Mr. Gerry Kiely:

That is the instruction the Chairman should have given before the questions.

My hands are tied on Brexit. I could talk to members at length about Brexit but the Commission and President have taken a position that we are not going to give a running commentary on it. We need to have Article 50 triggered sooner rather than later. We want to get on with it because there are things to be done.

Mr. Barnier will be the chief negotiator for the European Union. He is the Commission's negotiator. He has been here. I have been at meetings with him across the board. The Commission is well aware of the political and economic implications of Brexit for Ireland. The Government has been doing a tour of the capitals. I am sure many people in them are aware of the circumstances. Members, farm organisations, NGOs and others should never stop telling everybody the story because these negotiations will be difficult. The only people who will be involved in them who are neutral will be the officials from the Commission. Every member state will bear in mind the European Union's interests but also its own. The Commission must bear in mind the European Union's interests only. It is very cognisant of the challenges that will arise for Ireland owing to Brexit. One should never stop telling the story, however.

I have been at many conferences and I have been involved in many discussions on the implications of Brexit. We do not know what Brexit will look like. Admittedly, we received some more clarification yesterday on what Britain is looking for but we do not know what Brexit will look like. We do not know what the negotiating positions of the individual member states will be when the negotiations begin. Ireland could already be drawing up potential solutions that would benefit it. I refer to the Government, the NGOs and others. There are many very intelligent people in Government organisations, the Civil Service and various other organisations. Everybody can see the implications for Ireland and the obstacles to trade and the political problems that will arise in the event of various options being chosen. People should be considering possible solutions now and putting them on the table, be it at the Commission or in the capitals. We should be preparing people because one cannot expect those outside Ireland to do so, with the possible exception of the Commission because it is committed to looking after Irish interests in the same way as it is committed to looking after other member states' interests. One cannot expect people in Berlin, Paris or any other capital to spend time looking for a solution for Ireland. The ideas for a solution should come from Ireland, which should try to persuade the others around the table on its merits and the reasons it should be acceptable. That is all I can say on Brexit. Within the Commission and the capitals, there is an appreciation of the fact that the implications are greater for Ireland than anywhere else. One should never stop telling the story, however.

With regard to trade, TTIP will be frozen until we see the view of the next US Administration on trade. Certainly, the indications do not suggest the United States has an interest in forging ahead on trade deals. We have a lot in common with the United States. The United States and European Union are the two biggest and lucrative economies in the world. They have a lot in common. A trade deal would have been worth a lot to Ireland, in spite of what people say about the negative aspect of trade. It is very important for Ireland to have open markets as it is dependent on exports. The EU market can absorb so much from Ireland but circumstances are different when the growth is outside the EU market. Members mentioned Indonesia, Vietnam and other regions. This is where the growth will arise. Therefore, Ireland and the European Union as a whole need an increasing amount of trade. Trade is good for citizens. Admittedly, the traders are the primary beneficiaries but, without their benefiting within the European Union, they will not be creating employment.

I find it strange that people say globalisation is negative. For globalisation to be negative, one must be importing something at a lower price than it can be produced in the European Union or Ireland. The person importing the product is the consumer, however. The person benefiting from the lower price is the consumer. There are more consumers than producers. Certainly, people have lost their jobs because of imports but many people have gained jobs because of imports. Saying there should not be freer trade or globalisation means one wants to protect an inefficient operator inside the border by comparison with an external operator on the back of the Irish or European consumer. There is an opportunity cost also because one cannot support an inefficient producer ad infinitum. It will go to the wall eventually. One is just postponing the pain. The resource, be it labour, capital or otherwise, could have been put into something that would have been efficient and competitive economically.

The European Commission and European Union believe in trade. We will continue irrespective of what others around the world might think about trade. We do not talk about free trade but about trade liberalisation. I cannot think of any free-trade agreement we have today – we have many – under which trade is totally liberalised. There is always a restriction in sensitive sectors. Mention was made of agriculture in this regard. We virtually always have restrictions in regard to agriculture because, given our commitment to a particular agricultural model based on the multifunctional nature of European agriculture, we want to protect the model. That type of model cannot be protected if there is total liberalisation of trade. Usually, sensitive sectors are treated differently.

