Joint Committee on European Union Affairs díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 May 2024

I start our special meeting today by welcoming our former Taoiseach Mr. Bertie Ahern. I thank him for joining us. We wanted to have a chance to engage with him this week as tomorrow, 9 May, is Europe Day. That gives us an opportunity to celebrate peace and unity across the EU. It is a very important day for those of us who have a very strong belief in and commitment to the European project and what the EU represents. The committee has done considerable work in recent years and months on enlargement and the future of Europe. We thought it would be very appropriate to hear from Mr. Ahern today.

Twenty years ago, under an Irish Presidency led by him, we welcomed ten new member states: Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. They are written down in front of me in case anybody thinks I can remember them all off the top of my head. In the 20 years since, that has given 450 million Europeans an opportunity to enjoy the freedom of movement across that much larger European Union with citizens having stronger rights and freedoms. The economies of those new member states have prospered, just as our country prospered from its membership. They have seen many benefits such as their unemployment rates plummeting.

We understand the transformative impact that EU membership has had for Ireland and those member states. Part of our discussion we will consider the impact of a new further-enlarged Union. We will be reflect on and draw some lessons from Mr. Ahern's experience in his time as Taoiseach.

I will now read the formal note on privilege. All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members participating remotely must confirm they are present in Leinster House if they wish to speak.

It is a pleasure to welcome Mr. Ahern here and I invite him to make his opening remarks.

I thank the Chairman and the committee for inviting me to reflect on the 20 years since the enlargement of the European Union. In May 2004, we brought in that big step or big bang as it was called at the time of ten new member states. We now celebrate the 20th anniversary of the largest enlargement in history, expanding the Union by those ten member states, most of them from central and eastern Europe, as the Chairman outlined. That big bang enlargement undoubtedly boosted Europe's security and economic power and advanced the spread of democracy across the Continent. Integration of the predominantly post-communist and economically weaker countries posed major challenges at the time. Despite the changed context, as the Chairman said, the EU is now looking to integrate more countries from eastern and south-eastern Europe with underperforming economies and fragile democratic systems.

As we look back on the main issues in the 2004 enlargement and how the EU and candidate states managed to overcome them, we need to consider if any lessons that were learned remain relevant for the current enlargement process. What can the EU do make the integration of new members as smooth as possible? Why is the continuation of EU enlargement important, as I think it is?

Keeping my comments to looking back, 20 years ago, on 1 May, when we had all the countries of central and eastern Europe here, we called that the Day of Welcomes. I had travelled around the EU with officials three times in the previous 18 months as we prepared for that enlargement process. I acknowledge the huge support I got from and the work done by the Department of Foreign Affairs at the time. Bobby McDonagh here and Anne Anderson in Brussels were the two leaders at the time. They were enormously talented officials who went on to very senior positions afterwards, but I was lucky they were with me throughout those 18 months.

As the Chairman said, by any fair analysis, membership of the European Union has been transformative for both our country and others. This morning I see a poll that shows 84% support in this country for Ireland's status as a member state. That is not bad in any exam. As a smaller member state with an open and export-led economy, the Single Market has bolstered our economic development and enhanced our competitiveness. Looking at the countries that have joined, it is a fact of life that there are positive impacts everywhere to see, including infrastructural services, regional development and environmental protections. Of course, people can always point to ongoing problems. That is the nature of it.

As we looked across a range of areas at that time, we were working to try to rely on the good functioning of the EU and the multilateral system for our stability and prosperity. The multilateral system worked a bit better 20 years ago. I am not taking any credit for that but, worldwide, I think it worked better. We also focused on influencing and shaping the direction of the Union to ensure that it met the needs of our citizens and delivered on our aspirations both then and since then. We were in a good position at the time to help countries because we had benefited so much from European membership.

This country is almost unrecognisable from what it once was. The economic, social and political shifts of the past five decades for us have been nothing short of seismic. Our 50th anniversary gave us an opportunity to reflect on our membership, and I know the committee did that. We joined the Union as one of the poorest countries in western Europe. We had been independent for just over five decades. A lot of the newer countries at the time looked to us and said, "Maybe, at the time, Britain, France and Germany were one thing", but ours was a small country and they could look at what we had achieved and what they could achieve. Most of those countries at the time had their own financial and unemployment problems. Unemployment was high in those times. It is hardly mentioned nowadays, but today's position is such a different one from where we were 20 years ago.

Membership resonated with the smaller countries and gave us the impetus to strengthen our own human rights record to drive forward civil and social rights. It introduced gender equality legislation and protection of workers' rights and rights of minorities and made us become a much more tolerant, kinder and inclusive country than we were when we joined. That resonated with all the member states. When I did the tours - I did three - particularly during the Presidency in the last six to nine months, because the enlargement process had really stepped up from October 2003, the questions were all about how small countries could do this and how they could move away from what they were, particularly the countries that were in the former Russian zone. Of course, there were naysayers at the time who said that membership would threaten our economic well-being and dilute our traditions and values, that the decision-making within the Union would become unmanageable, that it would be impossible to run a community of 27 and that a small country such as ours would not be heard.

I was on the social affairs configuration of the Council for five years, the ECOFIN configuration for nearly as long and the European Council for 11 years, so I spent nearly 20 years on the Council. I found that it was nearly easier to do business with the larger number because you could build blocs. Before that, France and Germany would play the game together. It was very hard to get in the middle of that. With the larger number of countries, you could manoeuvre your way around. Once you were relatively sociable and not opposed to going for a drink, you could work good coalitions, which Irish people did to good effect during those years. In the period since 2004, we have continued to grow and prosper under that umbrella. It has continued to go right for us. We have moved away from some of our more traditional views, leading to a more open, accepting and progressive society. We have maintained our voice within the EU and there seems to have been no watering down of our identity or our sovereignty. It is through this voluntary pooling of sovereignty that we most eloquently exercise it in reality.

