Interview with Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche (28/2/08)

The government has been accused by former Green MEP Patricia McKenna of trying to avoid the principles of the McKenna judgement by delaying naming a date for the referendum, and in the meantime putting out information that is not neutral. Do you reject that allegation?

Well, with all due respect to Patricia, she’ll say what she says, that’s simply not the case. We just agreed the wording of a complex piece of legislation that had to be discussed with the opposition. It’ll be published next week, so there’s no delay in that.

So you reject that allegation?

Well she makes a new allegation every day. And frankly I think it’s not really logical to spend one’s time talking about the Reform Treaty simply rejecting every statement she makes! She makes the point, for example, that this will attack Ireland’s neutrality – it does absolutely nothing of the sort, and the bill which the Irish people will have before them will allow them to put a copper-fastened guarantee of neutrality – that we can’t join any defence pact into the treaty without the specific support of the people themselves. It’s counter-productive to be simply rejecting everything Patricia McKenna says, she’s entitled to her views, she’s wrong on this as she is on so many other things.

Ireland is the only country in the EU having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. French Prime Minister Sarkozy admitted that if there had been a referendum in France it would have been rejected. Isn’t it unfair that the rest of Europe is not giving people the chance to vote on the issue? Are the leaders of the EU afraid of giving people the option?

If there was a referendum in France it probably would have been a referendum on Carla Bruni! But the reality of it is, every country has its own way of doing things. For example, the Danish took a view and went to their relevant constitutional authority, and said that it wasn’t necessary to have a referendum because there was so little changed in this treaty. In the United Kingdom they actually have a big debate going on about this particular thing, but their tradition is not to have referenda. In Germany there’s always been an allergy to referenda because everyone knows that in the 1903s there were a number of referenda in Germany that produced very sad results for Germany and for the world. So it is very wrong for people in this country to seek to tell other countries how they should do their business. If, for example, France or Germany or England tried to tell Ireland how we should do our business we’d be rightly annoyed with them. It’s up to every country to ratify this and every other treaty in accordance with its own constitutional provisions. Our constitution requires that it be ratified by a referendum. Our constitution is unique in that regard, because of course the citizens of Ireland are the supreme authority in Ireland, unlike in the UK where the parliament is the sovereign authority, so there are different constitutional traditions.

There has been some concern following the recent Laval judgement that workers’ rights might be diminished under the Lisbon Treaty. It’s feared that that that case might set a precedent, whereby a Polish employee working in Ireland would be paid less than his Irish colleague. How will the treaty affect workers’ rights?

The Laval judgement is something that people should read very, very carefully. It was specifically discussed in the Forum on Europe by the Swedish Commissioner Margot Wallstrom. She pointed out that the Laval judgement certainly recognises that the right to strike, the right to combine is a right which is in the public good. Now there were specific circumstances in the Laval case, but will it have an affect on Ireland? No, it will not. In fact, one of the great things, if people in Ireland vote ‘Yes’ for this treaty, they’ll be voting ‘Yes’ for the Charter for Fundamental Rights. Now the charter is a wonderful document, because it is a distillation of all the different rights that we have as citizens of individual countries in Europe, and it will apply them to the EU.

EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevey said we will be ‘the laughing-stock of Europe’ if we vote ‘No’. There’s a lot of pressure on the Irish government to get this through – we won’t have a second chance like we had with the Nice Treaty. But, if the treaty IS rejected, what do you think will happen?

Well I’d hope, first and foremost, that the treaty will not be rejected, because it’s a good treaty. It will make Europe more democratic, it will make Europe more efficient, it will give Europe a much better voice on the world stage. It incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and it gives a very clear definition between the member states’ rights, and the rights of the European Union; and of course it will allow the European Union to help the member states to deal with international criminality, international drug trafficking, all of those cross-border crimes. And finally, it will make Europe better equipped to deal with the big challenges like global warming, globalisation, the energy crisis, mass migration – all of those big challenges. So it’s a very good treaty, because it does all of that. So I’d hope we won’t vote other than to ratify the treaty – I hope we vote ‘Yes’. But, if Ireland votes ‘No’ – what happens is – first of all we won’t be kicked out of the European Union, there’s no question that that would happen. I’m not sure if people would laugh at us or not, but they’d certainly be scratching their heads and they’d be asking how is it that a country that has done so fantastically well as Ireland – we’ve been the biggest success story in the EU, by a long shot, how in the name of goodness we would prevent the European Union from making progress, because this is a treaty that the Union requires.
What will happen? Well, what will happen if we vote ‘No’ is that Europe will be in crisis. There will be an unprecedented crisis, because they simply can’t continue to operate with the existing structures. And remember – and I think everyone should remember this – the treaty is based on the constitutional treaty, which was finalised during the Irish Presidency of the EU. So many of the elements of this treaty, in fact the bulk of the elements of this – we drafted here in Ireland. So people will be mystified if we would disadvantage ourselves and disadvantage Europe – we’d lose an awful lot of influence in Europe if we voted ‘No’. And I think the summary point to be made is that there’s no benefit, there’s no political or social advantage, there’s certainly no advantage from the point of view of job creation in Ireland to voting ‘No’, but there’s an awful lot of advantages to voting ‘Yes’.

People campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote to the Lisbon Treaty say it makes the EU more democratic and increases Ireland’s influence in Europe. How is it that those on the ‘No’ side can claim the exact opposite – that the treaty is undemocratic and decreases our influence?

But sure the anti-treaty side have been making stories up about Europe for the last 35 years! I mean they’ve been saying for 35 years if we joined the European Union we’d lose our neutrality – we haven’t; they said if we joined the European Union 35 years ago we’d become an impoverished country – we didn’t; they talked about Ireland having virtually no work for people – that hasn’t happened; we actually now have a situation where people are coming into this country, not leaving this country. They said we’d lose our sovereignty – we didn’t lose our sovereignty; they said our culture would be destroyed – we haven’t lost our culture, in fact Irish culture is more vibrant now than it ever was! And in the last 35 years we’ve become a very successful economy – we’ve two million people working in Ireland at the moment, we had a million people working 35 years ago. Europe has been very good to Ireland, for example it invested €58 billion in this country.
So I wonder, really, why is it that we always focus on the ‘ No’ campaign? Because the ‘No’ campaign has always been wrong! They said we wouldn’t do well out of joining Europe – and they were perfectly entitled to say that back in 1972 – and they said it again when the Single European Act was operated; they talked about neutrality coming to an end when Maastricht was operated, when Amsterdam was ratified, when the Irish people voted all of those times – and they were wrong! And they’re wrong on this occasion too. They have of course a right to their opinions, but they should also recognise that they have always got it wrong, they have never been right on any single issue relating to Europe.

The Taoiseach has described those on the anti-treaty side as ‘loo-lahs and loonies’. Would you see that kind of comment as helpful?

There should be no name-calling in this referendum. Equally, a gentleman on the ‘No’ side described members of the Commission in the most, I have to say, in the most insulting and derogatory terms. People have a right to have a view, whether they’re for it or against it. In fact, what we should be doing is discussing the treaty. Because, when you discuss the treaty, when people see the treaty and they see how it’s going to improve democracy…when they see that the national parliaments are going to have a say for the first time – the Dáil and Seanad Eireann will have the right to effectively veto, in some occasions; when they see that you’ll have a citizen’s right of initiative in Europe, something that doesn’t exist in our constitution – people will see that this is good. They will see that a more efficient and effective union is in our interests, it helps the economy to grow, to create jobs. When people see the facts – and we should focus on the facts, not the myths. And I think people get very frustrated – particularly on the ‘Yes’ side, people get very frustrated, when you listen to the same people saying the same thing as they said in 1972. They’re still saying it 35 years later. And it really is time that they explained why they have been wrong all of those times, and how they feel they’re right this time.

Would you share the concern expressed by Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny about the Taoiseach’s difficulties at the Mahon Tribunal – that this might lead to a section of the public voting against the treaty as a protest?

Well, I would wish, if Enda Kenny is in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote, he would just focus on the ‘Yes’ campaign. Dragging issues which have nothing to do with this treaty into this debate is not helpful. And his party intends to be helpful and wants to be pro-European, it always has been pro-European, it needs to see that these are different issues and we shouldn’t confuse them.
The reality of it is, 80% plus of the members of Dáil and Seanad Eireann are in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote, and what we should be doing is getting out and explaining the treaty to the people, and not scoring little points.

The main political parties, as you say, are in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote. The public perception, nonetheless, might lead some to vote against the treaty, simply on the grounds of dissatisfaction with the Taoiseach.

But sure why would we do that? Why would we destroy our place in Europe? Why would we make Ireland a place that people begin to ask questions about? Why would we deliberately damage the European Union that has been so good to Ireland, and so positive for Ireland? Why would we create a situation where there’d be question marks about Ireland that would affect foreign direct investment? Why would we discourage the job creation agencies from fulfilling their tasks? Why, in the name of goodness, would we do all those negative things to ourselves? Because that’s what we would do. Remember, Europe will exist after the decision on this referendum, and wouldn’t it be much better, from Ireland’s point of view, to be very much at the heart of Europe where we belong, where we can actually have influence on things, where we can lead the debate?
The whole of Europe is looking at Ireland! This week, for example, I spent one day in Germany, I spoke, amongst others to the German chancellor, I spoke to the leaders of various regional governments – the only question they’re asking is – what’s going to happen in the Irish referendum? This is critical for Ireland and for Europe.

