The decision by the incoming Spanish Presidency to prioritise the implementation of the EU Citizen’s Initiative which is outlined to in the Lisbon Treaty is very welcome. This initiative is an ambitious one. The EU is a trans-national democracy consisting of 27 Member States with differing political cultures. The effective implementation of the initiative could contribute over time to a necessary enrichment of the concept of EU Citizenship. It also has the potential to play an important part in addressing the ‘legitimacy’ problems faced by the EU. These problems stem to a large extent from a common perception amongst EU citizens that there is an entrenched democratic deficit at the heart of the way in which the Union functions as a political system.

The successful implementation of this citizen’s initiative, however, cannot be taken for granted. I will begin my submission by outlining some general proposals concerning the possible implementation of the initiative. Were the Commission to adopt these proposals, I believe that the possibility that the EU Citizen’s Initiative would realise its potential as an important instrument to strengthen the ‘democratic fabric’ of the Union could be greatly increased.

Submission proposals

My proposals concerning the Citizen’s Initiative are as follows:  

(i) EU Citizenship Unit

A special unit on EU Citizenship should be established within the Commission over the next year or two. Responsibility for most aspects of the operation of the Citizen’s Initiative should rest with this unit.

(ii) Information and public awareness campaign

The operation of the EU Citizen’s Initiative has little hope of success unless its launch coincides with a properly planned and resourced information /public awareness campaign about the initiative aimed at citizens across all Member States. This public awareness campaign should be managed by the Commission.

( iii )Engagement of national governments and parliaments

The governments and national parliaments of the Member States have a critical role to play in ensuring the effective implementation of the EU Citizen’s Initiative. The cautious response to date of some of my own fellow national parliamentarians to the proposed implementation of this initiative suggests that there is a need for the Commission to act in order to engage national governments and parliaments with the Citizen’s Initiative, and to encourage their co-operation with its effective implementation. This could involve prioritising discussions on the Citizen’s Initiative at both the level of the European Council and at relevant Council of Ministers’ meetings. Furthermore, a formal commitment could be sought from Heads of State, Prime Ministers and relevant government ministers that adequate resources will be made available by Member States to enable, for example, acceptable national verification procedures to be established for citizen’s signatures that are collected as part of the initiative.

(iv) EU Citizen’s Initiative Task Force

While the timeframe that has been given to the Commission for advancing proposals concerning the EU Citizen’s Initiative is relatively brief, it is important that sufficient time and attention are given to some of the problems/challenges that might arise in relation to its implementation. It would seem sensible for the Commission to form an EU Citizen’s Initiative Task Force or Working Group, to tease out the many practical issues, and even ‘unintended consequences’ that may arise as a result of the implementation of the initiative. This group could include Commission officials, representatives of civil society, national and European parliamentarians, experts from jurisdictions where citizen’s petitions/initiatives are in operation, and internet/social media experts. This group could ‘stress test’ the likely operation of the initiative and ensure that most possible scenarios have been anticipated, and planned for. This should help to avoid any serious problems when the initiative is eventually launched.

(v) EU Citizen’s Initiative website

Citizen’s expectations with regard to this new initiative will need to be carefully managed. This can only be done by providing them with full information and explanation about the use of petitions/citizen’s initiatives in other jurisdictions, the perceived strengths and weaknesses of these initiatives, the parameters within which an EU Citizen’s initiative can be framed, the issue of the admissibility of citizen’s initiatives and the role that the Commission, Council of Ministers and EU Parliament will play in the eventual adoption of the requested legislation. In fact, this will provide a very useful opportunity to educate citizens about the respective roles of the various EU institutions and the competences given to them across different policy areas by the EU treaties etc. This will require a well-designed website to be developed which is dedicated to the EU Citizen’s Initiative and that will provide all of the necessary information for those interested in participating in an initiative. Innovative approaches could be used to communicate some of this information and to avoid a ‘text-overload’ on the website.

(vi) Use of the internet and online communication

Considerable awareness now exists of the skilful way in which US President Barack Obama used the internet and online communication to engage a significant section of the vast US electorate in his presidential campaign. The same potential exists in relation to the use of the internet and online communication to engage EU citizens with the EU Citizen’s Initiative process. This potential should be fully exploited in the way that the initiative is rolled out across the Union.

Green Paper on the EU Citizen’s Initiative – Answering the Commission’s  questions

1. Minimum number of Member States from which citizens should come

I believe the option of one third of Member States is a sensible one. It avoids the otherwise likely scenario where citizen’s initiatives would be launched by a bloc or “geographical subsystem” of Member States (ie the Central and Eastern European Member States, the Northern European States, the Southern European States etc). The citizen’s initiatives launched by these blocs could be seen as advancing their own particular interests rather than those of the Union as a whole. The requirement that citizens from at least a third of Member States participate in an EU Citizen’s Initiative makes this less likely in my opinion.

1. Minimum number of signatures per Member State

I consider that 0.2% of the total population of each Member State is an appropriate threshold, is sufficiently low not to discourage citizens from organising themselves and yet is high enough to represent an acceptable percentage at a European level.

3.  Eligibility to support a Citizen’s Initiative – minimum age

I believe that the launch of the EU Citizen’s Initiative offers a unique opportunity to try to engage more young people in European politics and in an emerging European public space. For that reason, although I do recognise the convenience of limiting participation in the initiative to those who are of voting age for the European Parliament elections in each Member State, I believe that the age at which citizens should be entitled to take part should be set at 16 years.(In the interests of reassuring those who might be concerned about the possibly disproportionate impact of non-voting 16 year old citizens on legislative proposals emerging from the EU Commission, it might be possible to specify that the signatures of 16 and 17year olds should not amount to more than a given percentage of signatures gathered within any Member State).It is important to point out that under my proposal, 16 and 17 year olds would not be given the right to vote for elected representatives, but rather to try to exercise an (albeit) limited influence on the legislative agenda of the Union within the parameters set down by the Treaties. I do understand that the governments of many Member States may be unwilling to support this as it may create pressure to introduce something similar at a domestic level. However, on the other hand it would indicate that the new and evolving political system that is the EU is offering innovative forms of political engagement to young people who cannot access such opportunities under most of the more traditional national political systems.