In my view, both at the time and looking back, enlargement is a testament to the European Union's success and to our own. With each wave of enlargement, the Union has been enhanced by the unique profiles and contributions of each of its current members and further enlargement will strengthen the European Union. I will talk about my views on that later. An increased number of EU member states has meant greater geographical weight for the Union on the global stage, which is the way we have to go in light of what is happening in the United States and elsewhere and the reality of the world today and into the future. There will be a China-dominated area and an America-dominated area, so the European Union will have to be dominant in our area. It is going to be the premier league. If you are not part of the bloc, you will definitely be isolated. I cannot think of any coherent argument contrary to that view. We can honestly say that it has brought prosperity for our people. It is a great environment where economies can grow and people can thrive. It promotes democracy, equality and inclusion and tackles poverty. It is vital that we ensure the Union continues to deliver for our citizens, as we outlined 20 years ago.

On the downside, every day we see an erosion of the ideals that we had begun to take for granted. We see a fracturing of multinational multilateralism and an unfortunate move towards a more divided world. In the face of this division, we must reaffirm our commitment to the cause of multilateralism, which I know this committee strongly believes in. There is no more effective way to do that than through the European Union because it was founded on a peace process. Countries came together following the devastation of the Second World War and hoped for economic and then social and cultural ties to prevent further conflict. I do not need to say anything about the conflicts of the present time. The committee is dealing with those all of the time.

Those are my quick opening remarks. There are new issues on the agenda that were not around 20 years ago. Climate change is now an existential threat. It is a European and global problem and requires a global response. It is a common challenge that we cannot solve alone. I do not pretend to have the answer to it. However, my experience of the European Union from the 20 years I was the heart of it and from having watched it ever since is that it plays an important role in influencing the climate action agenda on both on the European stage and on the global stage. I know it will continue to work in that regard. Bringing in the enlargement countries 20 years ago was good for us and good for them. Of course, there have been challenges along the way but, as we did on the day of welcomes 20 years ago, we can genuinely celebrate what was achieved and the part Ireland played through our officials, the Government and the Opposition. People were very much onside with the campaign at the time. We did not have political differences on those issues. It has stood us in good stead.

I was struck by one thing as Mr. Ahern was talking about the arguments made about enlargement 20 years ago.

Some things may have changed but those arguments, believe me, happened. They have been dusted down and have been said to all of us in our various work as we have met candidate states. Mr. Ahern would be amazed at how similar some of the tones are. A number of people have indicated their wish to speak and the first to so do is Deputy Haughey.

I thank the Chairman and I thank Bertie, if I can call him that, for being here today and for a very interesting contribution he has just made. I was a TD, as he knows, for the entire duration of his term as Taoiseach, as indeed was Deputy Howlin, which we have just been discussing. It was a privilege to observe at close quarters some of the major events of the time, including the Good Friday Agreement, the peace process and all of that, but also the European Union affairs culminating in the Day of Welcomes on 1 May.

There are many questions we could ask Mr. Ahern but I will confine myself to two or three. If I can bring him back then to the enlargement in 2004, the Day of Welcomes and everything that went before that, he spoke in his contribution about the naysayers. Was it difficult to get agreement to admit the ten new countries? What were the problems which had to be overcome and the fears? If I recall, from my own point of view there were fears about an influx of labour coming from the central and eastern European countries and, when one thinks about it, that was certainly misguided.

Linked to that, I also throw in the new constitution for Europe which, as we know, was torpedoed by France and the Netherlands. Again, was it difficult to get agreement on that? I suppose we are talking here about the workings of the European Council, which Mr. Ahern mentioned in his contribution. Was he disappointed when that constitution fell, as it were?

The second question, and I have no doubt other members will take this up as well, is on the future enlargement of the EU. We are talking about the countries from the western Balkans, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Ireland, as Mr. Ahern knows, supports in principle the enlargement of the EU, as does Mr Ahern, as we have just heard. Does he envisage any problems? We will be moving from 27 to 35 if all of these members are admitted. On the decision-making process, which Mr. Ahern also mentioned in his contribution, does he think this process is up to accommodating as many as 35 members or is there a need to reform the treaties or to have some sort of institutional reform?

There is also the multi-annual financial framework and CAP reform, which is another issue that would have to be addressed in the context of a future enlargement. Would Mr. Ahern be concerned about a shift in influence to the east within the European Council and, indeed, within the European Union as a whole? With Brexit and the United Kingdom now gone, should we be concerned about any shift in influence to the east?

Again, Mr. Ahern mentioned the importance of the geopolitical situation at the time, the influence of Russia, and so forth. Mr. Ahern will no doubt agree that the geopolitical situation in the context of these new applicant countries is very important in bringing stability and peace to the area.

The third and final question is again on the future of Europe, which Mr. Ahern also touched upon in his contribution, with the rise of the far right-wing populism, or whatever one wants to call it, and multilateral diplomacy in decline, which he outlined. We have seen what Viktor Orbán can do in Hungary, and so forth. Would he be concerned about the future of Europe having regard to these new developments and movements and would he be concerned, indeed, for the very survival of the European Union? Obviously, we must have hope but these developments have to be taken seriously.

To get agreement was always difficult because everybody had their pet list of problems which they were trying to get around.

To summarise, there was the cost factor and the question of whether the existing member states of the European Union could carry the load and the percentage. There is always a lot of debate about this and I suppose there will be debate about the next round of enlargement. The reality is that the percentage that every member state pays is not a huge percentage of its GNP. I do not know what it is now, to be quite honest, but I remember the argument we had when it was 1.24% of GDP. We had long, endless meetings about how, if we increased it to 1.27%, we would raise so much. I am not saying the figure is insignificant but it is not earth-shattering. That was obviously a big problem.

