Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I also welcome the former Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern, and thank him for his presentation and insights. We take certain comfort from the objectives set out by the British Prime Minister, Mrs. May, in her Article 50 letter, namely, no return to the hard borders and that the common travel area between Britain and Ireland would be maintained. It has been cited that it predates our joining of the EEC in 1973. How does Mr. Ahern envisage this working to our best advantage? I assume that the people who would be protected or covered by such an objective would be people with Irish passports, Irish citizens and that the objective would be to accommodate that and on a reciprocal basis, British citizens. Obviously, we will still be part of the European Union and French and German citizens, for example, can just come to Ireland.

How will we distinguish a French citizen from an Irish citizen when it comes to passing into Northern Ireland? If they are not also given free movement, would that not require a border control? Is that not a hard border? Or if there is free movement in Ireland, does that mean the border is extended between us and the United Kingdom, so it is just the island of Ireland. Once someone crosses the border, he or she is in the United Kingdom. They are fine objectives but how achievable are they if a distinction is going to be made between Irish citizens as EU citizens and other citizens, say French or German? I would be interested to know how Mr. Ahern sees that working out. Based on that, if there are going to be checks, then it is a hard Border. Even if a person is an Irish citizen or an Irish passport holder, and they can just pass through, there is still going to be an obstacle in his or her way that is not there at the moment which would be a hard border.

There has been a lot of talk by the British at many levels, particularly the Prime Minister, Theresa May, where they have said they understand the Irish situation and it is to the fore in their negotiations but I want to refer to the background music that is coming from British politicians. Speaking with colleagues in this House and the Dáil who have visited the OECD, OSCE - I was in Washington myself - what is consistently coming from the British is that they envisage us ultimately having to leave the European Union. It has been said often enough not to be ignored. A few days ago, Lord Howard was interviewed on the BBC, where he effectively said that the British would fight to the death to maintain Gibraltar. There was no mention of Northern Ireland. Do they envisage that we may leave and that will be the ultimate consequence of this? Economically we are in uncharted territory and, as Mr. Ahern said, there are more negatives for us than positives. Is that what they envisage or do they envisage a united Ireland? Are they throwing in the towel when it comes to Northern Ireland? There is a lot of this type of language.

In the trade figures Mr. Ahern gave, he described the folly of this decision from a British point of view. There is a lot of folly going on there but there is a lot of folly going on in world politics, especially in the western world. With no disrespect to the mandate given to the president of the United States and Brexit, we see a harkening back to some sort of imperialism and some sort of world order that made Britain great and made the United States great. I do not know if all of this is logical or reasonable. I would be interested in what Mr. Ahern has to say about this. The British could very well try to use us to try to get the best deal they can.

A major issue in the dynamic of politics in Europe and the United States is immigration. A lot of commentators have agreed that the issue of immigration and migration was the straw that broke the camels back for the public. In the United Kingdom, we saw the terrible attack in London the week before last and there have been attacks on continental Europe. We know the threat is not only from people coming from outside. More alarmingly, at a recent OSCE meeting in Vienna, I heard about the profiling of people who are self-radicalising and who are engaging in radical extremism and violent extremism in the boundaries of the European Union. It is a great concern. This has not gone away. There is fear among EU citizens and the middle-ground politicians are not tackling this issue. I have great respect for Chancellor Angela Merkle but her previous declaration that anyone could come into the country just showed immigration being dealt with in an unmanaged fashion, creating dangers, which in turn gives fuel to radical extreme elements in our own body politic across Europe. We can see there is a rise of such parties and such rhetoric which is hate-rhetoric.

We need to get a handle on migration and tell a real story that infinite numbers cannot come into Europe and we expect it to stay the same at many levels. That does not mean we cannot be accommodating. I do not think anyone is speaking to this. It is still brewing. No more than our own 50 million emigrants to the United States, migrants have made countries great and in many cases are doing jobs that seem to be undesirable to the locals. It is a topical issue and I would appreciate Mr. Ahern's insights as to what can be done to address these issues, and the security issues for our citizens as we try to operate along the lines of our democracy, the freedoms it gives, the rights of the individual and rights of the citizen while recognising that the way we have been going on is not working.