Mr. John Comer:

I thank the Chairman and the committee for giving me this valuable opportunity to make a presentation on such a critical topic. I do not suggest for one moment that my organisation has all of the answers, but it is very important, now that our nearest neighbour has voted to leave the European Union, that we examine and understand why it has done so and ensure such an outcome will not be repeated elsewhere.

The ICMSA is a pro-European Union organisation. Since Ireland joined the EEC, with the United Kingdom and Demark, in 1973, there have been many benefits from membership. There have also been some negative effects, but as an organisation, we set out to maximise in a pragmatic fashion the benefits for our members who happen to be citizens of the European Union, while minimising the negatives. This meeting presents a valuable opportunity to discuss matters with people who get to make decisions on a day to day basis, unlike the public which only gets an opportunity to decide every five years or so.

We very much welcome the White Paper on the Future of Europe and the opportunity it gives us to have an open and honest discussion and reflect on where we are at this point. However, the White Paper does not refer to agriculture or rural development in any specific way. It refers to trade, trade deals, taxation, defence. That is disappointing because, from the perspective of the ICMSA, agriculture and rural development are the most important points.

The Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, has some inconsistencies and the messaging around it is not as clear as we would like. One example of these inconsistencies is the fact that we must do more with less. The EU wants the family farm structure to provide food for the citizens of Europe and I am of the view that this resonates with every single person on the Continent. Everybody has to eat and although many do not understand food, they can identify with its importance. However, politicians do not put food-related issues front and centre. It is integral to all our lives. That is why I feel there are inconsistencies. Ask any European consumer how they want their food produced, and they will reply that food produced on family farms in Europe is the ideal, but there is talk of EU cuts to the budget. We feel that is an inconsistency and there is a requirement to have an adequate budget to achieve what the EU sets out to achieve in terms of maintaining its model of agriculture. The opening round offer on the table for a Mercosur deal is that 70,000 tonnes of beef from the Mercosur countries will be allowed into the EU market tariff free. We are very much opposed to that deal because we feel it down plays standards and sustainability. Sustainability is defined in terms of the economic, social and environmental pillars. If we do not get all three pillars of the sustainability model correct, then imbalances will cause it to fall. That needs to be addressed when we are discussing the future of Europe.

We believe there is unfair implementation of the habitats directive and the birds directives and the ability to generate an income from farming in these areas is compromised because of the derogations and the regulations and the fact that land is effectively sterilised. This will end up with land abandonment. There must be more discussion in greater depth on this.

In global terms, urbanisation is increasing by 1% per annum. What can the European Union do to implement pragmatic policies that will help maintain, support and sustain viability in rural areas, not only in Ireland but in all member states? I have the luxury of sitting on the board of the European Milk Board and other bodies and I get the opportunity to speak to European counterparts from all member states. I am aware, therefore, the urbanisation process is reflected all across the member states of the EU and there is a lack of viable alternatives in the context of retaining populations in regional and rural centres.

There is a need to get matters right when it comes to regulation for farmers and small businesses. Increasingly, multinationals have an unfair advantage over small traders and businesses because the same regulation is being applied to both. This makes matters impractical for those small traders and businesses.

We need to improve how we communicate the values of EU membership. If the European Union is to remain strong, we need to be able to explain to our children the values it espouses. We need to engender more pride in how we communicate and describe what it means to be a member of the European Union. First, one wants to be a proud European citizen, then a proud Irishman or Irishwoman and it filters down to being a proud parish man or parish woman. We need to get the balance right. What has happened in Ireland which has distorted the message regarding the importance of the Union, is that we - and I include politicians here - blame the EU when things go wrong. When things go right, however, Ireland takes the credit. Ultimately, Joe and Josephine Public have the vote. We saw what happened in the UK. We, as Europeans, cannot be complacent or believe that this voting pattern will not be replicated. I know the threat of contagion has waned a little but we need to be able to explain and justify policies. Let me provide an example. If one asked any person in Dublin who is not a direct primary producer or farmer "What is the CAP and what does it do?", they would say that it is a subsidy for farmers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The CAP has been in existence since the Treaty of Rome to provide sustainable, affordable and safe food for the citizens of the Continent. It is as much a consumer subsidy as it is a farmer subsidy, yet people are afraid to say that and CAP is never explained clearly. That creates division and derision among our population. We need to be upfront, honest and able to deal with explaining the reasons for the CAP.

Our task was to examine the five different scenarios proposed in the White Paper. We would favour scenario 1, the status quo, with some tweaks from scenario 4 as being ideal. This would make matters more efficient. Scenario 2, which is just to focus on the market, will never work. We are utterly opposed to scenario 3, a two-speed Europe. I think that would ultimately lead to the collapse of the Union. I think scenario 5, giving more power to the centre of Europe, would not work for small member states, and Ireland would be very vulnerable.

I thank the Chairman and members for their time.