Getting people to finalise their laws, particularly around human rights issues, was always a problem. During my time, in my early days in the European Council, I was dealing with the Turkish situation, when there was a lot of pressure for Turkey to join. Many human rights issues were very much on the plate and open for discussion. As we knew, enlargement was going to happen during our Presidency, which is why we started in 2003. We went three times to each member state to see what the issues were and we worked with the Italian Presidency that preceded us to see if we could iron out most of those issues. There was a small list of issues that were very difficult. Hungary and Poland, needless to say, were probably the hardest ones to crack. Poland was the last to get on side. I recall some long meetings trying to get understanding. As is the case in Poland today, there were two different ideologies. One was hugely conservative and rural and the other was very progressive. We were trying to square the circle. They are gone now but I had endless meetings with the two brothers who were president and prime minister in Poland back in those days to try to get agreement.

On the European constitution, Ireland really did a good job on the constitutional issues. Our embassies and officials were good on this. We got good agreement and a lot of help from the French on that because it was a former French President who had done a lot of the work on the committee to get ready for a constitution. We passed it at the European Council and got the agreement of the 27 member states. We are very proud of that. Unfortunately, it only went to referendums in three countries, namely, France, the Netherlands and Luxemburg. It failed in the first two while Luxemburg voted for it. Jean-Claude Juncker was the only one who got a referendum on it passed. The difficulty with the referendums, as with all referendums and it is something not unfamiliar to us, is that the issues were not the issues in the constitution. In France, everything else was debated but nobody really debated the constitution. The vote was not really a vote against the constitution. That is how life is and how these issues are. That was a pity because the work done by the committee headed by the former French EU President took all of the treaties and documents that had been dealt with from the start of the European Union in the fifties and brought it back into a simple constitution that was quite a simple document. I know it was rejected a bit in the Lisbon treaty but it would have been far easier for everybody, including the courts and the officials, if that document had been passed. It was a simply constitution. It was shorter than our Constitution. It was a very short and clear document that was very transparent. We had 20 countries in favour of it and we had a few problems to get it across the line. It was only in the last few days that we got it across the line. It was seen as a considerable success to get a European Constitution agreed. Then, due to what happened with the Lisbon treaty, parts of it were taken up and parts were dropped and we continue on with it now. Legal people would probably not have liked it because an awful lot of people make a lot of money now trying to work out what things stand for, but it was a very good, simple document.

On the next round of enlargements, I will deal with the issue of Hungary and Orbán. Many of the issues that are brought up with these countries now were not ones they had a problem with at the time.

Maybe I should deal with issue of Hungary and Viktor Orbán. A lot of the issues that are brought up with these countries now were not ones they had a problem with at the time. Unfortunately, now, they take issue with the European Union and are fighting with it on areas where, in my view, they got very good agreements. They take up a battle because it is popular to do so.

While I am a great supporter of the Parliament and the institutions, the difficulty for the future of the European Union is that it must be careful, in the Parliament and in the Union itself, that it does not forget about the close parliamentary tier. If it becomes too much Europe, people back in the national governments, like this committee here, will feel they do not have a say and that decisions are made too far away. There is a bit of a move to that all the time, although that is not to say it is not right a lot of the time, but you have to be very careful that you carry the local population. If you do not carry the local parliament, parliamentarians and population, then you run the risk that there will be an us and them position. While I do not think we are at that stage, I refer to the EU as it gets bigger. I will come to how big the EU can get in a moment but I am in favour of enlargement because people have a sense of it. However, it must be remembered that laws are followed by people in their own countries and they have to be on board.

Although I am not sure about the procedures here now about looking at EU legislation, the amount of stuff thrown at governments, and trying to keep on top of it, is a hard task. It was when I was here. Politicians, Senators and TDs are busy people. They cannot watch everything and then something will jump up and become a major issue. All these Acts can be superimposed into our legislation but the scrutiny process will become more and more important. As more countries feed into the European Parliament and Commission, and with all these Commissioners, stuff is being fed out that can become quite complicated. Something that looks as if it does not have much to do with Ireland, could have something to do with Ireland. That area is really important. If I am asked whether I was always satisfied in my time that everything we signed up to and put in our legislation had been scrutinised properly, I can tell the committee that I was not. I felt the volumes were bypassing us.

This committee knows how hard it is in these Houses to have consolidated legislation, whether that be consolidating legislation back from social welfare, taxation or whatever. I served on a few of those committees over the years in my early days in here and it is a hell of task, even with technology. I think that can get more and more difficult. In response to Deputy Haughey, they are the concerns I have on these things.

On enlargement itself, in this country we are a strong supporter of enlargement. Fifty years of EU enlargement has transformed our economy and society, as I said at the start. It has increased our global influence. All European countries deserve the same opportunities that we got, provided they meet the necessary conditions for membership. We have to recognise the value of enlargement as a transformative driver of democracy, stability and peace in candidate countries. We take that for a given. Accession reforms must be driven from within candidate countries themselves and we have to see the candidate countries take full advantage of the current momentum in enlargement after a long period of stagnation.

Twenty years ago, when we had the last round of enlargement, there was a policy in the European Union of the new neighbourhood initiative, as it was called. We would build a relationship with the countries that were not in the European Union. Ukraine was an obvious one of those at the time. We were to build all of these countries around Europe and then with the Delors and Prodi Commissions, we had this endless debate about what Europe was.

Where are the lines of Europe? Where does Europe begin and end? Of course, the Turkish issue is what was driving that. America was pushing us very hard at that time to support Türkiye being a member until France made it clear that would not happen then, since or perhaps into the future. The EU and the member states have to provide assistance to candidate countries to implement necessary reforms. Ireland is looking at ways of doing that as we did it before. It has to be carefully done. I do not think the big bang we did in 2004 is the issue for today. The big bang then came from what happened in 1989 and 1990. It was from a different period. I do not think that big bang applies today. Much of the new growth plan for the western Balkans, which was proposed by the Commission President, includes a proposal to gradually integrate candidate countries into aspects of the Single Market – services, workers, cross-border payments, road transport, decarbonisation, energy, digital, and industrial supply chains. That seems to show the Commission is not thinking of a big enlargement. If one looks at what the Commission is stating in its policies, it is thinking more of a gradual enlargement. I think the growth plan for the western Balkans is to slowly bring in some of these countries.