1. Form and wording of a Citizen’s Initiative

I believe an initiative should require that the subject matter and objectives of the proposal on which the Commission is invited to act should be clearly stated. I don’t believe that citizens should be obliged to state these using legal terminology or phrasing. This can be done at a later stage by the Commission once the initiative has been deemed to be valid.

1. Requirement for the collection, verification and authentication of signatures

The eventual success or otherwise of the European Citizen’s Initiative will largely stand or fall on the effectiveness and transparency of the collection, verification and authentication of signatures. I wish to make a few short points in this regard. Firstly I believe that full harmonisation of procedural requirements at EU level would not be practical. However I believe that Member States must solemnly commit to putting in place effective and transparent collection verification and authentication procedures and that these should be subject to regular audit by an independent body. Citizen should be able to support a Citizen’s Initiative online. However, security and authentication features should be built in to the process, whether this involves the use of social security numbers, passport numbers and other personal identification markers. The process should not be so easy to complete that it encourages those who have little interest in the content of the initiative to add their signature mischievously or fraudulently. Given the geographical size (and growing) of the European Union, it is inevitable that online debate and communication will form an important element of any European public space. The operation of the EU Citizen’s Initiative should recognise this fact.

1. Time limit for collection of signatures

I believe that a time limit of one year for the collection of signatures is acceptable.

1. Registration of proposed initiatives

I believe the mandatory registration of proposed initiatives is necessary. This could be done through a specific website provided by the Commission. I also agree with others who have suggested that the admissibility of the proposed initiative should be established at an early stage before the time-consuming process of collecting signatures is entered into. I also believe that the Commission’s responses to the proposed initiatives should be made available on the website. Complete transparency will be very important with regard to the citizen’s initiative process and others wishing to participate in such initiatives may learn from the experiences of others through access the information on the website. In the event that a citizen’s initiative results in the successful adoption of the legislation requested, this could be recorded on the website. Successful participants could be interviewed on video and share their experience with other interested parties.

1. Requirements for organisers – transparency and funding

I believe that organisers should be required to provide information on the support and funding they have for an initiative. I believe that in the case of any Citizen’s Initiative that is submitted, there should be a named sponsoring organisation or individual who can liaise with the Commission regarding any aspect of the initiative. I believe there should also be full transparency requirements around any funding connected with the initiative and the campaign surrounding it. It is not clear whether this could be done at a national level with the appropriate bodies or whether it would need to occur at an EU level.

1. Examination of Citizen’s Initiatives by the Commission

I believe a clear timeline should be set for each stage of the Citizen’s Initiative process, outlining maximum time periods within which certain actions had to occur. The process should not be open-ended or at the discretion of the Commission or any of the other EU institutions. There should be clarity and certainty for participating citizens about what they can expect to happen and within what time- frame.

1. Initiatives on the same issue.

I believe it is appropriate to introduce rules to prevent the successive presentation of Citizen’s Initiatives in relation to a particular issue, as long as the issue is very particular and well-defined. There is a danger that in relation to a wide-ranging policy area such as Climate Change, it would be unreasonable to exclude legislative proposals that sought to tackle the problem but using very different means or legislative approaches. Therefore I think the rules draw up in this area need to be  qualified somewhat as a rigid interpretation might exclude very worthy and legitimate legislative proposals.

The citizens’ initiative is a very important development and those of us who encouraged a “Yes” vote to the Lisbon treaty pushed it to reassure many people who feel the European Union does not listen to them and that they cannot influence its decision making or policy agenda. We made a case that the citizens’ initiative will be an important mechanism to help them have their voice heard and try to influence policies emerging from Europe. I am delighted to see the quick movement on this; the Lisbon treaty was ratified recently and already we see early movement on rolling out the citizens’ initiative.

It was mentioned that perhaps we should stop focusing on what national governments will do and focus on other matters. However, national governments and parliamentarians will play a very important role in selling this because, as Deputy O’Rourke stated, citizens will not instantly be out celebrating this on the streets. They will have to be persuaded. We are all in the business of persuading them because it is in all of our interest to try to ensure that citizens feel more engaged with the European Union and with the decisions being made at European level that affect our day to day lives.

I understand why people feel cautious. Some people here are concerned that perhaps it will lead to unrealistic expectations. Expectations will have to be managed but we must start by approaching this with a degree of enthusiasm and seeing its potential. We are very good at speaking about the need to innovate and be creative. In this instance, it will be quite a challenge to come up with a mechanism that will work in 27 member states, engage citizens, use electronic media and try to engage younger people. It will not be agreed overnight but how we approach it and a degree of enthusiasm on the part of the people to whom most citizens listen, namely their national parliamentarians, will be important.

I hope we will all approach this by considering how we can make it work. Already, organised civil society throughout the European Union tries to influence policy. Those groups which are already quite well-organised will be delighted with this. The challenge for us is to try to involve other citizens who up to now have not really been that engaged with debates at European level. We need to be as positive as we can be.

Electronic media will have an important role. Barack Obama’s campaign has been mentioned. He tapped into the potential to communicate with voters individually and personally. It seems to me that the success of his campaign across the huge continent of the United States offers us hope that this initiative can be successful and can reach people. It will not be straightforward, however. We will have to examine some of the problems mentioned by other speakers. It is possible that people will get roped in to signing up electronically to an initiative without having any understanding of what it is about.

I am strongly in favour of allowing people aged 16 and over to participate in the citizens’ initiative. Young people are falling away from formal politics. The citizens’ initiative does not offer 16 year olds the right to vote, as to do so would interfere in the sovereign matters of individual member states. However, it encourages them to get interested in policy debates that are taking place at EU level and to lend their support to new policy initiatives that are emerging. I hope we can continue to put pressure on the Commission to consider including those aged 16 and over in anything that is agreed under the citizens’ initiative.

