Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome Mr. Kiely.

I presume Mr. Kiely is aware that Sinn Féin MEPs and other Irish MEPs met with the European Commission's chief negotiator on Brexit, Michel Barnier, on Tuesday. Our MEPs impressed upon Mr. Barnier the potentially grave implications that Brexit holds for Ireland and in particular, the challenges faced by the North of Ireland. It is being dragged out of the EU against the democratically-expressed wishes of the people there. We made the case for the North to have special designated status within the EU as a democratic imperative and the importance of a transnational EU deal for Ireland in advance of Brexit to protect the interests of Irish citizens' business, particularly in the Border regions. Is there awareness or concern in the Commission on the implications that Brexit will have for Ireland? I have heard Mr. Barnier talking about his own experience with the peace process, so he has some awareness. Is there awareness across the Commission that we are the country that probably will experience the greatest impact in respect of cross-border trade and so on?

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, and Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, were mentioned by one of my colleagues here. I am sure Mr. Kiely is aware that Sinn Féin had a different view on the TTIP and CETA agreements. We see them as a new generation of free trade agreements that move far beyond the lowering of tariffs or free movement of goods and which look to attack and undermine the sovereignty of national parliaments by interfering in national regulation of trade. Shared concerns were expressed by non-government organisations and civil society consumer groups about the weak protections in CETA for the environment, workers' rights, public health, food safety and public procurement and in particular on the impact of the investment court system. Many of us can understand why major corporations are in favour of these agreements but I argue they are not designed for economies like Ireland and would do serious damage to our agrifood industry.

I am appalled at the fact that it seemed to be rammed through. There is considerable secrecy surrounding the two negotiations. I have been talking to MEPs and they say that if one wants to read about TTIP, one is brought into a room without being allowed to bring a mobile phone and one cannot quote directly from a document. What is the issue with the secrecy around that? Since Mr. Kiely is talking in terms of the national dialogue and citizens' dialogue, has the intense secrecy surrounding these deals come up as a concern? That feeds into the concerns many citizens would have about it. Members have never really had a discussion on CETA in this Parliament. Committees had no intense discussion on it. There was a view that it was trade and it had to be good. None of the implications for farmers or citizens or anyone else were taken into account. Why must these things be railroaded through?

As for the issue of water, Lynn Boylan, MEP who represents Dublin, repeatedly called out the European Commission for its continued mixed messages and double dealing regarding politically sensitive types of water charges. At one stage, Commissioner Vella's water unit in the Commission confirmed in e-mails to separate queries from both Lynn Boylan, MEP and Marian Harkin, MEP that Ireland could in fact opt to not charge for water, as is permitted in the Water Framework Directive. Yet soon after that, there were leaked documents that said the established practice was to have the polluter pay and so on. It remains crystal clear that Ireland's established practice to recover costs was through general taxation. Would Mr. Kiely not agree that at a time when disengagement between Irish citizens and European citizens with the Brussels elite is at its highest, it is incredibly foolish for the European Commission to stick its nose into domestic politics when it is fully aware that a review into water charges is ongoing? We are getting mixed messages.

One priority mentioned in respect of the work programme was migration. It has been expressed here and at the foreign affairs committee that there is huge concern about the migrations to the EU from Turkey. How, under any criteria, can the European Commission or any European body designate Turkey as a safe country of origin? How can a country that regularly violates civil rights and human rights of its own citizens and others - we are practically in the middle of a civil war within Turkey - be considered to be a safe country of origin? Even more worrying are the most recently developed plans to copy this model and negotiate similar deals with countries such as Libya, a failed state, and Mali. Some would state the latter is not a failed state but I would argue it is has. It is inconceivable that this would be done. We would be talking in terms of huge migration of population. We had other people coming in from the EU and I have asked the same questions. How can the Commission state those are places of safe origin?

Lastly, I have a different view on the European army. The move is towards a common defence policy and a standing EU army. While Mr. Kiely stated that nobody is talking about that, it is the subtext and the agenda that is coming from many states within Europe. They want to see it and want to see us moving down that road. At a time of austerity, high unemployment, creaking public services, we are investing in more military spending. It is incredible and reflects how out of touch are many of our European elites.

Mr. Kiely spoke about terrorism and that we have to defend ourselves, but many of the terrorist attacks that have happened across Europe have involved people who were born and grew up in those countries. That is a concern and a difficulty. There is something wrong with investing in more weaponry at a time when people are going to bed hungry, and I would question that. There are difficulties with the direction in which Europe in going with respect to many of the key elements in the Commission's work programme. Thankfully, people are starting to speak out about it. If the EU elites do not begin to change, we will face a hugely difficult time when there will be even more pressure on the structures and people will rethink about our membership of the Union. That is the big concern I have.