We also have to remember – I am sure this committee has dealt with it – the Kosovan, Serbian and other initiatives. I have had reason in my other work in conflict resolution to be involved with some of those countries and they are very complex. There are no easy solutions. You have to get into what is possible for some of these member states. Looking at the list of possible enlargements and listening to some of the things I have heard and some of the groups I am involved in, it seems that Montenegro, Serbia and North Macedonia are on the front line of the next enlargement. Those are, according to the Commission’s report of last November, the countries in the front line. Then when one starts looking at Albania, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, one sees that there is a hell of a task in them.

In conclusion, if you think you will get a big bang enlargement that goes from 27 to 35, I would not be a cheerleader for it.

I welcome iar-Thaoiseach, Mr. Ahern, to our committee. He has an important perspective to give us. I was privileged to serve together with him through his time both as a Member of the Dáil but also as a member of the Cabinet.

I wish to ask a few questions, the first focusing on the political. The European Union started off as a economic entity. It is an economic community. However, always, from the beginning, it was at least a coequal political entity. The various enlargements we had were always as much, if not more, a political process as an economic process - even the earlier ones, bringing in Spain and Portugal after their dictatorships and Greece after the colonels were in charge there. That brings me to my first question. Regarding the processes we now have for enlargement, we set out the Copenhagen criteria, which is an elaborate, complicated and difficult process to achieve. In many instances, it will take well over a decade and sometimes two decades to achieve. I am interested in Mr. Ahern's take on the implications that has in a changed geopolitical world, which he instanced, on countries that want to belong to the European family politically but, to use the vernacular, get cheesed off with the endless wait and are currently being wooed by other geopolitical forces.

Should the focus be on the political as much as economic compatibility and the imperative to bring people in and then normalise economics and politics to the European standard or is it a golden rule that the European standard has to be achieved first? North Macedonia has really stood on its head. It has changed the name of the country to suit one member state - Greece - and now Bulgaria has put in its démarche in terms of its ethnic minority. One can really dissuade people by the belief that it will never happen. I would welcome hearing Mr. Ahern's take on that.

My second question concerns the movement of citizens post accession. Deputy Haughey referenced the great fear at the time of the very significant enlargement of the EU over which Mr. Ahern presided that Polish carpenters or plumbers would arrive in their droves. I wish to God they had because we could do with a few more. I feel existing member states have not done enough to properly integrate people who have a right to move within the EU. You notice it even when out canvassing. People do not know what their rights are in terms of what elections they can vote in and so on. Should we work harder to develop the concept of European citizenship, which is touted in the treaties but not really made manifest in any real way?

My third question covers some ground already touched on by Mr. Ahern's statement. Regarding the ultimate goal of enlargement, is there a limit? Mr. Ahern said he had this debate at a previous European Council. Is there a limit to what constitutes the right of membership? It could be something like Australia and Israel competing in the Eurovision Song Contest. What is the limit? What are the conditions of membership?

Linked to that is the issue of autocracy and the rule of law. As we have learned, it is all very well and good that people can have pro-European governments that cherish the value systems of the EU but that can change at any time. We do not seem to have a way of expelling countries that have simply disavowed the values that are intrinsic to the EU. Is that something that should be considered or should we be like the US where, if the Trumpian world dominates, then the Trumpian world dominates and the values just diminish? My question does not apply only to the obvious candidates such as Orbán in Hungary. What happens if someone like Marine Le Pen is elected President of France?

The Deputy is correct. It was always a political process. In moving to the coal and steel agreement and then moving through the EU, all the changes that have been made over the past 50-plus years have always taken politics into account. Where did that come out of? The concept came out of France and Germany telling themselves that they could not continue to go down the road of wars. It was a political process that led to the concept of a union of countries. The political process was probably the pre-eminent issue. As time went on, add-ons were built in to economic relationships and ties. Developing industrial harmony led to more open economies where people were trading with each other and then to social issues and people having viewpoints on international issues. It all emanated from a political process and it still is a political process.

As the Deputy indicated, the politics now all over the world, not only in the European Union, is that people are trying to work on alliances because they are afraid that one of the other big brothers will move in on some of these countries. That is happening everywhere. We see it in Africa with what China was doing. I am not sure if it is doing it with the same success as it was trying to achieve but it was pouring money into certain areas. Australia, in its end of the world, is trying to get more active now into many countries in the Caribbean. This political process has gone on.

On the Deputy’s second question, you cannot just let anybody in. It has to be based on values, particularly human rights. There lies many of the problems. People must be prepared to work on the basis of democratic values as we understand democratic values. The Deputy knows – he has travelled extensively, as I have – the stretch of democracy. Regions of China will tell you they have good democratic systems because they elect local councils from the communities. Democratic values have to be democratic values as we understand them, with the rule of law. Those principles have to be there.

Coming to other things such as how to help these countries move from where they are, that is a different thing. There is flexibility in doing that. Provided that people have human rights, the rule of law and democratic values, it is possible to negotiate on some of the other issues. I recently read in a magazine about the Granada declaration, which was adopted by leaders in October last. It noted the EU needs to prepare in parallel with candidates for enlargement. It should seek to lay the necessary internal groundwork and reforms, and address key issues related to priorities and policies as well as the capacity to act. Reading through that document, which I had not looked at before, it was stated the language set out in the declaration was not easily agreed. They had a big argument about using the word “reform”. They had difficulties saying this would be any kind of reform to the European Union. The end of result of that was the Commission undertook to carry out a series of pre-enlargement assessments of the policy and budgetary implications and most member states agreed that this is where the primary emphasis should lie at present. At least they set an agenda of what should be the issue.

