Mr. Matt Carthy:

The last time I attended this committee I was very critical of the Government's position on Brexit. I was critical of what I considered to be a weakness of language and a commitment to protect the entire Ireland. That changed considerably in the meantime and the Government's position improved. It is important to note that and give credit. We must also tell the Government and representatives in this House that this process must continue and we must remain vigilant. The work did not stop on 8 December, when the communiqué was agreed, and in many ways the work only started then. What we got then was not the solution to the problems Ireland is facing as a result of Brexit but we potentially got the capacity to achieve the solution. It will only happen, as Ms Anderson notes, if we are determined to ensure no part of our country is sacrificed.

We must recognise that every part of our country is threatened with economic, political and social upheaval, if the current British Government's position on Brexit and the North of Ireland. Everybody looking at this objectively at a European level that I am aware of and internationally, including in Britain, has not found a solution to the issues pertaining to our Ireland with respect to Brexit that does not include the North of Ireland remaining as part of the customs union and Single Market. Mr. Barnier put that very clearly in his most recent remarks. It needs to be the stated position, in my view, of this committee, all Irish MEPs and particularly the Irish Government.

I will touch on the future of the EU discussions that are ongoing. The Minister has organised consultation meetings but the entire project of discussion at an EU level may be a wasted opportunity. Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker effectively usurped discussions before they were even started in his so-called state of the EU address. He outlined his own position quite emphatically. It can be described as a cursory nod towards Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and other major political upheavals, with the position of the EU doing what it always intended to only, only more quickly than originally envisaged and with less democratic oversight. That can be clearly seen with the move towards Permanent Structure Co-operation, PESCO, and a so-called European defence. The vote in these Houses was rushed through with zero public debate and members might ask their constituents if they are even aware of PESCO. It is a major move with respect to Irish neutrality and it is a step away from what the EU should be doing at this time and in current political circumstances.

In my view, it should be moving towards more democracy, more accountability and more devolution to the national parliaments and not the opposite. I believe the move towards a militaristic agenda is the exact opposite of what the EU should be doing. It is the opposite of what the vast majority of EU citizens want to see happening.

The transnational lists proposal was part of that and shows a completely oblivious attitude to what citizens are looking for. They are not looking for representatives to represent 27 member states all at once. I and others present represent a constituency of 15 Irish counties. It is very hard to remain connected and engaged with the communities I am supposed to represent despite the huge amount of effort we put in to ensure we do. It is impossible to fathom a scenario where somebody could legitimately argue to represent people in eastern Germany or Latvia while at the same time representing the voters in Connemara, Inishowen or Carrickmacross.

Regarding PESCO and the EU budget, if we want to prevent the potential CAP cuts that the Commissioner has indicated may be coming down the line, an easy place to start would be to remove what is being proposed for the EU defence fund and ring-fence it for CAP and rural development.

Some of the important work taking place at European Parliament level, in which many members here have an interest, is the issue of corporate tax avoidance, tax evasion and money laundering. The European Parliament is in the process of setting up another committee following on from the committee that was established on the Panama papers, called the paradise papers committee. As Irish representatives, we need to engage on this at a number of levels. Irrespective of whether members like it, we need to acknowledge that at an EU level and internationally Ireland has gained a reputation as a facilitator of corporate tax avoidance.

We need to address two areas. One is the issue of tax sovereignty. Our party and all MEPs are on record as saying we will defend to the hilt the right of national parliaments to put in place their own tax rates and policies. The other is the issue of tax transparency and public country-by-country reporting. The two things are not the same. Sometimes Irish commentators argue that they are. It is possible to have maximum tax transparency while at the same time defending tax sovereignty.

I realise that I have gone on for longer than the Chairman might have wanted. I know there have been many debates at this committee, at the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine and in the House about the Mercosur trade agreement. Members need to be aware that Irish farmers - and I would argue the Irish domestic economy - are on the verge of being sold out by the European Commission which has already reportedly increased the offer on beef, for example, to 99,000 tonnes. The Mercosur countries are looking for 200,000 tonnes. We could, should and must now demand that the Mercosur negotiations be brought to a close. I say this as a citizen more than anything else: we have already been treated abysmally in the way the Government has dealt with the CETA trade agreement and other trade agreements. However, the Mercosur deal is the most immediate threat. We should be united in calling for those negotiations to be stopped immediately on the basis that the Commission has advised us that there will be no Mercosur trade agreement without a significant offer of beef being on the table. With the damage that will cause to Irish agriculture along with the uncertainty as a result of Brexit, that alone is a basis for us to demand that the negotiations are brought to an end.

The Irish people have repeatedly let it be known that they want to be part of the European Union. Most recently we saw that in the vote in the North where they voted to remain. I also believe the Irish people have given plenty of messages that they want the EU to change. The two things are not contradictory. I hope we can work together to ensure that all of Ireland remains part of the European Union, but that we work together to ensure it is a better and more democratic European Union.