Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the ambassadors and thank them for attending. I wish to start with a point that was made by the ambassador from the Netherlands. During his presentation he said “ if the UK leaves the European Union”, which is something that is quite common among all of us who are watching what is happening in terms of Brexit. There is a vague hope that in some way this is an exercise that will fall flat on its face. That argument got oxygen during the week when the courts said the issue must go back to the UK Parliament before triggering Article 50. Is that something the ambassador believes himself or is it an indication of a vague hope held by the Netherlands?

I am concerned about workers from other countries in the United Kingdom. It would horrify us to think that workers would in some way have to be enumerated and a census taken of foreign workers in the United Kingdom in a post-Brexit era. That is something on which I would welcome the views of the ambassadors.

I would particularly like to hear their views on the question of the citizens' rights that have come through European legislation over the many years since the European Union was expanded to take in Britain and Ireland.

We talk about a soft and a hard Brexit. Every official I have spoken to and most politicians say we are aiming for a soft Brexit and that this is what we all want. However, when we look at Article 50 and what is required to commence the process, it appears we need all of the leaders of all of the 27 states to agree, we need 20 of the 27 national parliaments to ratify the process and we need a simple majority of the European Parliament to pass the process before we engage in negotiations. To me, that spells horror. There are just too many strings to that bow, too many different things that can go wrong along the way. If we do not get an agreed platform on which to commence negotiations within the next two years, then we are headed for a train crash, and that is the simple fact of the matter. I would be interested to know from the witnesses' experience whether either of their countries, prior to the referendum, modelled how they think a Brexit or any exit would go and how they think the triggering of Article 50 would be handled in the event of any country seeking to leave.

We talk about there being no negotiation without the four freedoms. We have immediately laid down criteria that, if a country is not prepared to sign up to the four freedoms, we are not really interested in a lot of what the country has to say. Maybe I am picking that up wrong but I would welcome the witnesses' views on it.

I am interested in the vision of both countries for a post-Brexit EU. We need to have some vision as to where we are going right across Europe. Deputy Durkan referred to the fate of smaller countries, which are at risk as we go into this process.

I attended a conference recently where we spoke about Brexit and, shortly after that discussion, the issue of a European army came up. As the witnesses know, a European army is anathema to the Irish Constitution, so we would have a difficulty with that and we may signal another exit if that particular agenda proceeds. I am interested to know what is the view of the Netherlands and Slovakia on the European army, or whether it is something they have considered.

On trade, Senator Richmond mentioned TTIP and CETA. The witnesses will be familiar with their own citizens on the ground. The secrecy that exists around these trade negotiations has made the EU the monster it is seen to be by Joe Public. There may be great deals but they are viewed with suspicion by citizens.

This brings me on to the next point. We are members of the European Union. Deputy Haughey noted the Irish people are very favourably disposed towards the EU. However, while we are favourably disposed to the roads it has built and the various other things it has funded, I am not too sure any of us feel we are Europeans. The reason for this, and I wonder if it applies in the witnesses' countries, is that we go to Brussels, sit with the Commission and negotiate hard for our country, and we then come home and blame the Commission for whatever came out of the negotiations. We do not accept responsibility that we actually negotiated where we are going.

The negotiations we engage in tend to be an attempt at one-size-fits-all. The issues of the Netherlands are not the same as the issues of west Connemara and the issues of Amsterdam are not the issues that Dublin or Bratislava faces. If we want to maintain a European Union and if we want to kill off what is euphemistically known as populism, we have to get back to the citizens. In his last visit here, the Slovak ambassador mentioned that this was one of the main issues for the Slovak Government during its EU presidency term, namely, to get back to the citizens. Brexit has put us in a situation where, if we do not get back to the citizens and if we do not become truly committed Europeans, this entire process - the entire Union - is on the high road to disaster. Brexit has given oxygen to everybody who ever wanted to destroy something that was, to my mind, very good.

I thank the witnesses' for taking the time to listen to me. I look forward to their replies on those issues.