We took a decision and, in fairness, I think Deputy Howlin supported it. On 1 May 2004, I squared off an agreement with Tony Blair - we could not get anyone else to agree at the time - that we would open up from day one, we would do it without restrictions and we would do it openly. It was a risk at the time. The fan mail was fairly hostile on that decision. It is not only recently that those issues jumped up. It was the right thing to do. We believed, based on our own labour market and our own expansion, that it was right for us to do it. We went from 5,000 Poles to 100,000 fairly quickly, and it did not change after that. We went from only a few thousand Spaniards to, I think, 20,000 or 30,000. That was a big increase in its day but it did not overly swamp the country. In fact, it paid for a large part of the labour market we have today. In any walk of life, we can go anywhere – even around this House – and meet people from European countries who work here and are hugely helpful to the Irish economy.

Many of the other member states at the time were annoyed at Tony Blair and I because they did not want to do it. The best thing for those that did not want to do was for nobody to do it. Many of them then said they would gradually do it. Then many said they were getting illegal immigration from European countries. There were many arguments 20 years ago and some of them are resurfacing. We said that we could do it in part by setting up a complex system where you would have to get a visa. There was talk of green, white and yellow cards at the time. Maybe we would let a Polish plumber in, but not a Slovenian agricultural worker. The more that debate went on, the more my patience ran out. I said that I was not getting into that kind of bureaucratic system and that instead we would open it up on day one lock, stock and barrel. Luckily enough, Tony Blair also agreed. Otherwise, it would have created a problem. If we were on our own, it would have been a problem. We would have gotten hammered on it.

We see things in Europe. The whole thing about the Brexit referendum, which I took an active part in, was about immigration. I remember going to some universities in the UK with some Members of the House arguing the case. It was confusing. People were saying they did not want any immigration from Slovenia or the Czech Republic and we would say, “Now hold on, your law since 2004 has been that these people can come in.” I refer to the level of downright ignorance as to what that debate was. Of course, that is why they have been in the mess they are in since then on the issue, to be quite blunt about it.

Does that cover it? I think the Deputy asked something else.

Ultimately, it will be a function of the Commission, as it is in these issues, to bring forward what it sees with regard to who has fulfilled the criteria and who has not. It has not done that and I think in the next Presidency and the next European Parliament, these issues will have to be faced – probably in the next two years. I think 2026 will become the crunch year.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an iar-Thaoiseach. I will try to shoot through these questions as fast as possible because I have been told to do so. Mr. Ahern spoke about the EU in the sense of it being the most successful peace process in the world. I suppose the idea was that if you trade together and you co-operate, other issues do not occur. Some of that has probably been thrown out the window in the past while. Mr. Ahern spoke about the fan mail he got 20 years ago but if he was in the age of TikTok, there could be a very different set of circumstances. It is that idea of whether that would actually happen today.

It creates issues even if people, countries and significant proportions of the populations in the countries are happy enough to go in a particular direction in relation to accession. All it takes is a sizeable minority that is not happy with it. It is easy to be noisy these days. How would Mr. Ahern see that?

It is the idea of selling the positives. If you tried to sell the European Union after the financial crash - we know all the issues there were domestically - people on the street would have seen the EU as not having been prepared or willing and to have been wrong. There has probably been an element of acceptance of that. During Brexit, however, everyone was shocked at the solidarity that was shown to Ireland and the importance of the Single Market was shown. We also have to deal with the issue. Migration, even from within the European Union, can be an issue for people so we need to do things as sensibly and in as well organised a way as possible. We have always had issues with poverty and dealing with it. In some cases, certain people come here who are from hard to reach places. That is the easiest way to say it. Across Europe, we have to deal with those circumstances. That is about how to alleviate poverty, integrate people and involve them.

Mr. Ahern said domestic governments need to bring people along. Domestically an across the European Union, there has sometimes been a failure to deal with the issues that have an impact on people such as health and housing. That leaves room for people who are negative actors. I do not like to use one of the terms that is out there as it sometimes gives people a bit more credibility than they deserve. I sat on the Conference on the Future of Europe. I have said this before. I found it to be the middle class on tour to some degree, myself included. From dealing with working class communities at the moment, Mr. Ahern will know the huge issues there are, including drug taking, drug crime, intimidation and drug addiction. Those issues were barely spoken about in that entire conference where a million and one other issues were dealt with. Drugs were not dealt with, however, and we know they are one of the major things that impacts on those in the still very much disadvantaged communities.

Mr. Ahern also spoke about geopolitics and destabilisation and about what I will call the nouveau colonialism of China and Russia. We also have to say that the western world has made a fair mess of things in places such as Syria and Libya. We have seen certain moves, possibly since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. People have spoken about a fair amount of agreement across the European Union, but then we had the genocidal actions of the Israeli Government with the support of the Americans, although that has changed due to international pressure which is good to see. We have also seen that certain European countries have not made the moves we would like to see them make. It has probably put back any thoughts of co-operation in security and defence, which Sinn Féin is against anyway. It shows the importance of Ireland having an independent foreign policy. Whatever way Europe is going, it has shot itself in the foot. The Palestinians have paid for a lot of that.

I agree with Deputy Howlin. Any time people have been before the committee from North Macedonia or any of the applicant countries in the western Balkans and beyond, they have always said there are other players in the game. As much as they need to meet the rule of law and Copenhagen criteria, they need to be met somewhere. Unfortunately, the western Balkans probably sat in a place where there was talk of accession, but it was only talk and the French, Germans and whoever else were not really interested. We might be in a different place following the invasion of Ukraine, but it will be more difficult to get across.

