Thank you, Chairman.  Chairman, I would like to welcome the Taoiseach to the Forum.  As the Taoiseach knows, we are now into the last few weeks of the campaign on the Lisbon Treaty and I know that he himself very strongly encouraged his party to become involved in the activities in terms of promoting the Treaty in the final few weeks. 

But I think I suppose I would be asking him today whether he would accept that this particular Treaty campaign is conforming to a very familiar pattern which is that we find as political parties ourselves out trying to educate voters and members of the public about the European Union and we are finding that people actually know very little about the European institutions and about European Affairs generally.  It is quite a challenge to try and explain complex institutional arrangements to people and proposed changes to those institutional arrangements.  And, in effect, what we are trying to do as political parties and activists is to provide people with a crash course on European Affairs within the space of a number of weeks preceding the referendum on the Treaty. And that this is not a satisfactory state of affairs at all.  And that as political parties and I suppose I would be suggesting that in your role as Taoiseach that perhaps this is something that might be looked at.  Because if it is the case that we are to avoid similar scenarios in the future where we are trying to again almost perform the impossible; educate people in such a short period of time, it would appear that some kind of initiative on behalf of all Member States within the European Union, and the Governments of those Member States, to provide a more permanent information service about the European Union would be a very good way to proceed and that this information service would need to be a national one. 

It would need, in effect, to be as local and as accessible as possible.  And what I would like to propose to the Taoiseach here today is that perhaps we might look in this country at the idea of providing, if you like, one stop shops that provide information about the European Union and all aspects of the European Union’s functioning, including its institutions, its policies, grants and funding opportunities, the rights of citizens, how to use the EU, the parliaments, the petitions committee, the EU ombudsman and so on, information about the other Member States.  These might be located in local government offices because it seems to me the problem really is that it is a psychological one that when we start talking about Europe people lose interest because they see it as something that is completely detached and removed from their every day reality.  And, in fact, what we need to persuade people to do is to regard the European Union as another level or aspect, dimension of their political identity.  And the only way in which we can do this, I think, is to bring the information about the European Union and the way in which it functions closer to people. 

And I would suggest that members of the public do use their local authorities office, go there to access services and so on, and that this would be a very good place to locate such information offices and help us to overcome the huge information deficit that is there when European Treaty campaigns come around.  Thank you.

Reply from An Taoiseach Brian Cowen TD
And sometimes we hear criticism about Europe by people who don’t have a great affinity to participative democracy at home and then wonder why Europe isn’t so vigorous in its participative democracy abroad.  We need to recognise that our first obligation as citizens is to make Europe more relevant ‑ to make that general point that Niamh Bhreathnach and others have made ‑ to make Europe more relevant.  It is true that we have learned during this decade the need to find means by which a conversation is held in this country that not just deals with our domestic policies but has an understanding that our domestic policies are located in an international context all the time, and that it is from Europe that much progressive policy formulation has derived from in this country. 

We’ve adapted it to our national circumstances.  But you can look at the whole level of participation in this society, not just in terms of how we have been able to grow in wealth and jobs and investment, but the participation of all of our citizens.  The fact that far more people, thankfully, have jobs, including looking at the gender gap, the changing and much welcomed changed role of women in our society in positions of influence and having a role outside the home, as was the case traditionally in the past.  A lot of that development, the whole momentum towards equal pay and better working conditions, health and safety, all of these important progressive policies emanated from the European setting where countries and citizens and democracies who are committed to that broad social democratic vision have come forward with common approaches, who see that cooperation and finding a standardised way in which we can conduct our affairs and improve the employer/employee relationship and provide a greater role for what we now have devised domestically as our social partnership model; one that is looked to in other countries as a means by which we can, in fact, address what people call a democratic deficit. 

98th plenary session of the National forum on Europe • St Patrick’s Hall • Dublin Castle • Dublin 2 • Thursday 22 May 2008
Keynote Speaker: An Taoiseach, Mr Brian Cowen TD  

Thank you, Chairman.  Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh Gerry Adams anseo inniú agus tá súil agam go mbeidh díospóireacht spéisiúil againn faoi Chonradh Lisbon.