Will the treaty have to be renegotiated if it’s rejected in Ireland?

It won’t be renegotiated, no. What will happen then is that Europe will go into crisis.

But it’s not in crisis now -

Well, it isn’t in crisis right now – but we seem to forget that 18 countries have already ratified the constitution! The countries that have already discussed the Reform Treaty have already ratified the Reform Treaty – the only country where there’s a major debate or any question mark about ratification is in Ireland! So why would there be any crisis? We’ll ratify this treaty, I’m convinced, because the Irish people, at the end of the day, every time we voted ‘Yes’ for Europe, we benefited. When we voted ‘Yes’ to go into Europe, we benefited. We have grown dramatically since then. When we voted ‘Yes’ to the Single European Act, the new European market was created, the free movement of goods right across Europe, and Ireland all of a sudden had a domestic market literally of hundreds of millions of people – now a domestic market of almost 500 million people. When we voted ‘Yes’ to Maastricht and Amsterdam we ended up creating economic and monetary union, and of course we created the euro – and the euro is one of our best protections against worldwide inflation, here in Europe. And when we voted ‘Yes’ to Nice, it allowed the European Union to expand, we got new countries into Europe who are very friendly and positive, and help and support Ireland. So why would we vote ‘No’? When every time we vote ‘Yes’, we’ve always had the advantage? The advantage has always been to Ireland. And again, this is a question which the ‘No’ side should answer. They have never, ever dealt with the reality that every single referendum, they got it wrong. I’m not saying that they’re not sincere or they don’t believe what they’re saying, I’m sure that some of them at least do, but when you hear the same argument being made 35 years in a row, and it’s always been wrong, you have to ask yourself why.

Margot Wallstrom, Vice-President of the European Commission, said this morning that she rejected the idea that the Lisbon Treaty is somehow paving the way for a ‘super-state Europe’. But certain features of the Treaty, for example the creation of the new position of President of the European Council, the transferring of more national powers to Brussels, and the changes in the voting system from unanimity to qualified majority voting in some areas – do these not represent a dilution of democracy as oppose to a strengthening of democracy?

No, no, no, that’s an assertion, that’s an assertion that is made by the ‘No’ side. The ‘No’ side assert that the Presidency of the European Council is a ‘bad’ thing. It’s the same as electing a president to run the soccer club, or the tennis club or the GAA club – it doesn’t make any sense to have someone different doing the job every few months. You’re talking about a Union where the lives and well-being of 500 million people are concerned – it makes sense to have somebody there for two and a half years, to make sure that the main body that makes decisions does its decision-making well. Every political party in this country elects a leader, and nobody thinks that electing a leader is a bad thing, everybody thinks it would be fairly strange if you didn’t! What has happened in Europe is we’ve had a circulating Presidency, which was great sometimes, I mean it was great when Ireland was there, because the Taoiseach was very dedicated and the team was very dedicated, and everybody accepted it was good – but then you come onto countries that are somewhat eurosceptic, and the amount of progress they can make is very limited. So having a President or Chairman of the European Council is a good thing. Having, for example, a more focused European Parliament is a good thing. Having a more focused European Commission is a good thing.

What about the loss of the automatic right to a Commissioner for each member state?

But sorry, we would still have the Ministers from each individual member state going to the Council of Ministers where the decisions are made. The European Commission originates the ideas and the policies, and the policies are enacted by the Council. The Council of Ministers will still have a Minister from every member state. And in fact, now what we’ll have is there’ll be a bigger role for the parliaments, both the domestic parliaments and the European Parliament. Now the first point that has to be made about the Commission – when Irish people voted ‘Yes’ to go into Europe, all the big countries had two commissioners and all the small countries had one commissioner. From now until 2014, every country will have one commissioner. But the feeling has been that a 27-member or maybe a 30-member commission is too inefficient, it’s going to be all over the place, it’s very difficult to be coherent. Remember in our constitution we had a limitation of 15 members of the Cabinet. So what is going to happen is that the equality of every member state is going to be recognised in the treaty, and the membership of the commission is going to circulate between each member state on an exactly equal basis. Now that’s a good thing for small countries, because it recognises, for the very first time in a treaty, the exact equality of every member state. It’s a good thing, it’s not a negative thing.

Thank you very much.