Mr. Brian Hayes:

I thank members for the opportunity to attend this meeting and apologise for not appearing before the joint committee more often. The issue is one of scheduling. As an Irish Member of the European Parliament, I appreciate the invitation to take part in this debate.

I apologise to the Minister of State for missing her speech, although I have read it. I thank her for the work she has done since her appointment as Minister of State with responsibility for European Union affairs. She has brought to her role great energy and a new perspective, which is always useful in government.

In my day job in Brussels and Strasbourg, I see daily the extraordinary work of officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, other Departments and the diplomatic service. They work very hard on the Brexit negotiations. I noted some announcements in the recent budget on additional support and funding for diplomatic efforts. Will the Minister of State provide further detail on this funding? As a result of the economic crisis, a smaller group of people had to do the same amount of work as was done prior to the crisis. If we are serious about advancing Irish and European Union interests, we must support our colleagues at permanent representation level in Brussels who do extraordinary work. Additional resources will be crucial and I would appreciate further information in that regard.

The Minister of State referred to the importance of having this debate now. President Juncker, in his state of the union speech in Strasbourg two months ago, stated he hoped that by the time of the Romanian Presidency in March 2019, just before elections to the European Parliament are due, we will have reached some finality regarding the White Paper and what conclusions can be drawn from it. We have, therefore, an 18-month period in which to engage in a nationwide public dialogue to be led by the Minister of State and Taoiseach.

It is really important that we have this dialogue now. We have it in a vacuum, in a sense, as we have a White Paper but, in fairness to Jean-Claude Juncker, he has said it is just the Commission's view. The Council will come to a view. The Parliament has already come to a view, in terms of the work we have concluded on the report of the five Presidents. In this 18 month period, it is important for all political parties to sketch out what are our priorities. Too often in the past we have responded to treaties. I do not believe, quite frankly, there is any appetite in the Council, and certainly not a majority of Parliament, for treaty change at present. I see the next two years as a period of mini-bargains and mini-deals as we move forward. I do not think there is support for a full federation, but equally there is no support for leaving things as they are. We must work for something in between, such as a twin-track approach which, effectively, we have at the moment with the eurozone, or working out a more co-ordinated policy in economic affairs. We have an opportunity. I ask the Government to work with all of the political parties in trying to map out our priorities and be part of the debate.

Not only have we had the White Paper published by President Juncker earlier this year, but five reflection papers have also been published. One is on social Europe, on which a point has been made, and the others are on globalisation, defence and security, the question of deeper economic and monetary union, and future financing and the question of the EU budget. Does the Government plan to respond officially to these five papers, either by a collection of Departments or centrally? If so, what is the timeline on it?

I want to pick up on remarks made on defence and security. I agree fully with what my colleagues have said on all sides of the debate. The Taoiseach said yesterday the debate on where we go with regard to permanent structured co-operation on security and defence, PESCO, is very interesting, and obviously the Government will contribute to it. This is an opportunity for Ireland to look at defence and security differently. No one is suggesting there will be any challenge to our traditional policy of being militarily non-aligned. I have never accepted the principle of neutrality. I do not think we are neutral on the question of European, Irish or western values. We are not neutral on these questions. We are non-aligned militarily. No one is suggesting there will ever be a challenge to this. No one is suggesting a common mutual defence pact a bit like the old WEU Article 4 commitments, whereby once one country is attacked another country automatically comes to its defence. No one is suggesting this, and no one is suggesting dragooning our children into a common European army, but we can do things differently to show our common cause to other member states. One could argue solidarity clauses already exist in the treaties. We could possibly have a reworking of the triple lock for circumstances where at the UN, for political reasons, for example, China and the rest cannot agree on a resolution. Perhaps it is an EU response that is required.

On the question Senator Craughwell raised on economies of scale and procurement, we have less than 0.4% spending on defence at present. It is not enough in a circumstance of threats. Even if one looks at the White Paper on Defence from some years ago, there have been rapid changes in the past two years with cybersecurity and other issues regarding terrorism.

I am aware of the debate on PESCO at present. There are things we can do which will show our solidarity to the 27 other member states, soon to be 26, which will not cut across our traditional policy. We can do these in an open, honest, transparent way rather than pretending to some people and dressing it up as neutrality when it is not.

My final remark on Brexit, knowing the committee has a lot on his plate, is that assuming we get to a deal, and I welcome what the Taoiseach said recently, it would be a disaster for Europe, the UK and especially for us if, by December, we cannot get to phase 2. We have to show a degree of flexibility around this in my view. I appreciate it is more difficult for the Government to say this. We need flexibility on the European side as well as on the British side. We need some sequencing. The question of transitioning is the most important issue at present for our businesses throughout the country. Will the Government ensure that as part of the EU negotiations an early commitment will be given on transitioning, rather than a commitment at one minute to midnight, because if that is the case we will lose so much time in the negotiations? Businesses are making their decisions now, or will have to make their decisions by the first quarter of next year. This is the challenge we face on the business front.