I would like to welcome Gerry Adams here this morning and I hope we have a very interesting ‑‑ I am sure we will ‑‑ debate and discussion about the Lisbon Treaty. 

I would like to start maybe by being a little bit provocative and asking Mr Adams what would he say to those who argue that Sinn Fein’s opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and, indeed, to successive previous treaties are based on a deep philosophical difficulty that his party has with the concept of supranationalism, that is the pooling of sovereignty across a range of policy areas by individual Member States. 

It is clear that Sinn Féin, as a political movement, was born out of a nationalist struggle where political identity was very bound up with territory and with concepts of national independence and self determination and that rather than seeing a supranational policy like the European Union complementing and enhancing the powers of the nation State, that his party actually sees the EU as undermining the nation State and whether he would comment on that.

Reply by Gerry Adams
The Republican position in terms of internationalism, going back to Déirdre’s question. James Connolly described it best. Internationalism he described as, from an Irish Republican perspective; a free federation of peoples. That is what he was looking for. Because you are small, as we are, does not mean that you should be treated any less equally. And it is a matter of uniting and trying to get on the core values from our perspective that I outlined here, trying to get that as a foundation as we move forward. And you can’t get everything. But, you know, to suggest, as appears to be — and a lot of the points I made were just missed.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca 
Then the second question, I suppose, I have is in relation to the institutional reforms proposed within the Lisbon Treaty and obviously those reforms have been proposed in order to try to make decision making within the Union effective and to allow it to continue to be effective if the European Union is to acquire new members.  And it would appear that the kind of insistence that Sinn Féin is making on every country having a Commissioner and holding on to existing vetoes would actually make it, if the European Union is to expand at all, would make it less and less possible for the European Union to make effective decisions or decisions within an effective and realistic period of time.  And again just to ask is this reluctance to agree to the institutional reforms again borne of that fear of supranational decision making of the kind of qualified majorities that can operate very effectively in Ireland’s interest, but is that where Mr Adams party’s fear of those institutional reforms is coming from?

Reply by Gerry Adams
To suggest, for example, the loss of a permanent Commissioner is a good thing is blatantly a nonsense. Imagine there were no TDs here in Dublin. Would we go back and tell them it is okay, the TDs from Kildare will look after you, the TDs from Louth will mind you? You know, it is absolutely ridiculous.

Mary Lou has dealt with the point — and I always love watching faces, you know, when people are making a debating point. So when Joe said that I had said we would like to be involved in negotiations and then he says why weren’t you, and everybody’s face lights up. We were refused. We asked. We were denied an invitation.

But let’s if I may, just dealt with one of the people who was there – John Gormley. John was there and what did he say, what did the Green Party say? And, with respect, Déirdre, I don’t know whether the Green Party is for or against this and neither does the Green Party. But what John  said about it was this: most of the real negotiations unfortunately took place behind closed doors. The idea of open sessions was a myth. There were over 1,000 amendments offered but no votes were taken on any of them and most were never even discussed.

So, in summary, just in terms of where we come from, all of this, we want to see people voting no and we want to see a better Treaty negotiated. Anyone who said, and this is implicit, I think, in some of the answers, that it is not practical or efficient to have 27 Commissioners. I mean catch yourselves on. In the Dáil here there are 15 ministers and 20 junior ministers for a population of less than four million. So how can you argue against 27 Commissioners to represent more than 500 million? Let’s, you know, be serious about how we proceed on all of these issues.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca 
The third point just to mention, Mr Adams referred to Ireland having a veto on agricultural trade negotiations at the moment.  My understanding is that Ireland does not have an individual veto and I would like to ask him to clarify what he means by that.  It is QMV that operates in relation to the Council of Ministers agreeing or signing up to whatever negotiations have been carried out on their behalf by the Commission.  And, as far as I understand, Ireland, as a member of a group of countries, can certainly veto any agricultural agreement that is reached but not as an individual country.  So perhaps he could clarify that. 