I am delighted that European Movement Ireland is as positive as it is about this initiative. I hope we can all be part of trying to make it work and rolling it out across the Union over the coming year or so.

I appreciate the Commission is considering the complaint at the moment. While the Commission is not prescriptive in terms of how organisations operate or the budget or resources that should be allocated, it is very clear about the functions a body such as the Equality Authority should be able to carry out and the competences it should have. If there is any further cut in the budget of the Equality Authority it could not possibly continue to function, unless we are suggesting it was over-funded in the first place. However, I do not believe anyone would suggest that. It appears to be a model of good practice and it has been recognised as such by the European Commission. It participates in EQUINET, the European Network of Equality Bodies, and it reflects very well on Ireland that we have a very proactive equality authority which is seen as a model of best practice and which operates and networks very effectively at a European Level. As far as my party is concerned, we would be loth to see any further cutbacks in the budget.

I mentioned the green new deal which is being promoted by my colleagues in the European Green Party in the European Parliament. Has the Minister had an opportunity to raise this issue at European Council meetings to see whether other member states are willing to consider an EU-wide stimulus package that would have benefits in infrastructural projects, training and accreditation programmes for green collar professions across the EU? In the service directive to be rolled out and fully implemented in December, there is great opportunity for delivering environmental services and for Irish companies to undertake such services across the EU. To provide the framework for these kinds of activities, an EU-wide approach must be taken, which would prioritise the creation of employment. Has there been any positive response to this proposal from the Minister’s colleagues on the Council of Ministers?

Others have mentioned the issue of a Commissioner and whom we might propose for the position.

I suggest we should look for a Commissioner who has very strong European credentials. The wobble recently experienced in this country in the perception of our commitment to the European project would suggest that the person we nominate as Commissioner next time round should have such credentials and should be able to communicate with the people regarding his or her portfolio and the European Union generally. It is important that we keep those considerations in mind when we come to select our future Commissioner. The portfolio is also very important. There are a number of new Commission portfolios being talked about, for example, climate change and innovation. Research and development will feature more strongly, especially when the Lisbon treaty is fully implemented. We should look positively towards these new portfolios to see if we can secure one for an Irish Commissioner.

The Presidency of the European Council is another role being discussed. It appears there are differences of opinion between those who feel the Presidency should be a strong role for somebody who would represent the EU at international level and those who do not wish to see the office becoming dominated by a person who might have a very strong international presence. What are the Minister’s views on this? Is a consensus emerging in the Council of Ministers or among the heads of state about whether that role should be low key and concerned with chairing the European Council, or one that has a higher international profile to be occupied by somebody with a similar profile?

Concerning the ongoing talks on the Copenhagen summit, because the EU has taken a leadership position on an emissions trading scheme – it set up the first emissions trading scheme in the world – one of the commitments we should look for in any international climate agreement should be the eventual establishment of a global carbon market. The experience of the EU in implementing its emissions trading scheme will allow it to inform the discussion and offer very useful advice on the establishment of a global carbon market. Issues concerning mitigation, adaptation and so on can be dealt with much more effectively in the context of a global carbon market and I suggest we promote that idea at the forthcoming GAERC meeting.

I have a copy of a paper delivered to my house yesterday, which is being distributed widely by Alive!. It concerns the Lisbon treaty about which it contains a range of factually incorrect assertions. Hearing the statement of the Minister today, I was concerned that the matter of the Lisbon treaty is not on the agenda. I have no doubt it is a matter of extraordinary concern to members of the Council of Ministers. I heard the interview with the Minister and Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party. I wonder if anything can be done about people who make fundamentally incorrect assertions to the public about the content of the Lisbon treaty. One expects people to hold different points of view in a debate but this is a publication. I do not know who produces the Alive! magazine—–

Deputy Noel Treacy:      It is published by a priest.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca   There is a priest’s name on the back of it. It informs people that the legal guarantees the Government spent so much time securing and receiving support from other member states for are not legally binding. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is described as dangerous and the leaflet suggests that, if implemented, the charter will give major powers to the European Court of Justice, affecting the right to life of the unborn, the nature of marriage, the rights of parents to protect their children and religious freedom. These are the very matters we have secured conclusively in the legal guarantees. Are there any sanctions for people who put out information that is factually incorrect? Is the Minister aware of the parties involved in this initiative?

Iceland’s application for EU membership will be discussed at the meeting. I hope Ireland will support the application. It is important that we point out in the campaign for the Lisbon treaty that it is strange that Iceland, which is in a more difficult economic situation than Ireland, is applying for membership of the EU when those who make the case against the Lisbon treaty suggest that it is bad for workers and will not be good for the Irish economy. We should emphasise this point.

The issue of economic recovery is not included on the agenda for the GAERC meeting. It was on the agenda for previous meetings and I am concerned about this. Discussions will take place on the EU preparations for the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. If the EU is to sign up to its ambitious commitments, this will have implications for the EU economy and it will provide an opportunity to create a stronger, greener economy across the EU. This brings us back to the issue of an EU stimulus or recovery package, something much more ambitious than the current recovery plans being discussed at EU level. Ireland’s economy is in difficulty and needs the prospect of some stimulus assisted by the EU. Is it on the agenda of the Council of Ministers or has it slipped? It is pertinent to Iceland’s application for membership that the EU be in a position to provide an economic stimulus for all member states. To date, the economic recovery programmes are somewhat underwhelming. In light of the climate change conference and the commitment the EU is likely to make at that, is there serious thinking going on about attempts to stimulate a truly green economy? If the Lisbon treaty is passed we will have shared competence in the EU on an energy policy, which will provide many opportunities to all EU member states for economic recovery.

With regard to the Iranian situation and sanctions there is general concern that where sanctions were implemented in the past, such as on Iraq and Cuba, they did not always manage to be as effective as we would have liked. Sometimes the international community finds itself having implemented sanctions which are not having the required effect but from which it cannot withdraw. What types of sanctions are being considered? Are we aware of the danger of sanctions isolating a particular country? As much as possible we should encourage Iran to remain as full a member of the international community as possible. Is there a danger that sanctions might have the opposite effect and isolate Iran?

