merrion street

Opening remarks

I think contemporary Europe needs to reflect carefully on where we are in the second decade of the 21st century and about the real problems we face. We need to have a real debate with ourselves about the re-emergence of extreme forms of intolerance. We need to look at how we can ensure that all Member States live up fully to the values that are enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty and that we all signed up to on accession. The Union needs to rediscover its purpose, its historic mission and its soul. We need to stop a slide backwards and to counter the emergence of attitudes and actions towards minorities and towards the exercise of political power that we had thought had been thoroughly exorcised from the free half of our continent. We need to confront those in positions of political leadership, who seek to harvest political support by pedalling racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and xenophobia. It is a political currency that must not, by our indifference or because we are distracted by other issues of concern, be allowed gain any value or credibility.

We have robust European legislation on hate crime and on discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic origin. Despite this, we still see a worrying incidence of racism and intolerance. This is documented in a number of reports from the Fundamental Rights Agency, including recent reports which looked specifically at hate crimes and at anti-Semitism.

Last January’s Informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers held in Dublin Castle afforded me the opportunity to put this important issue on the agenda of Justice Ministers. At the start of our Presidency, I tabled a paper for discussion on EU action to protect freedom of movement for EU Citizens and social integration by encouraging effective action and enhancing cooperation between justice systems in countering hate crime, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and homophobia.

Ireland believes it is in all our national interests as EU Member States to recall the values on which the Union is founded and to make it work – even when the economic crisis seems to overwhelm our capacity to deal with anything else – for all our people.

In raising a topic that involves sensitive issues for Member States and in some cases difficult issues, I, consciously, set out in an attempt to make a real contribution to the future of Europe by putting the renewal of the original European vision and mission, which is inextricably bound up with ideas of freedom and democracy and promoting prosperity for and the fundamental rights of all, at the centre of public discourse in the Union.

We also considered accusations that there are double standards in how the EU raises human rights issues with countries in our neighbourhood and beyond. This question of coherence as between the internal and external dimensions was also to the forefront of our thinking in raising this issue during our Presidency.

The major theme in this January discussion and in subsequent discussions was that we need to look at all these issues in a holistic way. We need effective criminal law. But legislation on its own is not enough. We need effective implementation. For that we need to prioritise data collection (what gets measured tends to be seen as important and to get addressed). We need well functioning institutions, particularly in the Justice area, that are capable of doing their job properly and without fear or favour, so that the rights of ordinary people are protected, and vindicated when those rights are attacked. We need to look beyond criminal law and ensure that we have strong anti-discrimination legislation and practical supports for victims of discrimination in place. We also need to address extreme forms of intolerance as social phenomena and to put ‘softer’ interventions in place to promote acceptance of diversity and tolerance of others. In this, positive example by politicians and others in a position of leadership is of critical importance.

The paper I tabled and a Conference we held in Dublin subsequently on the Rule of Law theme led on to Council Conclusions adopted by Justice Ministers in June 2013. These Conclusions called on the Commission to take forward a debate on the need for ‘a collaborative and systematic method’ – i.e. a Rule of Law mechanism or initiative – to address these important issues. Such an approach we believe is important, not only in terms of protecting the rights of all our people, but also important in terms of protecting the mutual trust and solidarity between Member States which is so vital to the smooth functioning of the European Union.

The Conclusions offered guidance to the Commission on how to take the debate forward and the type of considerations to be taken into account. You will have seen the text, so I won’t repeat it all. I do want to stress four important points. Firstly, the importance of developing a proposal on the basis of consensus and on the basis of treating all Member States equally. Secondly, the debate needs to be an inclusive one. You are all key people in your own spheres and key opinion influencers. This meeting is an extremely important event in this debate. But it must be the start and not the end of the public debate. We must recognise that we need wider participation within individual Member States in this discussion, including Governments, public institutions, civil society and indeed ordinary citizens. We have witnessed in recent years, a growing disconnect in many Member States between ordinary people and the European project. Revisiting our values and focussing on the benefit of so doing for everyone gives us an opportunity to re-engage with public opinion on issues that matter to everyone.

This brings me to the third point. Our focus is on shared values that are universal values, and not separate European Union standards. We should avoid duplication of and seek to develop synergies with, the work of other international bodies, including the Council of Europe, while identifying the added value of EU action and coordination. There is an inevitable degree of overlap when different institutions are very validly concerned about the same set of issues or problems. We need to manage that in a positive way. We don’t need turf wars, we need wholehearted and enthusiastic cooperation freely given amongst all relevant bodies in promoting our shared values and interests and in tackling real problems within our respective spheres of competence. And in this the EU it seems to me has certain responsibilities it cannot ignore or delegate.