Reply by Gerry Adams
And in terms of agriculture and do we have a veto or don’t we have a veto? I mean my clear understanding, and I cited quite consciously because it is a point of agreement between us; the position which Enda Kenny outlined when he said that we should use our veto. But he went on to make the point, and no-one has responded to this, that if Lisbon goes through we will lose that. So what do we do the next time if there are issues there which are not to the benefit of any sector, and the WTO is a current issue of some urgency.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca 
In terms of workers’ rights, I do think a little more balance could be brought to the points he makes about worker’s rights.  The European Trade Union Confederation is supporting the Lisbon Treaty and I think it is important to point out that the European Union was pushing for a directive on agency workers to be agreed.  And, in fact, it was this country and one or two others that actually didn’t allow that to happen.  So, you know, I think it is a little unfair to say that the European Union has not been proactive in trying to defend workers’ rights.

Reply by Gerry Adams
The Social Clause, and Joe Higgins dealt with this very eloquently, it does not provide any meaningful mechanism. It does not equality proof anything. And I note that no trade union in Ireland has so far said yes to this Treaty. Not one. In fact, UNITE have said that they are against it and, you know, let’s be careful, in the spirit that Billy outlined his position, that we accurately reflect the position on these issues. There are no protections for public services.

— In terms of the old issue of worker’s right and conditions, and this is a fairly crucial issue. We saw it here in Irish Ferries. We saw the despicable way that people here were being treated, being almost in Dickens type conditions were being paid because they happened to be either agency workers or people from other States. And I mean the proposition is quite simple. How you deal with this is quite straight forward. You ensure that all workers have the same conditions, the same terms and the same pay. Thai is how you do it. And, incidentally, this is not just right, that is not just just, but if there is a decline in the economy that is what will guard us against racism, that is what will prevent this awful crisis of economic inequality becoming much more evil and much more divisive to the people who live on this island

Senator Déirdre de Búrca 
And the last point maybe just in relation to the issue of scare mongering.  I would accept sometimes that I think in people’s enthusiasm to try and get the Treaty supported, it may sound as though they are putting unbelievable pressure on those who are on the no side.  But equally I think there is a responsibility on those on the no side to be accurate in what they say.  And it has been my experience at a number of public meetings that some of the Sinn Fein local councilors who have been coming to meetings and making points about the Treaty have not been accurate in what they are saying.  So just to make the point that I think it is important for the no side to be accurate and perhaps for the yes side not to scaremonger.  Thank you. 

 95th plenary session of the National Forum on Europe • Royal Hospital Kilmainham • Dublin 8 • Thursday 1 May 2008
Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams MP MLA addressed the National Forum on Europe on the Treaty of Lisbon (EU Reform Treaty) 

I am Maurice Hayes I am the chairman of the National Forum on Europe. The forum was established by the Government and political parties in 2001. Its mandate is to provide a neutral public space for discussion and issues relating to the European Union, and Ireland’s role within it. 

The members of the Forum are the political parties represented in the Oireachtas, Members of the European Parliament and 46 civil society organisations in the special observer pillar, and MEP’s and members elected from Northern Ireland are entitled to come to , and they do from time to time. 

We operate mainly through meetings, plenary meetings which are usually held in Dublin and a series of meetings around the country and this is one of a series that we’re having on the Treaty of Lisbon. The aim is to bring the debate around the country so that as many people as possible have the chance to listen, to ask questions and make their views known. It’s important that every person has the opportunity to do this before they vote in the referendum which I understand is due to be held on the 12^th of June. 

The new treaty is a lengthy and complex document, so there is a great need for a reliable and readable summary which would facilitate public debate. The Forum has produced a summary guide to the treaty which strives to be a factual guide and doesn’t make judgments. It wouldn’t be possible to cover every aspect of such a complex treaty so we seek to cover those which are important to Ireland and I am glad to that the Referendum Commission yesterday launched its own guide to the treaty. I haven’t seen it yet, but I look forward to that.  

There are other points of view of course which are represented in the Forum and we will ensure that they get a fair hearing during our debates. The objective is to get people to look closely at the treaty, to ask questions so that they understand the implications when they come to vote. Among others Sinn Féin has produced its own guide. This is available here this evening.  