Finally, Mr. Ahern may be pleased to know, I will ask about Mr. Ahern's history with the peace process and the role the European Union played. He was dealing with a scenario where all the players and stakeholders were engaged and interested. That is not necessarily the case in some of the trouble spots across the world. It may be at some point but that is the part we would like to see the European Union play internationally. Looking at tackling migration in real terms, with Africa and the Middle East as destabilised as they are the situation will not change unless there is an element of benevolent play by a big player. I understand it is not easy.

People would have said with respect to scrutinising legislation, at some level - I do not like to give the Brits credit for anything - Britain sometimes played its part in that and it benefited us. I imagine we still have to make up for that deficit. As Mr. Ahern said, Brexit has created a huge number of anomalies in our relationship, which probably means we will need bespoke solutions from the European Union almost forever or until we get to the final place where there is no Border in Ireland.

That is a sufficient number of questions, if Mr. Ahern is happy to answer them.

Yes, plenty of questions. I will not go into the whole American, Chinese and global issues. On a general note, the European Union position for the Commission to follow criteria in assessing new member states is fair enough to carry the support of the masses in the EU and all our populations. It cannot go at it willy-nilly. Democracy, the rule of law, trying to assist people as much as possible with moving away from oligarchs and corruption of all kinds are the rules the EU has set down and that is fair enough. There cannot be any compromise on those issues. Yes, as I have said, countries should help new member states as much as possible.

At Christmas, the European Union said in the last major statement it made on the matter that it had decided to open accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova and that it would work on the frameworks to be adopted once Ukraine and Moldova met certain key requirements that were set out in the November document. Candidate status was granted to Georgia on the basis of further steps that were also set out. The EU signalled that it would open accession negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina once the necessary degree of compliance with the membership criteria was achieved. It has stuck broadly to the ground rules. It gave an oral update, not a written one, on Moldova, stating it had completed two of the three steps, namely, anti-corruption dealing with the oligarchs and vetting of judicial candidates. They are straightforward and important enough. If countries cannot stick by those kinds of criteria, there is a problem and the issues of money, resources, CAP reform and all the rest cannot come into play. They have to stick to the basic values. That is why, although I am not as familiar as I used to be with what goes on in the Commission, gradual integration is probably the road to go down. Countries are pulled in step by step, incrementally, as they fulfil the criteria step by step. That is probably the best way to go.

On the immigration issue, the Deputy is right that until the global situation is dealt with, no single country can control it.

We are going to get huge movements of people from sub-Saharan Africa for the foreseeable future as long as they have the difficulties of drought and famine. There are other issues. We might look at how the population of Nigeria has changed and at the figures, although maybe Nigeria and Georgia are not exactly the same as the famine-stricken areas we are getting. The challenge for us is to be fair, but not be used and abused at the same time. In spite of all the pressures, I detect that there still is huge sympathy among the Irish people to do the right thing on migration and be as helpful as they can.

I will pick up on one position on which I do not think I answered Deputy Howlin. I have been out and about recently helping a few old buddies on the doors. It is interesting; I am not out there that much. It struck me massively that it seems as if practically none of the European people who are here from other European countries know their rights. If I can put in a plug for the Electoral Commission from the committee - the Chairman has probably done it long ago - it is not exactly a hard thing to do to say to our Polish friends and our other friends that they have a right to register. I think they still have a few days, but it should certainly be done for future elections-----

-----because they do not have any concept that they are entitled. That is an important thing. If we are bringing people in and they are working and paying their taxes - many of them have been here for 20 years - and they feel they have no right to vote, that seems to me a very obvious area of correction that should be dealt with.

If she were here today, Angela Merkel would say that she tried to do a big thing on immigration. She just accepted millions into her country and really tried to take a very progressive view on it, not that she or her colleagues got much thanks for their efforts. That will probably feature a lot in the minds of current and future leaders. She took the bigger picture that these people were fleeing for economic reasons, not just reasons of war and conflict. She did try to take that view. I know for a fact she feels very sore that it was not something seen by her own population or wider populations, that is, the view of a leader who took a huge positive role in trying to deal with the issue that was on everybody's doorstep.

There is one thing I notice on all these issues about Europe. A long time ago, when I was Minister for Labour, I sat on the social affairs council and ECOFIN when we were dealing with Maastricht and the early referendums. The big debate in this House at that time was about what Europe was doing about unemployment. We had 20% unemployment. The labour market was growing by 2% and immigration reflected the 2% of the labour market. People were asking what Europe was doing about unemployment. It is fair to look back now, as I am doing today doing 20 years later. We have gone through this debate this morning hardly mentioning the word "unemployment". It is the same all the time. The fact is that it has been European economic policies that have controlled inflation and interest rates, notwithstanding the currency crisis and the crash crisis, which was partly domestic and partly international. Europe has done an enormous amount to create that. It has changed and alleviated poverty.

When I look at the areas we pass when we come to Leinster House along the quays and docklands by the Custom House, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and International Financial Services Centre were initiatives that were done by domestic governments but with the permission of Europe. It changed unemployment in this country. There are big positive issues we should not just pass over.

I thank the Cathaoirleach very much. I will try to make it short and sweet. I will go back to something Deputy Howlin said about when Poland joined 20 years ago. Quite soon after that, approximately 140,000 Polish actually did come and they have contributed massively to our economy in this country. Many of them came to my community and many of them are registered to vote. They are full, active citizens in this country. It certainly has been good for Ireland in that respect.

I have a couple of questions. What are the challenges Ireland faces with further EU enlargement? I am a great advocate of bottom-up and grassroots politics. I would like to see European affairs committees and strategic policy committees for EU affairs within local government because there is a disconnect from the ordinary citizen in Ireland. What does Mr. Ahern think the Union should do to strengthen the relationship it has with the ordinary citizens in this country? If he was the leader of this country today, how would he solve the situation we obviously have between Ireland and the UK around illegal migration?