Deputy Micheál Martin:      Deputy Pat Breen raised a number of issues. The talks between Turkey and Cyprus are ongoing and there has been no major development. With regard to Croatia, each membership application is decided on its merits and various chapters are opened and concluded in negotiations with applicant member states which must reach certain standards. As we discussed previously, a significant issue arises with regard to a border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia and the intensive mediation under way has not yet yielded an outcome. That is the major stumbling block to Croatia’s application for membership. Turkey’s application is a long saga and certain chapters have been opened on it. However, there are many difficulties and challenges and it will involve a longer timeframe. There is no real connection between enlargement and the Lisbon treaty and the treaty has no impact on the applications being received. Despite what various people may say that is the factual position.

We are very concerned about the situation in Afghanistan. A fundamental review is under way at EU level on Afghanistan and its neighbour, Pakistan. We began informal discussions in Stockholm last Friday; the bulk of Friday’s discussion was on the Middle East but we had a significant discussion afterwards on Afghanistan. The elections and the importance of minimising civilian casualties in the military effort are key issues as are the development of economic and social sustainability in Afghanistan, governance in the regions, local governance, corruption, security and justice.

Our inputs must be strong on alternative crop production to the poppy, particularly with regard to aid. That is very important. Through Irish Aid we have a potential role in agricultural technique, expertise and knowledge. There will be a stronger call for co-ordination of aid among all donors and we have been stressing that for quite some time. We are concerned about the broader issues of governance, corruption and human rights. We would like to see these being significant parts of the new policy and strategy on Afghanistan that will emerge from our discussions over the coming weeks, particularly at the next GAERC meeting. It is not just a military issue; it is about developing the capacity to facilitate good governance at local, regional and national levels that will ultimately determine a successful outcome.

In regard to the European Union’s relations with Iran, we are very conscious of the role of sanctions. The High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, is involved in ongoing and exhaustive discussions with Iran, particularly regarding the nuclear file. The EU has been very patient and has persevered along the diplomatic road. Without question, our objective is the diplomatic resolution of all outstanding issues and we are pursuing diplomacy to avoid the unthinkable in terms of the nuclear issue. It is a cause of great tension for the region and it does not solely concern the EU and the US. The EU’s approach has been strategic and temperate but there is no escaping the fact that the response has not been good.

Sanctions have always been directed against the regime rather than the populace because we are anxious that they do not make life worse for ordinary citizens. Senator de Búrca is correct in saying there is no point in using sanctions if they are counterproductive or do not achieve their goals and we will bear this in mind when we consider other graduated measures against Iran, particularly in regard to the treatment of foreign nationals and embassy staff. We may, for example, consider visa and travel restrictions on senior Iranian officials or other restrictive actions against Iranian Embassy staff in EU capitals. Again, however, we do not want to introduce measures that will be counterproductive or undermine our longer-term objectives in regard to engaging with Iran and resolving the significant issues currently on the table.

 The Senator expressed her surprise that the Lisbon treaty is not on the agenda. It is not on the agenda because a referendum will be taking place in Ireland. If we pass the treaty, it will be put on the agenda for implementation. She also made reference to the Alive! newspaper. I appeal for a factual and accurate debate. We live in a democracy and I agree that many false claims can be made but it is up to those of us who support a “Yes” vote to firmly rebut them. I saw a good example of this from Blair Horan of the CPSU, who responded to a press release and website presentation from Joe Higgins, MEP, on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is an example of the kind of solid rebuttal required and I pay tribute to Mr. Horan for identifying a deliberate distortion of the charter to suit a particular construct of workers’ rights. It is regrettable that such issues arise. Mr. Higgins, MEP, has acknowledged the matter as a mistake and, although others may have a different perspective on the matter, at least it was exposed. There is a similar need to expose the untrue claims made in Alive!. According to the Eurobarometer report, 60% of people are aware of the guarantees that were secured in June. It is accepted that a comprehensive and effective, legally binding guarantee has been achieved with respect to the provisions in the Irish Constitution relating to the right to life, the role of the family and education. This guarantee is in addition to the Maastricht protocol, which has existed for 17 years and has been honoured throughout that time. We have no experience of an agreement concluded with the European Union that has not been honoured.

This raises the issue of trust and distrust. Some of the debate conducted by the “No” side presupposes the EU is out to do us down and acts in a conspiratorial way to undermine us but that is not our experience. We need to trust ourselves and the European Union, which works on the basis of consensus and of people working together for the advancement of the common good. The Referendum Commission was set up to clarify and provide information to people in a non-advocacy manner, by giving the facts.

Senator de Búrca mentioned Iceland and the progress of its application to join the EU will be fascinating. I have watched it keenly and have received a number of reports on the matter. Just as we are allowed the space to discuss our relationship with Europe so the people of Iceland should be allowed to hold their own debate. Given that we are also an island nation I would encourage Iceland to join as it would be good for it. There will be issues, as there always are in a discussion between an applicant state and the Union, but Iceland has strong associations with the EU and it is compatible in terms of the various chapters, so I welcome its application.

Senator de Búrca is right to draw attention to the climate change reference in Copenhagen. One of the great achievements of the French Presidency was the breakthrough in the December Council on climate change, which was followed up during the Czech Presidency. It is a very significant achievement to bring 27 member states to an agreed position on climate change, given the differences between the new member states and the more developed economies. Some member states, including ourselves, are over-reliant on fossil fuels but France and the UK have more diversified energy profiles.

The conference in Copenhagen is a significant milestone. People say we have three big forthcoming issues, namely, the Lisbon treaty, NAMA and the budget but I would add a fourth.

A Member:  The Cork county final.