Finally, we should ensure that any initiative in this area will have a real positive impact on the lives of ordinary citizens over the medium term. This is not just a debate on a question of legal, indeed constitutional, importance; it is first and foremost about protecting the rights and freedoms of all our people on the territory of the Union. It is about ensuring that we do not only speak of common values but that we behave in a manner consistent with and that respects those values.

Which brings me to today’s discussion. What should a future Rule of Law mechanism look like? You will have seen the joint paper presented to the Assises by Finland and Ireland. We have together set out a number of elements that we consider are important.

These include a dialogue that is continuous and permanent, and with the Commission as guardian of the treaties having a central role. We consider that this needs an annual discussion at Council level. These discussions could take place on the basis of periodic assessments prepared by the Commission. In preparing such assessments, the Commission should, as appropriate, avail of its own reports as well as those of other relevant bodies, including the Council of Europe and the reports of the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union (FRA). To repeat the point I made earlier, all Member States should be treated on the basis of equality.

The important point is that the data and evidence should be objective and compiled in a fair and transparent manner, so that our focus in discussion is on the facts and what needs to be done, rather than arguments about methodology. The reports of the Fundamental Rights Agency are of high quality and sound methodology. We should make more use of their reports and the Agency’s expertise.

The existing fundamental rights reporting of the Commission and of the FRA could be further developed, with a special emphasis on the rule of law.

The method should include opportunities for an exchange of best practices and peer review between the Member States. A continuous dialogue would allow a proactive and pre-emptive approach so problems can be addressed in a supportive and collaborative manner, before we have a crisis situation on our hands.

We should establish a new mechanism for cooperation in this area within the framework of the existing Treaties. We cannot wait for the opportunity of treaty change before we start work on what are very real issues.

While our approach is one of solidarity in adhering to our common values and positive assistance in working together to overcome issues and problems that arise, a credible method needs also to provide for extreme situations where a positive and collaborative approach does not succeed in deflecting an Article 7 situation from coming into being. In such situations, a dialogue between the Commission and Member States is important, on the basis of formal procedures which should be articulated and agreed in advance.

Obviously, this discussion touches on the sensitive issue of national sovereignty for most if not all Member States. Practical considerations arise also. We should avoid placing an undue reporting and administrative burden on Member States. A future Rule of Law method should not concern itself with the on-going routine issues that all Member States experience. It should not be a substitute for monitoring of transposition or infringement processes. On the other hand, it should be systematic, objective and collaborative. It should concern itself with difficulties or potential difficulties that are an attack on the fundamental rights of our people or the values in Article 2 and that consequently have the potential to damage the trust and solidarity between Member States that is so essential. It should be a practical mechanism to make a real difference to developing trust between Member States, to the lives of ordinary people by raising standards of compliance and implementation and to restoring belief in the value of the European vision and mission I started with in my remarks to you today.

Concluding remarks

This has been a very useful discussion and illustrates a fair degree of consensus about the importance of ensuring that the fundamental rights of our people and our common values are promoted, if showing that there is also a measure of disagreement about how that should be done and what might next need to be done.

I think it is time to reach out to a broader audience on the basis of presenting specific ideas and options on what a Rule of Law mechanism or method of cooperation might look like and might operate.

As you will have seen from the joint paper presented by Ireland and Finland, we think that a very useful set of next steps would involve the Commission facilitating this wider debate by presenting ideas and options on the following elements:

(a) a precise description of the subject areas that a Rule of Law mechanism would concern itself with;

(b) how to craft a fair and objective methodology – treating all Member States equally - by which data and evidence under each heading would be gathered and analysed, indicators developed, and thresholds determined in advance that would warrant a rule of law mechanism to be triggered;

(c) a process by which the Commission as guardian of the treaties would assess the evidence and give guidance;

(d) the role of discussions in the Council and a political dialogue, including engagement with and by Member States concerned, as well as the Parliament; and

(e) questions of implementation and review.

Finland and Ireland with other Member States are working with the Fundamental Rights Agency and a number of other Member States to identify a methodology by which appropriate rule of law indicators could be developed. The intention is to focus on a limited number of fundamental rights issues with a view to developing a methodology that can be applied to the wider range of rule of law questions. We would be more than willing to cooperate with the Commission in taking this work forward.

The Union’s foundational values are reflected in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which bases the Union on a community of indivisible and universal values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, gender equality, non-discrimination, solidarity, the Rule of Law and respect for human rights and civil liberties, for all persons on the territory of the EU. These are the common values of the Member States. They bind us all to promote pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men. Respecting and promoting these values is an essential element of the European Union’s identity. It is essential that we are able to do so and to demonstrate that we do so and that we have a credible method in place to address the real problems that arise.