The European Union has become an easy candidate for criticism over recent years. There are many eurosceptics, including newfound eurosceptics, and populists seeking publicity on the back of the European Union with a view to self-promotion. Not enough effort has been made by the pro-Europeans to defend the European Union. To return to Deputy Haughey's question on Brexit, there have been many analyses of the British referendum.

Personally, I am convinced that the British referendum was not lost during the campaign. Much of it was lost before the campaign because for the last 30 years the eurosceptics have had a free open goal. Every day of the week, the media, pundits and so forth were criticising the EU and nobody was answering back because, first, they did not wish to put their heads above the parapet and, second, they did not think it would make a difference. They know different now. It does make a difference.

One cannot leave the field open to eurosceptics or critics. They must be answered, and we answer them. The European Commission, European Parliament and the institutions answer them, but it cannot be done from Brussels alone. It must be done at national level by anybody who believes that the European Union, warts and all, should continue. We accept that there are problems with the EU and that it could be better, but the exercise on that will continue. However, if people want the EU to continue it should be defended by the people on the ground at national level, be it politicians, non-governmental organisations, NGOs, or sectoral interests. There are more people among the public who believe that the EU should continue than believe it should not, and they should defend it. They should not be depending on the European Commission or others to defend it, because when we do and say people are wrong they will say, "What else would they say? They are paid to say that". It is much better if the defence comes from the local level.

On the special status of Ireland in the context of Brexit, that is down the road and a matter for somebody else on a higher salary than mine. However, the first issue is that Article 50 must be triggered so the negotiations can start.

With regard to water, my recollection is that there was a letter to the committee about water from Commissioner Karmenu Vella. It recognised domestic politics but also highlighted the fact that there is a law, the water directive, which deals with polluter pays, cost recovery and so forth. There is flexibility for the country, but the directive is clear. The directive has been in place for a long time so people should be quite familiar with it.

I agree on the Internal Market. The reason we are looking at the Internal Market is that it must be deepened. The example of pharmaceuticals might not really relate to the Internal Market. It is probably more to do with the Spanish health service and the subsidies it might be given - I do not know. Certainly, the Internal Market is not complete. There are factors which will play into the cost, with different prices for the same product in different countries, that have nothing to do with the Internal Market, such as local wages, local rents and so forth. The purpose of the exercise is that we wish to deepen the Internal Market and make it more complete.

On strengthening trade defence instruments, there is more globalisation and trade liberalisation. We are looking at having a mechanism that can prevent somebody from abusing the EU market through having practices in place which give them an advantage and which are not totally in line with World Trade Organisation, WTO, rules and so forth. However, if one wishes to take a WTO case it can take four or five years. Meanwhile, the damage is done. We are looking at it purely from that point of view. Yes, it might involve tariffs or blocking a product completely, depending on how serious the distortion of trade is, but it would be for a particular reason.

Regarding Turkey and the immigrants, we are dealing with political reality here. The Deputy is as aware as I am of the discussions with the member states. The zones that have been created, which the EU is financing, are under strict NGO and EU control. It is not a question of us saying, "Let them go to that country" or whatever. They are in specific zones which are equipped to the best of people's ability and are under strict supervision.

The Deputy spoke about austerity and spending money on the European army. In fact, we are saying almost the opposite. I gave the example. If there was a common approach with what is being spent at present we could conceivably save €100 billion. By standing still and doing nothing, one could save €100 billion. Our proposal is not necessarily that more should be spent but that there should be more co-operation. This might happen down the road. We have heard the discussions about the future of NATO, countries' roles in NATO, the possibility that Europe might have to spend more on defending itself and so forth, but what we are discussing today is more inter-operability between the different armies of the member states and a common approach on procurement. It has been estimated that this alone could save €100 billion, so by standing still there could be €100 billion more to spend on more needy causes.

Chairman, I believe I have covered most of the points. If I have not, I will be happy to supply the replies.