I agree with what the Senator said about our Polish friends and those from other countries. On the first question, we need the EU to continue to adapt and change and react in creative ways to circumstances in which we find ourselves. I do not think there is ever a status quo where we are just fixed and not moving forward. The Union has to keep on doing that in areas where, clearly, local governments feel they do not have a role and have to evolve that. There are some good models and there is some good research. The French are very good at doing that and theirs is a far bigger country than ours. They have their old canton system, which was the Swiss system at one time, where people can evolve and develop in local government. I am not sure that is a big job for the European Union. I think it should be encouraged. The European Union has always been good. It has been very good in the Border regions in helping resource cross-Border communities through the PEACE initiatives and other things, which, by and large, work well. If it comes to local government, however, that is our own job.

On Northern Ireland and the present conflict, it is unfortunate that we have had ongoing tensions since Brexit. I say this every chance I ever get, and Deputy Ó Murchú said it already, because it is a sad thing and one of the reasons I think the problems are arising all the time. If we go back 20 years ago, there were working groups every day, not just on the European Union but in every area, including agriculture, fisheries, the environment and even some justice issues. Irish officials were going over to Brussels or London or maybe somewhere else and there was interaction between the British system and our system every day. I looked back at a diary note approximately one year ago for an event I was attending in a university.

Back in my time, in 2002 or 2003, there was one week in which there were 21 meetings that involved Irish and British officials interacting, arguing, agreeing, disagreeing and whatever. Deputy Howlin would know this from his time as Minister. That huge level of interaction is gone in its entirety. There is nobody meeting. People are not having actual meetings or meeting for coffee or in bars. All of that was hugely helpful. The lack of engagement is a huge problem. It is leading to all these ongoing difficulties that arise every day, whereby issues are jumping up because nobody has them on an agenda, they have not been put down under any other business and they have not been talked about in the coffee bar before the meeting.

Looking to be positive, the only way around this problem is to use the mechanisms of the Good Friday Agreement to have more meetings, including North-South meetings and east-west meetings. There is no need to set up a new structure. The structure is already there within the Good Friday Agreement. It is great that there was a meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference last week. In all these areas, the only way we will get back to where we were before Brexit is to use those structures. We should not set up another talking shop. We just need to use the structures that are there, whereby people meet, engage and try to solve issues. If that happens, I think we will get over these difficulties.

To answer the Senator's question directly, the one thing I would do if I were still where I was is try to get back that co-operation. At the moment, people are sending emails to each other and those emails are getting frostier every day. There are no telephone calls and no direct contact. I have talked to the most senior people around the place. After I leave this meeting, I have a meeting with the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee I will say exactly the same to the members of that committee as I have said at this meeting. They will be ducking again because they know Brexit caused all of this. It has undermined the good relationship between us and our near neighbours. Until we correct that, and I have said how I think we can correct it, things are going to get worse, not better.

Unfortunately, what we have clearly and patently seen is a British Government that is manifestly different from the one with which Mr. Ahern dealt. It is very difficult for our State, which still believes implicitly in the values of the Good Friday Agreement and everything it created, to be dealing now with something that is fundamentally different from the situation in the past. That really does create the challenge Mr. Ahern spoke about in terms of engagement.

Of the few meetings that were held before and after that, he did not bother to attend. The blame is clearly on the other side. What is regrettable now is the change that has happened in this regard. For the 11 years I dealt with Tony Blair's Government, and even during Gordon Brown's Government, there was a very strong group of officials dealing with Irish issues; not just the peace process but all Irish issues. To the best of my knowledge, and the committee members probably know this better than I do, there is now one person dealing with all of that.

I am conscious of other members wishing to speak. As a committee, we have seen the bond Mr. Ahern referred to, whereby Ireland and Britain worked together in so many ways in the European context and strengthened each other by way of our involvement in Europe. The loss of that engagement, arising out of Brexit, has never really been calculated. For Ireland, it is a loss equal to that of Britain's actual departure. The next speaker is Deputy Troy.

I welcome the former Taoiseach. He is well recognised as having unparalleled negotiating skills in terms of the peace process, the Good Friday Agreement and all he achieved in his time as Taoiseach of our country. Today, we are discussing his role in the expansion of the European Union.

I am interested in his thoughts on future enlargement. He spoke about the essentials needing to be met, including the rule of law, functioning democracies and there being no corruption in any candidate country. For political reasons, Ukraine's accession process was accelerated. Does Mr. Ahern expect that to have consequences for other applicant countries? Might they argue that concessions were made and due diligence was not carried through in allowing Ukraine to become an accession member state? I would like to hear his thoughts in this regard.

One of the key positives of the EU is from a trading perspective, with the free movement of goods. For a small, open economy like Ireland, the ability to trade to such a large market was very welcome. The free movement of people was also very welcome at the time. One area in which we have not realised the full potential of the EU is the whole services area. This would include, for example, accessing cheaper mortgages in other European countries, investing in European banks that pay higher interest rates or accessing cheaper insurance. More work needs to be done in this area by every Government to ensure the full access to services is expanded.

One of the aspects of EU membership that was always seen as positive was the free movement of people. Of course, it is one of the reasons the UK left the EU. Migration is becoming a very pertinent issue in every country. I am interested in Mr. Ahern's opinion in this regard. I agree with his statement that we need to be firm but fair. The Irish people are decent, honourable people who want to help legitimate asylum seekers. However, we do not want to be seen as being easily exploited. I do not know whether Mr. Ahern is familiar with the EU's migration pact. Does he think we are better working together on this issue to ensure we get it right into the future?

I was not going to ask the next question but Mr. Ahern alluded to it just before I spoke. I refer to our loss of an ally since the UK left the EU. What does he think the Government should be doing to compensate for the loss of that ally as we move forward?

I am conscious in answering the Deputy's questions of the time remaining for our meeting. On services, wherever there is potential for economic benefit, it always should be explored. In fairness to the European Union, it has issued a lot of very good policies on services over the years. Those policies are there for people to follow.