Deputy Micheál Martin:      Yes, and the all-Ireland final is also very important. However, the conference in Copenhagen is make or break for the world. We lost ten years on climate change and it is interesting that President Obama has moved on the issue, as have the Australians where the Prime Minister, Mr. Rudd, has changed his country’s position. Europe has led in this regard. I mentioned the impact on Africa, which has been significant in terms of desertification, flooding and the vulnerability of poor communities to those events. The great tragedy is that while climate-related issues such as CO2 were created by the developed world those who will suffer the most are the poorest, and many of those are in African states. It is vital that we achieve a result and the Swedish Presidency, in line with all the Nordic countries and the United Kingdom, is very strong on the issue. We have held an internal debate on the issues and have played a role. There will be challenges and many people still think climate change is a distant issue or has been exaggerated but that is not the case. It is a crucial issue that relates to our economy and the Senator is correct to say the challenge is to turn an imperative into an opportunity for economic growth.

On green technology and renewables, we must grab this opportunity as it will form a significant part of the economic recovery if we do it well. If we develop our indigenous industries to a degree where they become part of the solution to the global problems which arise as a result of climate change, we can create jobs in what is termed green technology or the green industry. Long before these terms were coined, there were firms across the country involved in processes such as water treatment solutions. I was kept abreast of them when I was the Minister working in conjunction with Enterprise Ireland. We have a lot of good technology to help us grasp the opportunities that climate change will open up. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Copenhagen process and hope the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, will realise what he has been fighting for over a long period on the issue.

There has been a very significant EU stimulus package and the European Central Bank has pumped approximately €120 billion into our financial system. It is an extraordinary contribution underpinning our financial and banking system, of which we should be conscious. There will be a special European Council meeting next Thursday to prepare for the Pittsburgh G20 meeting. It will focus on all aspects of economic recovery, financial sector regulation, in particular, which will be a key issue. There is also the stimulus issue which has been raised, as well as the so-called exit strategy from stimulus packages.

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen,

I feel very privileged to be asked to speak here tonight on this very interesting and important topic. I suppose that I am in a good position to try to answer this question, as we had a very active public debate in Ireland last year about the EU during the campaign before the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. In my opinion, based on the observations I made during that debate, the main problem relating to the issue of European democracy is the fact that many EU citizens feel alienated and disengaged from the overall political project.

What are currently the most profound challenges for European citizens on the way to a European democracy and how did we get here?
To begin with, they do not understand its complex institutional architecture and how decisions are arrived at within its institutions. They are unfamiliar with most of the EU’s senior politicians and officials, and therefore the human or personal dimension of EU politics is lacking. And so the remote, impersonal institutions of the EU fail to command the trust or the affection of citizens in the way that national politicians and national institutions do.
EU citizens are also suspicious about the EU’s overall purpose and aims. There are fears that the project eventually aims to create a single European Superstate which will result in the effective disappearance of the nation-state as they know it. As many citizens are very attached to their national identities, they are resistant to the idea that the EU may be attempting to usurṕ the nation-state and to replace it with new European federal structures.
Another difficulty faced by the EU is that it often does not take credit for or publicise its many achievements or the benefits that it confers on citizens of Member States. As a result, citizens tend to take these benefits for granted or to attribute them to their national governments.
Fourthly, many EU citizens appear to believe that the EU institutions are remote and distant from them, and that they are not able to influence the EU’s decision making. In general, they feel that the quality of the ́́European democracy they experience is inferior to the democracy which they enjoy at the level of the nation-state.
And if we are honest, we will have to admit that the EU has, from its inception, been a political project driven largely by  a political and academic elite. While it is clear that the EU would probably not exist today were it not for that elite, there is now a need to connect the project to a much greater extent with the citizens. The Treaty of Lisbon described the EU as a “Union of States and of Peoples.” To date, the EU has been much more of a “Union of States” than a “Union of Peoples,” and I believe that this has to change, and for good reason. As we know, there has been a breakdown in trust between citizens and their politicians in the West, which is due to corruption and other scandals. While the representative democracy is still the dominant political model, at the same time a new paradigm of participatory democracy is beginning to emerge. Citizens are less willing to leave it to their elected
politicians to advance their interests within the political system, at least not without greater levels of scrutiny and oversight. Citizens want a much greater level of direct involvement in influencing policy-making within the EU institutions and in monitoring the decisions taken by those institutions.
Who are we?  What are our resources, strengths and capabilities on which Europeans should rely and which can be mobilised?
Firstly, the EU is a community of nations with a shared or common set of values. These values were very clearly set out in the preamble to the Lisbon Treaty and they include democracy, freedom, the rule of law, equality (including gender equality), and respect for minorities and for diversity. These values are very powerful forces around which EU citizens can be mobilised.
Secondly we are a political community that has been characterized by a commitment to a strong “Social Model” and high levels of environmental protection.
We are also a political bloc that exercises considerable influence on the global stage. We are the world’s largest trading bloc and will certainly play an important role in any possible reform of the global financial system, WTO, UN and IMF. We also are the world’s largest donor of international aid, therefore we can exercise considerable influence over the countries of the developing world.
We belong to a political community which has decision making structures that facilitate coordinated political responses among 27 Member States. This is a big advantage given the new global challenges that face us-climate change, humanitarian disasters, energy shortages, etc. We also are a political community with a shared history of conflict and warfare which should inform our engagement with the rest of the world and help us to avoid repeating old mistakes.
Finally we have a citizenry which enjoys high levels of literacy and education, health, mortality, prosperity, security and freedom of movement.

How can we move forward and what do we need to do?

1.            We need to give citizens more information and education about the EU and how it functions. I believe that a specific EU Information Service should be set up in each Member State to fulfill this function. In order to ensure that the information/education is transmitted in a way that respects the cultural specificities of each Member State, a reputable body within each state should be given this responsibility rather than one of the EU institutions, such as the Commission.

2.            An EU-wide cultural programme should be designed and implemented which would emphasise the European values on which the community is based, as well as cultivating a sense of European identity and how this reinforces rather than replaces national identity.

3.            We need to develop an inspiring narrative about Europe and help citizens to identify to a much greater extent with the aims and purpose of the European Union. Opportunities should also be provided to citizens to engage in debate about where they would like to see the EU go (i.e. its eventual destination).