We also have a website forumoneurope.ie where you can stay in touch with the debate over the coming weeks, and our meetings are available on pod cast through the site or through i-tunes, and this evening’s will be as well. The Forum’s website has a youtube channel for these public meetings, and if you would like to express your viewpoint on that channel it will only take a couple of minutes at the end of the meeting.

Before we hear from our speakers we are going to a short film on the treaty which the Forum has produced as an introduction to the debate. It shows the Forum at work and it touches on some of the key issues in the treaty debate, but makes no judgements and as I said before is not exhaustive. Other people and the speakers here will raise other issues, but it is an attempt simply to focus on the main questions that seem to be coming up.  After that each of the speakers will speak for about 15 minutes and then I’ll open the discussion to the floor. So if you’d take a look at the film for a moment and it will take 10 minutes.

FILM 
In December 2007 European leaders signed and important new treaty in Lisbon it followed a 2-year period of reflection in Europe after France and The Netherlands

Senator Déirdre de Búrca
Thanks very much. Good evening everybody. I’m very happy to be here in Portlaoise this evening discussing the Lisbon treaty. I know myself and Joe Higgins were on Midlands Radio earlier on today and a vox pop. was done of people who lived in the locality and it appeared that a lot of people felt they needed a lot more information about the treaty. So I hope tonight’s meeting will help to provide you with some of that information and a greater level of awareness about the treaty.  

I better start by saying that although I’m a Green Party Senator I’m not speaking or presenting the Green Party’s position here tonight and the reason why I’m not is because the Green Party earlier this year in January consulted its membership about what position party members -the grassroots members- wished us to take in relation to the Lisbon treaty. Now having taken a vote on it 63 percent of our party members voted in favour of supporting the Lisbon treaty. After one, of what I would consider the best debates we’ve had in the party where both the ‘no’ and the ‘yes’ arguments were trashed out fully. And 37 percent of our membership voted against supporting the treaty but because under our constitution two-thirds of our membership would have to support any change in the party’s position and so we were left in a position where we had no official campaigning position, but it was left to individuals to campaign as they saw fit and so you will see members of the Green Party some of them campaigning for the treaty and some of them against the treaty. I am here tonight to speak in favour of the treaty and I hope I’ll be able to explain to you why that is. 

From left to right: Senator Déirdre de Búrca, Socialist Party Leader Joe Higgins, Chairman of the National Forum on Europe Maurice Hayes

Explaining why she supported the Treaty, Senator De Búrca said that in an age of accelerating globalization, the European Union had an important role to play in terms of providing leadership in areas such as tackling climate change, promoting human rights and encouraging international Fair Trade.

Arguing for a No vote, Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party said that the purpose of the Treaty was “to enable the powerful EU economic bloc to stride onto the world stage with a military wing”. “The Lisbon Treaty mandates increased military spending”, he said. “It formalizes and consolidates the EU arms industry to create even more Weapons of Mass Destruction”.

Mr Higgins also said the Treaty was driven by a neo-liberal agenda. “Lisbon would make it easier for multi-national corporations to invest in public services on a for-profit basis”. Declaring that he was also speaking for the umbrella group The Campaign Against the European Constitution, the Socialist Party leader said that under the Treaty, the European Commission could go into World Trade Talks and negotiate a deal which could lead to the privatisation of services like health and education. Mr Higgins believed the Treaty would have the effect of undermining workers’ rights and would lead to a race-to-the-bottom in terms of pay and conditions.

LINK TO PODCAST OF DEBATE
http://www.forumoneuropepodcast.org/podcasts/index.php?id=3

Thank you, Chairman.  Chairman, I would like, on behalf of the Green Party, to welcome President Barroso to the Forum here today and thank him for his presentation. 

Just two issues I would like to raise with him.  I suppose the first one is to do with the perceived democratic deficit of the European Union.  And most people would accept that the European Union is a very ambitious and successful political project which certainly has the support of the political classes in Europe.  But the whole issue of the support of the peoples of Europe is not quite as clear and unambiguous and I think the Laeken Declaration recognised this when it spoke of the need to bring the institutions of the European Union closer to the citizens. 

