One only needs to recall the schism that the Iraq war caused within the European Union to realise that is the case. The majority of member states within the Union, as currently constituted, were in favour of the war. Those which were against it were so violently against it, particularly France, that they would not allow the issue to progress through the United Nations. The European Union has a long way to go before it is able to exercise a profound influence on the world stage. The Lisbon treaty would facilitate the development of a more unified European view, but it would be a slow process. The changes to which I refer constituted one of the problems those on the “No” side had with the treaty. Defence was one of the key issues in the referendum. Many see the proposal to allow the European Union to act in a more unified way as a severe disadvantage of the treaty. It is obvious that their concerns were not addressed during the referendum campaign.

Mr. Bill Cullen:  Senator de Búrca asked me about the involvement of high profile people in politics. We have seen it work for Mr. Obama in the United States. It has worked during the years in that country. It does not happen to any great extent here, probably because we have always considered that most of our politicians are tough people who have come up the hard way. They know what their constituents and communities want from them and are prepared to fight for it.

I have been asked whether lack of leadership is a recent phenomenon. Reference was made to leaders like Lemass and Churchill. We had our share of leadership at Government level but seem to be in a vacuum for various reasons. The people concerned may be hampered by the issues they have inherited, including the problems that have developed in recent months. It is probably fair to say our political arena needs some high profile people in it. I would like to think they are available – we just have not seen them in action yet. I would like to think there are some talented people in this country’s political scenario. I heard some of them when I spent a little time in the Seanad this morning. Perhaps we do not see that talent. When people ask me why I did not go into politics, I tell them it is difficult for politicians to express themselves within the party political system which may be holding good talent back. I would like to see some of the talent in the Government brought to the fore. We need those who know what it is all about, are in touch with their communities and able to express the good side of the purpose of the European Union to get those messages across. Like Mr. Dunphy, I am a European. I revere Europe. I would love to see it taken to a higher level. As I thought about that challenge this morning, I realised that I was prepared to get involved in the political side of it. If I were not prepared to do so, I would be reneging on myself. 

Filed under:
Joint Committee on European Affairs by Deirdre