4.            We need to mobilise EU civil society and give it an opportunity to enjoy a level of democratic participation in EU policy-making that is not available through national structures (i.e. online policy consultations, EU-wide plebicites, citizen initiatives, EU-wide referenda, etc.).

5.            We need to hold more EU-wide elections.

6.            We need to give EU institutions a more human face and ensure that senior EU officials regularly appear in front of national parliaments and/or their committees, appear at public events, etc.

7.            The remit of public service broadcasters needs to be broadened so that they provide an agreed and balanced coverage of EU affairs. Incentives could be given to commercial broadcasters to provide a similar level of coverage of EU affairs.

8.            EU institutions need to publicise their achievements to a much greater extent.
Clearly we need to use a lot more imagination to help EU citizens to connect with the political project that is the EU, and we need to move towards promoting much greater opportunities for democratic participation by citizens in the life of the Union.

I feel very privileged to be asked to speak here tonight on this very interesting and important topic. I suppose that I am in a good position to try to answer this question, as we had a very active public debate in Ireland last year about the EU during the campaign before the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. In my opinion, based on the observations I made during that debate, the main problem relating to the issue of European democracy is the fact that many EU citizens feel alienated and disengaged from the overall political project.

What are currently the most profound challenges for European citizens on the way to a European democracy and how did we get here?
To begin with, they do not understand its complex institutional architecture and how decisions are arrived at within its institutions. They are unfamiliar with most of the EU’s senior politicians and officials, and therefore the human or personal dimension of EU politics is lacking. And so the remote, impersonal institutions of the EU fail to command the trust or the affection of citizens in the way that national politicians and national institutions do.
EU citizens are also suspicious about the EU’s overall purpose and aims. There are fears that the project eventually aims to create a single European Superstate which will result in the effective disappearance of the nation-state as they know it. As many citizens are very attached to their national identities, they are resistant to the idea that the EU may be attempting to usurṕ the nation-state and to replace it with new European federal structures.
Another difficulty faced by the EU is that it often does not take credit for or publicise its many achievements or the benefits that it confers on citizens of Member States. As a result, citizens tend to take these benefits for granted or to attribute them to their national governments.
Fourthly, many EU citizens appear to believe that the EU institutions are remote and distant from them, and that they are not able to influence the EU’s decision making. In general, they feel that the quality of the ́́European democracy they experience is inferior to the democracy which they enjoy at the level of the nation-state.
And if we are honest, we will have to admit that the EU has, from its inception, been a political project driven largely by  a political and academic elite. While it is clear that the EU would probably not exist today were it not for that elite, there is now a need to connect the project to a much greater extent with the citizens. The Treaty of Lisbon described the EU as a “Union of States and of Peoples.” To date, the EU has been much more of a “Union of States” than a “Union of Peoples,” and I believe that this has to change, and for good reason. As we know, there has been a breakdown in trust between citizens and their politicians in the West, which is due to corruption and other scandals. While the representative democracy is still the dominant political model, at the same time a new paradigm of participatory democracy is beginning to emerge. Citizens are less willing to leave it to their elected politicians to advance their interests within the political system, at least not without greater levels of scrutiny and oversight. Citizens want a much greater level of direct involvement in influencing policy-making within the EU institutions and in monitoring the decisions taken by those institutions.
Who are we?  What are our resources, strengths and capabilities on which Europeans should rely and which can be mobilised?
Firstly, the EU is a community of nations with a shared or common set of values. These values were very clearly set out in the preamble to the Lisbon Treaty and they include democracy, freedom, the rule of law, equality (including gender equality), and respect for minorities and for diversity. These values are very powerful forces around which EU citizens can be mobilised.
Secondly we are a political community that has been characterized by a commitment to a strong “Social Model” and high levels of environmental protection.
We are also a political bloc that exercises considerable influence on the global stage. We are the world’s largest trading bloc and will certainly play an important role in any possible reform of the global financial system, WTO, UN and IMF. We also are the world’s largest donor of international aid, therefore we can exercise considerable influence over the countries of the developing world.
We belong to a political community which has decision making structures that facilitate coordinated political responses among 27 Member States. This is a big advantage given the new global challenges that face us-climate change, humanitarian disasters, energy shortages, etc. We also are a political community with a shared history of conflict and warfare which should inform our engagement with the rest of the world and help us to avoid repeating old mistakes.
Finally we have a citizenry which enjoys high levels of literacy and education, health, mortality, prosperity, security and freedom of movement.

How can we move forward and what do we need to do?

1.            We need to give citizens more information and education about the EU and how it functions. I believe that a specific EU Information Service should be set up in each Member State to fulfill this function. In order to ensure that the information/education is transmitted in a way that respects the cultural specificities of each Member State, a reputable body within each state should be given this responsibility rather than one of the EU institutions, such as the Commission.

2.            An EU-wide cultural programme should be designed and implemented which would emphasise the European values on which the community is based, as well as cultivating a sense of European identity and how this reinforces rather than replaces national identity.

3.            We need to develop an inspiring narrative about Europe and help citizens to identify to a much greater extent with the aims and purpose of the European Union. Opportunities should also be provided to citizens to engage in debate about where they would like to see the EU go (i.e. its eventual destination).

4.            We need to mobilise EU civil society and give it an opportunity to enjoy a level of democratic participation in EU policy-making that is not available through national structures (i.e. online policy consultations, EU-wide plebicites, citizen initiatives, EU-wide referenda, etc.).

5.            We need to hold more EU-wide elections.

6.            We need to give EU institutions a more human face and ensure that senior EU officials regularly appear in front of national parliaments and/or their committees, appear at public events, etc.

7.            The remit of public service broadcasters needs to be broadened so that they provide an agreed and balanced coverage of EU affairs. Incentives could be given to commercial broadcasters to provide a similar level of coverage of EU affairs.

