I welcome the Minister to the joint committee and commend him on what was a very good outcome to the EU summit in December. As a country, we could not have been more satisfied that our fellow member states were willing to listen to our concerns about the Lisbon treaty and to offer us very strong reassurances. The legal guarantees we were offered in regard to taxation, sensitive social policy issues and neutrality and the assurances we received about retaining a Commissioner were very strong and positive. The Minister’s role in that is to be commended. There is, however, is no room for complacency because, obviously, the devil will be in the wording of these legal guarantees.

There is a considerable amount of work to be done between now and the time of a possible rerun of the Lisbon treaty. I concur with Deputy Costello who talked about a mechanism of some kind to ensure cross-party agreement and support for the type of guarantees which will, in effect, be put before the people in a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

I regret that the assurance we received from other member states in regard to workers’ rights is not as strong, or does not have the same standing, as the guarantees we got in regard to those other policy areas I mentioned. We should take this issue quite seriously because, looking at the results of the Millward Brown survey, it was obvious that concerns about workers’ rights and the potential undermining of workers’ rights within the context of the European Union was something which exercised many people who voted against the Lisbon treaty. It is an issue at which we need to look. With the changed economic circumstances, workers may approach any rerun of the Lisbon treaty with a slightly different attitude towards the European Union.

I understand there were difficulties with other members states agreeing to things which would have implications for themselves and not only Ireland. That is something at which we might need to look. We might need to look at what is happening in regard to workers’ rights at European and national levels and at the interplay between both levels because there may be things which could be done at a national level that would reassure workers and strengthen their resolve in terms of supporting the Lisbon treaty in a rerun of it.

I commend the Minister on the stance he has taken on the recent Israeli bombardment of Gaza. He has spoken clearly and courageously. At times like this, sometimes diplomatic language is used which can be very frustrating because it seems often to lack the kind of moral outrage necessitated in these circumstances. I know it is very important not to be seen to overly identify with one side or the other in such a complex conflict situation. However, in terms of the disproportionate actions in Gaza, the Minister spoke clearly and courageously and reflected the broad views of the Irish people in regard to the situation.

Like others, I welcome the ceasefire in Gaza. However, it was somewhat predictable in that most people predicted that in the period between the drawing to a close of the Bush presidency and the President-elect taking office, any action on the part of the Israelis would be likely to finish. That is exactly what happened. The challenge for the international community is how to make the ceasefire a lasting one. It will be a challenge because, as we have seen, ceasefires can be very fragile.

The question for the European Union is, what role it can play? The Minister mentioned that there will be discussions on a possible monitoring role for the EU at the GAERC meeting. I support a call made by my colleagues, the Greens in the European Parliament, for an EU-led peacekeeping force to be stationed in Gaza with a large Arab contingent as part of that force. We need to look at the EU taking a more proactive role, a role in which it will distinguish itself. To date, unfortunately, the EU’s role in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian situation has been seen as limited and ineffective.

If the EU wants to distinguish itself from a position adopted by others, it needs to show it is willing to make a commitment to keeping the peace in the area. It is a step which would involve serious risks and at which member states would need to look quite carefully but it would be in the long-term interests not only of this part of the world, but of the global community generally because we are all aware that serious regional instability and conflict in the Middle East would impact on all of us. The EU should look at some kind of serious monitoring role in regard to Gaza.

Senator Quinn mentioned the importance of stressing the economy at this time. The Minister already referred to the global financial shock and a possible EU response to that. For the EU to be seen to be more relevant to its citizens, the citizens of the EU member states would need to see there are some benefits to being a member of an economic union and the benefits of co-ordinated action a time of great financial instability such as that which we are experiencing. I can think of one recent example where Irish citizens may have felt the benefit, that is, the globalisation adjustment fund – the agreement the EU reached in regard to providing Dell workers with approximately €10 million in funding to retrain. We need to see more of this kind of action on the part of the EU.

We also need to see a message going out from the European Union on the euro. There is a danger there will be a loss of confidence in the euro if a strong message is not sent and strong action taken. These are the kinds of issues which should be discussed at the GAERC meeting.

The Minister referred to the importance of the Atlantic partnership. Barack Obama, the incoming US President, talked about a new green deal. There is no reason the European Union could not try to adopt the same forward-looking positive model of economic recovery. Ireland is certainly very well positioned to take advantage of that and to show leadership in that area given our abundant natural resources. I hope that is discussed and progressed at the GAERC meeting.

In regard to energy, it is correct for the EU to define the current gas dispute between the Ukraine and Russia as a bilateral one. There are, however, contractual obligations in regard to the EU and it is very important they are fulfilled. What sanctions might be considered? Has any discussion occurred about possible sanctions which might be taken by the European Union should those contractual obligations not be fulfilled?

It is important when talking about the Lisbon treaty to highlight the provisions for a common EU energy policy which would allow the European Union to develop more energy independence. We heard the incoming US President, Barack Obama, talk about how vital it was for the US to develop energy independence. It is just as vital for the European Union to do so. There are many benefits to a pan-European approach to developing that.

I am disappointed to hear nuclear energy being revived as the panacea for all ills. Europe is in a great position to take advantage of renewable energy. For example, a pan-European approach to developing our wind energy resources would help us to overcome some of the problems with variability which exists in regard to wind energy. If wind energy supplies in one member states were variable at one point, it could be compensated by wind energy supplies from other member states.

With the current crisis, I hope we do not forget ratification of the Lisbon treaty remains a priority for all of us. When looking at the Lisbon treaty, I hope the other member states consider the issue of the democratic deficit. I anticipate that those who will campaign against the Lisbon treaty will highlight the fact that Europe, as they see it, will remain profoundly undemocratic and that the issue of the democratic deficit will not be tackled. There is an opportunity for the European Union to resolve to take this issue seriously and launch a separate EU-wide democracy initiative, not linked necessarily to the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, but which has some thought and planning put into it and would reassure the citizens of Europe that their concerns about the democratic deficit are not being ignored. While the Lisbon treaty contains some democratic provisions, I do not think anybody feels it goes far enough in terms of reassuring citizens that they are being listened to and that their concerns are being taken seriously. The issues of communication, consultation and participation must be central to any EU democracy initiative and if the EU was seen to be making moves in that direction, it would weaken the arguments any of those campaigning against the Lisbon treaty could make about people condemning themselves to an undemocratic future if they were to support the Lisbon treaty. 

Filed under:
Joint Committee on European Affairs by Deirdre