And I would just like to ask President Barroso whether he feels that this potential disconnect that exists between the institutions of the European Union and the citizens has the possibility of presenting a serious weakness in the Europe Union in the future where the support of citizens may be needed for the introduction of certain measures.  And does he believe that, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, that the period of consolidation that we are promised will follow it.  That this should be very much a period during which the democratic deficit would be addressed by the European Union through its institutions, by means of outreach with citizens, education, dialogue, structured dialogue in consultation with citizens. 

And also to echo something that Minister Ahern just referred to, putting a human face on the institutions of the European Union and bringing them closer to their Member States through visits to parliaments and to fora such as this by members of the Commission and other representatives of the European institutions.  Certainly, as far as the Green Party is concerned, that would help to bring Brussels much closer to its citizens. 

The second issue I would like to touch on just very briefly is the issue of the values of the European Union.  I think it is a very welcome feature of the Lisbon Treaty that the values are laid out very clearly.  And I think these values will help to inspire public support for the European Union because I think the values of equality and solidarity have been synonymous with the European project since its very early days and I think there has always been very strong public support in Europe for State intervention in the economy in order to promote public welfare. 

However, I think there is a degree of concern that possibly the policies of the European Union, certainly in the area of economic policy, may be shifting slightly to the right and we may see Berlin moving closer to Boston and I wonder whether the President would just respond to that and clarify whether he believes that is happening or whether he can reassure the citizens in that regard.  Thank you.

93rd plenary session of the National Forum on Europe • St Patrick’s Hall • Dublin Castle • Dublin 2 • Thursday 17 April 2008
President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso addressed the theme ‘At the heart of an  open Europe, Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty’ 

Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, I would like to welcome both speakers to the Forum and to thank them for their presentations and also to welcome the opportunity to discuss the institutional arrangements under the Lisbon Treaty. I think most of us would agree that a large part of the Lisbon Treaty is about introducing new institutional changes within the European Union.  A lot of these changes are about making the European Union more efficient, about streamlining decision making and so on, about recognising the impact that recent enlargements have had on decision making processes within the Union, and also possibly anticipating and trying to provide for future enlargements.  Obviously making the European Union efficient enough to be able to accommodate its membership and make decisions and so on is important and the Lisbon Treaty does facilitate this. 

But there is often a trade off between efficiency and democracy, and I think the concern of people who are looking at the changes in terms of efficiency that are being made is they don’t want to see the quality of democracy being diminished and perhaps that is why people who are arguing on the No side very often look for some of the characteristics of the nation state, the systems that they are familiar with, of parliamentary democracy within the nation state, to be replicated at a European level.  Because there is a concern that as you move into the 21st century that we don’t want to see the quality of democracy within the systems of governance that we experience, we don’t want to see that diminished. 

However, I do think there are important concessions and important moves in the direction of greater democracy contained within the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty.  Not enough and the Green Party would certainly like to see much further moves in the direction of democratising the European Union.  But one of the important ones I think is worth mentioning here today is the fact that the co‑decision making powers of the parliament, the European Parliament are significantly extended.  That does strengthen the parliamentary dimension of the European Union.  It does mean that the democratic legitimacy, I would say, of the Union is enhanced overall and it reduces the exercise of executive power within the Union because I think to date it would be true to say the power that is exercised by the Commission could be described as executive power.  Similarly the Council of Ministers operates like a cabinet, so therefore it is, in effect, executive power that is being exercised.  So the extension of the co‑decision will see much greater emphasis on parliamentary democracy, much more open debate and discussion about all of the directives and legislation that is being considered by the European Union and I think that has to be a good thing.

I think a very welcome provision of the Lisbon Treaty is the fact that the European Parliament can now elect the President of the Commission.  I think this means that the European Council will have to be careful and consider the weightings of the different parties, political groupings I should say, within the European Parliament when it is proposing a candidate for President of the Commission.  I think this is a point that we should be making in the run up to the European elections next year to the citizens of Europe is that who you vote for and if there is a sufficient representation, let’s say, of left leaning political parties or right leaning, that is going to influence the kind of President that is elected to the Commission and, therefore, the kind of legislation, because we know that the Commission retains the right of legislative initiative.  So I think it is very important that the parliament has this new power, not just to assent to the President but to actually elect the President of the Commission. 