8.            EU institutions need to publicise their achievements to a much greater extent.
Clearly we need to use a lot more imagination to help EU citizens to connect with the political project that is the EU, and we need to move towards promoting much greater opportunities for democratic participation by citizens in the life of the Union.

In order to assist all EU Member States to be able to invest in developing necessary infrastructure and to create new jobs, EU institutions such as the European Investment Bank and the European Central Bank will have to play a central role. This will involve, for example, the issuing of Euro Bonds in order to help Member States to raise money both to finance massive new infrastructural projects, but also to provide credit/loans to thousands of new SMEs that will be created across the Union in response to new economic opportunities. Instruments such as loan guaranties, interest subsidies, direct equity participation or other tools should be utilised, that provide leverage and allow the mobilisation of 10 to 20 times more funds (including private funds) than relying strongly on traditional old-fashioned state aid tools and classic state investment. The more traditional approach allocates state aid only to the big energy and telecom oligopolies instead of supporting the more dynamic, innovative and creative economic actors such as small and medium-sized enterprises, cities, local authorities, etc. that are the real catalysts for the kind of change Europe needs.

While the inability to be more proactive in areas such as tax policy is a weakness when it comes to strengthening the European economy, the EU has several other useful instruments at its disposal. Each year there is a broad discussion about the Common Economic Guidelines involving ECOFIN, the Commission, the Parliament and the Council. This provides a way to coordinate different economic policies including budgetary policies even if it is just a guideline and has no binding effect. EU governments always have the liberty (and the duty) when the need arises  to sit together and coordinate their actions and set national targets even if they are not bound to do so by the existing treaties. The Open Method of Cooperation has already been applied in the social area and budgetary agreements show that possibilities are not so limited.

When one thinks back to the post -World War Two period in Europe, and the Marshall Plan that was implemented with the assistance of the USA, it appears that the same kind of massive economic stimulus programme will be necessary in order to lift Europe out of the recent economic doldrums in which it finds itself. But this time, the US is in a similar economic depression, and therefore the EU will have to launch and to finance its own economic rescue plan. In fact most significant businesses in the industries concerned with a Green New Deal – energy, transportation, industrial equipment and of course banking and finance – are transnational; they cannot be addressed by national initiatives alone. The economies of scale that will apply at a European level may also serve to unlock significant private finance to match that being provided by the European Banks and the governments of Member States

.
This is why one of the main policy demands around which the European Green Party is organising in advance of the European Parliament elections this June is the call for an EU-wide Green New Deal, an economic stimulus programme that would see 500 billion euros being made available from public and private funds over the next five years in order to create up to 5 million new ‘green-collar’ jobs in Europe. The need for urgent action to stimulate a green economy within the European Union is clear when one examines what other major global powers are doing in this regard. Volume-wise, over this year and next year, the USA has already committed more than $110bn to green initiatives, and China, Korea and Japan combined more than $260bn, while the combined EU effort trails behind at $54bn (that is 0.2% of the EU’s GDP for that period). Percentage-wise, Asian recovery plans have an average 23% of green content, while the plans of EU Member States on average have only 16% green content. Most of the green content of the Chinese plan go towards the expansion of the railway system and of the electric grid.There is a danger that if the EU fails to stimulate green economic activity across its Member States, that it will eventually find itself at a competitive disadvantage in relation to other major player in the global economy such as China, the US and Japan. Europe risks being overtaken by other economic giants.

So what does the EU need to do in order to ‘green’ its own economy? Well, in addition to assisting the governments of Member States and SMEs across Europe in raising finances, the EU could also promote European -wide infrastructural projects such as a European electricity grid and a major off-shore wind farm stretching from the North Sea down to the Iberian Peninsula. Such projects will have major job-creation potential. (In the United States, wind energy- related jobs now outstrip coal related jobs for the first time and this sector could provide thousands of new jobs in Europe).

Public procurement policy also offers considerable possibilities in relation to developing a green economy across the EU.16% of European GDP is spent by public authorities on goods and services and over half of this spend relates to building – construction, renovation and running costs. It makes sense for European public procurement to go green, both economically and environmentally. The European Commission apparently is planning to make green procurement policies mandatory within the short term. This has the potential to open up new markets and create new jobs. The EU eco-industries sector already accounts for one-third of the global market, which is estimated at €550 billion per year, and it has enjoyed a healthy annual growth rate of around five per cent since the mid 1990s. The EU’s Environmental Technologies Action Plan (which includes a range of measures to overcome barriers to the development and wider use of eco-technologies) and Integrated Product Policy (which seeks to reduce the negative environmental impacts of a product throughout its life cycle) will also complement a green procurement policy at a European level. A recent study on GPP performance across EU Member States has provided the Commission with clear indications on the current level of GPP in the best performing Member States, which is the baseline for the target set in the renewed Sustainable Development Strategy. On this basis, the Commission proposes that, by the year 2010, 50 % of all tendering procedures should be green.

Every year billions of euros are spent under the EU’s Cohesion Policy for regional development and economic and social cohesion throughout Europe. For the 2007-13 programming period (with a total budget of €308 billion), sustainable development was reconfirmed as one of the most important principles of the Cohesion Policy. The EU’s Regional and Cohesion Policy can also clearly be used as instruments in greening the European economy.

The EU Services Directive is being implemented later this year. The aim of this directive is to remove many of the barriers that prevent businesses within the EU being able to operate across borders in other Member States .When implemented the Services Directive will facilitate Small to Medium Irish companies to compete for contracts all over Europe, for example in the areas of insulation, heating, cooling, ventilation and reducing the energy consumption of public buildings. Standards for cleaning are about to be mandated all over Europe, both for products – detergents, sanitisers, glass cleaning products, and for the cleaning service companies who use these products. Greening cleaning services will create new jobs and businesses across the EU.In public offices, the government departments, the legal offices, the health services, all across Europe, preferences in tenders will be given to suppliers of paper that is either recycled or from renewable resources. Mandatory Green procurement policies across the EU will not just create new business opportunities for developing greener office equipment with quieter and recyclable components, but also opportunities for businesses that specialise in the disassembly and recycling of existing equipment that has reached the end of its life. Greener procurement policies will also require office equipment to come in recyclable packaging, opportunities will be created for companies to supply that packaging. The suppliers of goods; equipment, furniture, vehicles, components, parts and so on in an almost endless list, will be favoured if they use renewable energy. Everyone in Ireland can be part of this green new deal. For example in Dublin the farmer in Saggart can provide electricity from a turbine on his land to a manufacturer in Tallaght producing components for Europe’s rail network. A horticulturist in Rush can supply a caterer in Swords with organic produce with which to make meals for our hospitals.