On the movement of people within the EU, I have given my views on that. Free movement of people has been one of the cornerstones of the whole European project. It is one of the issues that has worked well for us. People will always ask whether the next enlargement will create a problem. People want to protect what they have.

On some of the issues down the road and where things will go, the conclusions from the EU two years ago noted that enlargement will not only depend on the merit of candidate countries - applicants must have merit to join - but also on the Union's capacity to absorb new members. This goes back to what Deputy Howlin was saying. We need to look back 20 or 30 years to what Mr. Delors was talking about and finally decide what are the lines of Europe. We cannot go on stretching and stretching those lines. Somewhere, there is an absorption capacity for the European Union. Somebody has to decide how far it can go. That argument was meant to have been decided 20 years ago when the new neighbourhood policy was set. We were meant to decide which countries would be in the Union and the new neighbourhood countries with which we would have a relationship.

That did not work. I do not know where that got buried in the sand somewhere along the way. Maybe after this enlargement, we have to go back and look at that because I do not believe it can just go on and on. It can come to a ridiculous position. We had a debate on whether Turkey would be a member 20 years ago. That was a well-argued one.

The other issue is that the key question, as I understand it, that revolves around identifying priority issues, is whether institutional reform or treaty change is necessary. In our case, with the 1987 Supreme Court judgment, we can be nearly sure that it will end up in a treaty change and a constitutional referendum unless somebody challenges the 1987 decision, which I probably should have done because it was far too narrow. Going back to the last question, if I were around today, I would do it because we are obliged to have a referendum for any little change at all, which is not the greatest thing in the world. If there is something fundamental, that is different. As to the degree of assessing the financial costs of enlargement and ensuring that citizens in member states and candidate countries do not feel shut out of the process, they are the issues that have been identified by the European Union. I agree with those issues.

On the Deputy's last question, working together is always the best way to do it. If we want to make progress in anything, even if we disagree, it is about sitting around a table thrashing things out, trying to draw up policy positions and trying to work together. That is always the way you find solutions. They may not be perfect solutions, but working together is the right thing to do.

I thank the Chairperson and welcome the former Taoiseach to this important discussion on the 20th anniversary of the enlargement of the EU. I have two questions for the iar-Thaoiseach and they are slightly related.

First, it is well-known that those who wanted Brexit most in Northern Ireland came from one political tradition. Would Mr. Ahern accept, ironically, that the materialisation of Brexit has brought a united Ireland a little bit closer than it was beforehand? We all know the majority in Northern Ireland did not want Brexit. However, those who did were from a unionist disposition. Would he accept that, ironically, an unintended consequence of their actions is that the possibility of a united Ireland is a closer reality?

Second, on the day of a stark reality, we see the European election posters throughout the capital city here for people who wish to be elected as MEPs. Is there more the Government can do to address the lacuna whereby the people in Northern Ireland will not have the opportunity to elect MEPs, for obvious reasons? Is there more we could do to improve that situation without the necessity of a constitutional referendum? Can we maximise the voice and make it a little bit more formal for the people in Northern Ireland who have voted to be part of the EU and would like more of a front seat in the consultation and decision-making of the EU family?

The united Ireland or new Ireland question will work its way through. What is certain is that Brexit made the issue far more lively. There is far more work, debate and academic studies going on. The ESRI has done work and that base will continue. I cannot say whether it is closer, but it has certainly made it a more real debate. The Senator knows my view. Rushing this issue the wrong thing to do. It has to be worked out in time and debated.

The Senator's second question is interesting. I refer to European issues.

I remember the great Dr. Paisley would give out about everything about the Irish Government until it came to a European issue on agriculture, where he would be the first man into the room to participate in debate on CAP reform or fisheries reform. He was able to distinguish. I think a bit of that will happen now, where our MEPs – whoever is elected in a month – will be able to assist with a lot of Northern issues. There is close contact, for example, between the CBI, IBEC and the farmers. Farmers are particularly good at this. Farmers and fisheries North and South are good at keeping contact. I think on European issues, they will probably find that they will be asked to argue these cases. The only good thing out of Brexit is the position Northern Ireland now finds itself in. It is in the European Union for goods. It is in the British economy and the Irish economy. It is in a unique position. Anything that helps or assists it, including whatever role we can play in helping it in Europe, is a good thing and a good thing for it.

I wish to add one thing that I thought was interesting. On a recent visit to Brussels, we talked to the Permanent Representation of Ireland to the European Union. We then effectively met the Northern Ireland Office. It does an inter-staff transfer to facilitate that deepening of ties and understanding. Somebody from the Northern Ireland Office works in the perm rep and somebody from the perm rep works in the Northern Ireland Office perhaps for a six-month transfer. That gives a deeper knowledge and ability to work together on the island issues that come up all the time.

In conclusion, I thank Mr. Ahern for coming in today. One of the really positive things about a discussion like this is that in the context of European politics within our own country, we can see a real depth of agreement and a common place, which we take by and large, and overwhelmingly, to our relationship with Europe and how we work that relationship with Europe for the benefit of both Europe and Ireland. It is vitally important we have that.

There are many points I could try to take up but I will not do so because I do not want to delay things further. The depth of knowledge Mr. Ahern has, which we appreciate he is sharing with us, is important for us, particularly in our work on future enlargement. There cannot be a successful European Union going into this century without the work that is taking place today. Right across Europe, other countries and member states could perhaps do with the ability to look back to their own statesmen and stateswomen from various eras past who contributed to building the Europe we have today, which most people will acknowledge is a success. Everything has its flaws but it has been hugely successful. It remains the most successful peace initiative the world has ever seen in terms of preventing the type of European conflicts we saw on such a regular basis until the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s.

I thank Mr. Ahern for his contribution. It has been a useful meeting of our committee. I thank the members for their contributions as well. In drawing our meeting to a conclusion, we will adjourn until Wednesday, 15 May at 10 a.m.