I know people have spoken in terms of the institutional arrangements proposed, that they are concerned about the loss of a Commissioner per Member State.  That basically was proposed by the Nice Treaty but it is certainly re‑emphasised within the Lisbon Treaty.  I don’t think it is going to be such a problem that each Member State is not recognised.  I think if you accept that the European Commission is supposed to represent the European interest and not the specific interests of individual Member States, then I think not having a Commissioner for five years out of fifteen is not such a problem.  But I do think one of the things that probably needs to be considered is whether the cabinets that are serving the Commissioners have adequate representation of officials from all of the Member States so that the perspectives and the interests of each Member State can be recognised and accommodated by the Commission and can inform the thinking of the various commissioners within their portfolios.  The last point ‑‑

Chairperson
Could we perhaps leave it at that, if you wouldn’t mind.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca
Could I make one just last point, Chairman?

Chairperson
If you would do it briefly, please.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca
I think there is a concern again, because of the fact that there is a move much more towards population‑based voting system, both within the Council of Ministers, the numbers of seats are being decreased and are more in keeping within the Parliament with the population of Member States and the fact, I suppose, that Member States are losing an automatic right to a Commissioner, there is a concern on the part of smaller states and I would just like to ask both speakers whether they would envisage, at any stage in the future, some kind of institutional arrangements similar to the US Senate, where there is equality of representation.  There is some kind of institutional accommodation of smaller states where there is equality of representation from all States within the Union?  Thank you.

91st plenary session of the National Forum on Europe • Westin Hotel • College Green • Dublin • 10 April 2008
Former EU Commissioner Mr David Byrne and Ms Susan George, chair of the Planning Board of the Transnational Institute, addressed the theme ‘The Institutional Arrangements under the Treaty of Lisbon’

Thank you, Chairman.  Chairman, I would like to thank both speakers for their presentations.  The question I want to put is about the EU trade policy and I will address that to Peter Sutherland, if I can, just given his background as former Director General of GATT and the World Trade Organisation. 

I was very struck by a comment that Peter Sutherland made in his opening remarks when he said that, to his mind, the pooling of sovereignty by nation states was simultaneously an act of generosity and of self interest and I would agree with him on that.  Clearly Ireland’s interests, national interests have been served by joining the European Union and participating in the European Union.  I think particularly our membership of the European Union has been vital for the Irish economy and I think most Irish people will recognise that and I think they will take that certainly very strongly into consideration when it comes to considering whether they support the Lisbon Treaty or not. 

However, I suppose the combined economic influence of Member States means that the European Union actually does form quite a significant and powerful global player.  I suppose that is where generosity on its part is called for in terms of international trade agreements and its relationship and the negotiating position it takes within international trade agreements with less developed and poorer parts of the world.  The Lisbon Treaty very accurately describes the EU’s trade policy, which is part of its common commercial policy as an exclusive competence of the European Union so the Commission basically gets a negotiating mandate from the Council of Ministers and then comes back for approval following negotiation within the World Trade Organisation.  The kind of international agreements that are being negotiated are very significant for the population of Member States, for example, the GATS, the General Agreement on Trade and Services where whole sectors of economies, including water, waste, telecommunications, energy and possibly even health and education are being put on the table by the European Union and offered up to form part of international trade agreements, liberalisation agreements and so on. 

I want to ask Mr Sutherland would he accept that at this moment in time EU trade policy lacks transparency, that the issue of commercial sensitivity and the argument of commercial sensitively is frequently used to deprive civil society, NGOs and the citizens of the European Union, I would say, from gaining access to information about what is actually being traded as part of these international agreements in their name? 

Would he also accept that the European Union’s approach to developing countries has changed and is a cause of concern for many development NGOs, because it does appear that there is an increasing unwillingness on the part of the European Union to recognise what are called asymmetries or, as other people have put it, the differential status and the weaker levels of development of the economies of the developing world and that the European Union is, at best, agreeing interim periods where these asymmetries may be recognised.  But there seems to be an attitude now that open markets and free trade will answer all problems, all the rising tides will lift all boats and so on and there is a good deal of concern about that, and that the Lisbon Treaty unfortunately ‑‑

Chairperson
Okay.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca
My final question, Chairman.