I also believe that the European Union needs to establish a European-wide system of training and accreditation for new “Green- collar” trades. The Spanish government has approved 18 new professional certificates, which represent the official accreditation of professional skills for certain labour market activities. These certificates respond to the labour market needs of certain emerging professions such as microbiological and biotechnological trials, renewable energies and those related to environmental issues such as ecological agriculture and the management and assembly of wind and solar power plants. These certificates and their related training aim to cover new labour market needs stemming from the emerging ‘knowledge society’. By the end of 2010 it is expected that the total number of official certificates will amount to 700.

The Spanish have the lead here, and their workers will find it easier to find good, stable employment in the emerging Green industries. As the European Commission make cuts in national emissions mandatory, and as the price of fossil fuels increases again, properly- certified workers will have a clear advantage in gaining contracts, both at home and abroad. When the Services Directive is fully implemented across the EU over the next few years, this will mean that Irish companies and Irish workers with appropriate accreditation will be able to compete for contracts in the Green economy across all EU Member States. 

The Lisbon 2000 scheme is a European Union fund that provides for skills training and lifelong learning. I believe this scheme should be used to support a single, Europe – wide, Green-collar certification scheme. It is also clear that we cannot have a number of different national certification schemes. Instead we need to ensure a supply of properly qualified workers who will be able to exploit the new job opportunities across Europe’s emerging Green Economy.

There is a lot more that I could say today but I have been asked to limit myself to 20 minutes! So, in conclusion, the economic or development model that has been adopted by European (and indeed North American) countries is unsustainable. It is based on present and excessive levels of consumption; it allows greenhouse gas emissions that will upset the balance of our climate and ultimately of non-renewable resources at a rate that would see many of them depleted in a few decades. This will not only threaten the survival of the human species on Earth; but it will leave a majority of the world’s population in a state of utter poverty. We need to radically change that development model, focusing instead on renewable sources of materials and energy, thus allowing current and future generations to live a decent life on the planet. The very difficult economic circumstances that now confront the global community do also present us with an opportunity to move quickly toward the kind of green, low carbon economy that will be necessary if we are, and if the planet is, to survive. At a European level we need to mobilise the political will to transform the European economy and to show critical leadership at a global level. As the title of my paper today makes clear – it is imperative that we green the European economy. Thank you for listening to me and I look forward to taking questions afterwards.

The other issue I wish to raise was not mentioned by the Minister but he is aware of it, namely, the free trade agreement being negotiated between the European Union and Colombia. The Department has been kept fully briefed on the issue. Concerns have been raised. We are all aware that Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, certainly as far as trade unionists are concerned. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, wrote to the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, in March to highlight some of its concerns. If the Minister bears with me, I will read a small section of that letter. It states:

Dear Minister,

As you noted in your letter [the ICTU referred to a previous letter from the Minister of State, Deputy Roche] the European Commission decided on 9 December on the list of countries that would benefit under the GSP+ [that was the extension of the previous trade agreements in place between the European Union and Colombia] and Colombia was included in that list. In your letter you conclude that “the Commission considered that based on objective criteria Colombia qualified for GSP+. The compliance of beneficiary countries with the standards which entitle them to benefit under GSP+ is kept under constant review by the Commission and the possibility exists that such benefits may be withdrawn in cases of non-compliance.”

The decision to include Colombia in the list of countries which would benefit under GSP+ is especially difficult to understand given that the EU claims that to qualify for GSP+ status a country must ratify and comply with the 27 Conventions on Human Rights and Labour Standards, including ILO Convention 87 on freedom of association and the protection of the right to organise and Convention 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining. Colombia clearly does not comply with these conventions.

During the last two months four trade union leaders were killed in Colombia:

- 20 February assassination of Leoncio Gurierrez of the SUTEV trade union.

- 15 February assassination of Guillermo Antonio Ramirez of the SER trade union.

- 12 February assassination of Luis Alberto Arango Crespo, president of the Fishing and Agricultural Workers’ Association.

- 28 January assassination of Leovigildo Mejia of the ASOGRAS trade union.

In addition to the four murders, the regional trade union leader Jose Jair Valencia Agudelo, a member of EDUCAL trade union, is in intensive care in hospital having been shot six times on his way to work on 26 February … I am also extremely concerned that the EU has begun negotiations with Colombia for a bilateral EU-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which would provide Colombia with further economic benefits despite the country making almost no progress in ending violence against trade unionists, and we note that President Barack Obama and the United States recently rejected such a deal citing anti-trade union attacks as the principle reason for doing so.

I therefore kindly ask you to act in favour of opening an EU investigation into Colombia’s labour and human rights performance as it is permitted to do under the regulation governing GSP+, as you also noted in your letter to me.

Any serious objective analysis of Colombia’s compliance with the 27 Conventions on Human Rights and Labour Standards can only come to one conclusion: Colombia does not comply with these conventions.

Will the Minister to respond to some of these concerns and indicate whether he would be in favour of seeking an EU investigation into Colombia’s labour and human rights performance? It is a matter of concern that not alone was the GSP+ extended from 2009 to 2011 but that a new free trade agreement is being negotiated with Colombia. Given that the US Congress saw fit to reject a free trade agreement of that nature, questions must be asked about why the European Union is considering it. Perhaps the Minister will also raise the issue at the GAERC meeting.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Senator de Búrca referred to the economic recovery plan which I have addressed. I take her point on events in Colombia. We will raise the matter with the European Union.