Chairman
No, no, I would ask you to finish there. I have given you a good bit of time now.

Chairman
Thank you. I had fixed 2.00 in my own mind as the time at which I would bring the speakers in and I will do that. I apologise to people who have not been able to get in on this occasion. So perhaps, Mary Lou, would you like to start, and any concluding remarks that you would like to make as well.

90th plenary session of the National Forum on Europe • St. Patrick’s Hall • Dublin Castle • Dublin 2 • 3 April 2008
Former European Commissioner Peter Sutherland and Sinn Féin MEP Mary Lou McDonald debated the theme ‘The Economic Implications of the Treaty: a good deal for Ireland?’

Thank you, Chairman.  Chairman, I would like to welcome Jens‑Peter Bonde to the Forum today and just to say that I have great admiration for Jens‑Peter for all of the work that he has done over the years in terms of trying to promote greater democracisation of the European Union.  I think he has produced an awful lot, many texts of treaties that have made them much more accessible to ordinary members of the public and I know he is fully committed to seeing the European Union becoming a more democratic political entity. 

I also admire him because I know it is difficult being on a side where maybe you are raising criticisms of a project that has so much political support across the European Union.  I know from the Green Party’s point of view we were in that position certainly on previous treaties and it is very difficult to be that voice and it is very difficult when you experience the backlash when people don’t like to hear the criticisms you are making and maybe find fault with it.  I think it is an important role.  I think the European Union is a very developed political project at this stage, but it is continuing to evolve and I think we do need critical voices to point to some of the deficits.  I don’t think anybody would argue that the European Union is a perfect political project at the moment.  It definitely needs to reflect on areas in which it can become more relevant to its citizens, more democratic, more transparent in its operations.  So I think your voice and the voice of people like you is incredibly important. 

A number of issues I’d just to touch on briefly with you.  You mentioned the issue of the difficulty you had with this idea of double citizenship.  I would j like to say that I am surprised to hear you say that because my own experience is that, and I think it is in the Lisbon Treaty that there’s a recognition that the national citizenship is the primary citizenship and that European citizenship is, and I can’t remember the wording that is used but my understanding is it is complimentary to that.  Certainly from an awful lot of younger people that I meet who have travelled and worked in Europe and feel very much European, they are very confident in their sense of being primarily an Irish citizen but also a citizen of the European Union.  I would not necessarily see a conflict or an undermining of the national citizenship because of that acceptance of the European citizenship.  So maybe you could comment on that again. 

The whole issue of a Commissioner per Member State I would like to pick you up on that as well because I know the argument and the Green Party certainly made the argument in the past about the importance of having a Commissioner per Member State. But I think, first of all, there is the argument about the enlargement of the European Union and whether it will be possible to continue to have a functioning Commission with a direct representative on it from every Member State of the European Union.  But there is also the question, I think people have raised this here, there has been a traditional perception of the Commission or the Commissioners from our own Member States as representing our interests out there.  I don’t think that was ever intended.  I think the Commission was always intended to represent the European interest and Commissioners were to take an oath of independence and the idea that you could be giving, let’s say, a Commissioner from Germany, a large Member State, a particular portfolio and then assuming that somehow that the Commissioner will be using that portfolio to advance the interests of his or her own Member State, I think it would be a dangerous one.  So, in fact, the rotating Commission, the fact that Commissioners will be rotated and there won’t necessarily be that direct link between Member States and the Commission portfolio I don’t necessarily think would be a bad thing and I would just like to hear your comments on that.  Thanks very much. 

89th plenary session of the National Forum on Europe • Royal Hospital Kilmainham • Dublin 8 •  March 2008
Chair of the Independence/Democracy Group in the European Parliament Mr Jens Peter Bonde MEP addressed the theme ”What does the Lisbon Treaty mean for citizens of smaller countries?”

Thank you, Chairman.  I would like to welcome Commissioner Wallström to the Forum and to thank her for her talk.  I think the title of her address today Giving more power to the people is very relevant and timely.  Because while in the debates about the Lisbon Treaty there is a recognition that there are very welcome provisions within the Treaty that do promote much greater democratisation of the Union ‑ things like the Citizen’s Initiative, the formal role for national parliaments in monitoring the principle of subsidiarity, the greater powers given to the directly elected European Parliament. At the same time there are still, even amongst those who support the Treaty and are very supportive of the European Union, concerns about what is called the legitimacy question of the Union which really is about the fact that citizens, possibly because of the way in which the European Union has been constructed by States, the means of parliamentary ratification that have been used to a large extent amongst many of the Member States to ratify the various treaties that have given rise to the European Union, that there are concerns that the European Union institutions may have, be seen to have authority but lack the consent of the people.  I think this was possibly unavoidable in terms of the way that the European Union was constructed.  The Treaty speaks of a union of States and of peoples.  I think possibly the emphasis in the European Union over the years needs to be to make it much more a union of peoples as well as a union of States.  We can see even in the way that some of the processes have worked, the legislative process, for example, that the interests of States certainly were looked after, but I think the citizens felt very shut out from that process.  If we just take the Council of Ministers meeting and legislating behind closed doors, the fact that ministers themselves went from national parliaments without any real discussion about important decisions, legislative decisions, they were going to make in the Council of Ministers; no mandate. Only a few parliaments, I think, amongst the Member States are in a position to mandate their ministers to take certain positions in relation to upcoming legislative decisions.  So I think these kind of issues need to be taken on board by the Union. 

I know the Lisbon Treaty now will give quite an influential role to national parliaments and that is very welcome.  The Council of Ministers will be meeting in public when it is legislating.  Perhaps there is a role for the European Commission as well.  It is a powerful institution and because of the power of initiative it has perhaps Commissioners could become a little bit more visible to the citizens Europe. Very often the big legislative initiatives, the Services Directive, just to take one example, are years in preparation before they are actually put to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for final decision.  Perhaps Commissioners could address national parliaments where the formulation of the legislation is happening and provoke more of a national debate about the kind of legislation that is being looked at and prepared by both the Commission and the other European institutions. 

Finally, the issue of parliamentary democracies ‑‑ and I know the Lisbon Treaty says that the Union is based on representative democracy.  But I think there is a challenge here because it does seem that there is a shift in paradigms from representative democracy to much more participatory democracy and perhaps that is something that the Union needs to factor in to create much more direct links with citizens, between the European institutions and the citizens is an important challenge for the Union to take on. 

I know the Commissioner has been involved in a website which I would just like to mention because it is a very welcome one called “Road to Copenhagen 2009″.  It is an interactive website where NGOs, parliamentarians and individual citizens could input into the development of a communiqué which was basically going to be used by the lead negotiators in the conference on climate change in Bali and which would be continued.  I think those kind of initiatives are very progressive and certainly I’d love to see more of those being used by the institutions of the Union.  Thank you. 

88th plenary session of the National Forum on Europe • St Patrick’s Hall • Dublin Castle • Dublin 2 • 28 February 2008
Vice-President of the European Commission Margot Wallström addressed the theme ”the Treaty of Lisbon: giving more power to the people.”

Senator de Burca said: ”The Charter of Fundamental Rights attached to the Lisbon Treaty states that a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union. Furthermore, Article 191 of the Lisbon Treaty commits the EU to promoting measures at an international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change”.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, for the first time, energy policy becomes a shared competence of the European Union. Article 194 on Energy Policy in the treaty sets the objective of ensuring security of energy supply in the Union. The treaty also refers to solidarity between Member States in the area of energy policy as well as the promotion of interconnection of energy networks. It also commits the EU to promoting new and renewable forms of energy.

Senator de Búrca said that those who are concerned about environmental protection, climate change and energy security in the EU should vote to support the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty makes it clear that tackling climate change is a priority of the EU. I would urge people to vote for the Lisbon treaty and to empower the European Union to become more effective in this critically important policy area.

For further information please contact
Senator Déirdre de Búrca on (086) 806 14 50