Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a quorum. Apologies have been received from the Chairman, Deputy Dominic Hannigan, and Deputy Seán Crowe. I remind members to ensure their mobile phones are switched off as they can cause serious problems for the broadcasting system. I welcome television viewers who are watching this meeting live today on the Oireachtas channel on the UPC and Sky networks. The committee is continuing its work of considering the critical issues facing Ireland in the event of the UK deciding to exit the European Union. A referendum on that question has been promised by the UK Prime Minister if returned to power following the general election in May. It is important to say to members that the committee took the decision to examine this issue now in view of its many potential impacts on this country and the many Irish citizens living in the UK.

Today the committee's work will be divided into two different sessions. The first session will focus on the UK politics surrounding the issue of BrExit with the assistance of Baroness Quin of the House of Lords and Mr. Brendan Halligan, chairman of the Institute for International and European Affairs. The time allowed for this session is one hour until 3.30 p.m. In the second session today, we will be joined by the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Dara Murphy, to hear the Government's views on the prospects for UK-EU relations.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to make a brief comment before the meeting begins to apologise in advance. I am speaking in the Dáil in a few minutes and apologise for having to leave to our guests, the Vice Chairman and the members.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Deputy could come back after he speaks, that would be great.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee I welcome our speakers, Baroness Quin of the House of Lords and Mr. Brendan Halligan, chairman of the Institute for International and European Affairs. I look forward to hearing from them on these issues.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Baroness Quin followed by Mr. Halligan to make their opening statements of five minutes each. We were in London last week where we met two of Baroness Quin's colleagues, Lord Dubs and Baroness Scott, to discuss this issue over a lunchtime round-table discussion.

Baroness Joyce Quin:

I thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to come before it today. It is a pleasure to be here alongside Brendan Halligan as we were both colleagues in the European Parliament rather a long time ago.

I feel as if I have been involved with the European issue for a very long time having had as my first job after graduating a position in the Labour Party working on European policy. I lectured at two universities in the UK on European politics subsequently before becoming an MEP and thereafter an MP. I say that in order that the committee knows where I am coming from. I took part as a foot soldier in the referendum campaign in the 1970s, arguing for a "Yes" vote by the UK on belonging to what was then the EEC. I remember very well the arguments for and against that were made at the time. It seems a bit surprising that so many years later membership is still a controversial issue in the UK although the issues that are most often mentioned have changed over the years. I remember that in the 1970s the question of the Common Agricultural Policy was particularly prevalent in all discussions, but that takes a much lower profile these days while issues such as immigration and others have come much more to the fore. We are still taking about referendums, however.

Whether there will be an in-out referendum and whether that will take place before or after a substantial renegotiation is not clear. It is also not clear what all the terms of that renegotiation might be. Obviously, certain things are mentioned such as immigration but there has been very little discussion of areas such as how we would co-operate with other European countries on environment policy, development policy and justice and home affairs, although all of those issues are very important. We must then think about what life might be outside the European Union were there to be a referendum and were the vote to be in favour of withdrawal. Only recently has there started to be any serious consideration of what the alternatives to EU membership might be, especially in trading terms. There are a lot of questions to be asked about all of the possible alternatives, including whether we would be in the European Economic Area or simply members of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and what this would mean for our relationships with our European partners, notably those countries in the European Union with which we have a special relationship, including, of course, the Republic of Ireland.

There are many questions around at the moment and I suspect members of the committee will probably ask me some of those in this session. I again thank the members of the committee for inviting me.

Mr. Brendan Halligan:

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I will base my presentation on the synopsis of a book the institute is about to publish shortly on the changing relationship between Britain and Europe, entitled Britain and Europe: The Endgame. That expression is, of course, taken from chess and it signifies a moment when a very long game is about to come to the end. The institute’s UK project group believes this to be the case in respect of Britain and that we are coming to the end of a very long saga that began 70 years ago. We have built on two books we published previously on the matter, one in 1996 and one in 2000 under the leadership of Garret FitzGerald. Paul Gillespie was the editor on both occasions, as he is now. The current project group is being led by Dáithí O’Ceallaigh, who appeared before the committee very recently.

We take it that the common view is that Britain's very long and troubled relationship with the European Union is reaching a critical moment in history when the issue will be resolved one way or the other. We do not see this as another episode in the saga but the closing scene of a history that goes back over 70 years. There is no need to go into all of that. Members of the committee know the oscillating position, with one party in the UK being in favour of Europe and by nature the other party opposing it. One party changes its position and the other party changes its position. There is this constant oscillation of attitudes towards Europe.

To try to explain that to ourselves, we have created four scenarios to explain Britain’s relationship with Europe: a Britain that is fully in the European Union, supporting integration and participating in all policies; a Britain that is half in, generally supporting integration but not participating in things it does not want to; a Britain that is half out, opposing integration but accepting bits that suit at the time; and a Britain that is fully out, which is self-explanatory, reverting back to the pre-1973 position. For practical purposes nobody in the United Kingdom wants a fully in position. The Labour Party is in favour of being half in, while the Conservative Party clearly supports half out and many of its MPs and activists would prefer to see it fully out.

What the book is concerned about is that by a process of default, the current half-out position could morph into a fully out position without anybody noticing. In a sense we are saying this is a moment of great danger for Ireland and Europe. For that reason we end with a series of recommendations for other member states, for Europe as a whole and for us as people who are intimately involved.

We make one point on the referendum. We believe a referendum is inevitable in the immediate future irrespective of who is in government. Clearly it will happen under a Conservative-led government. The momentum is so great that we do not see a Labour-led government being able to withstand it. On the other hand, British legislation would require a referendum were it to be a substantial transfer of sovereignty from any member state to the European Union. In other words, we think this will happen.

Therefore, we had better prepare for the inevitable. We have started by looking at the demands the Conservative Prime Minister has placed on the rest of the Union. We are all familiar with his Bloomberg speech, augmented by the Daily Telegrapharticle. As far as we can see, there are seven demands in all: two relating to borders, two dealing with business and trade, and three focussed on the recovery and preservation of sovereignty. We believe these demands boil down to a simple proposition: Britain has no intention of taking on responsibilities for which it has already received or won a derogation, such as on the euro. It does not want to assume any new commitments, such as banking union, and it wishes to be relieved of some of its existing obligations, such as the free movement of persons. It wants to recast the rights and obligations of EU membership on its own terms. It is also clear that while changing its terms of membership is a central objective, membership of the Single Market is the overriding objective. It wants to stay inside the Single Market to have access to European markets. However, there is a problem in this regard because access to the Single Market has a price and, quite frankly, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, is not willing to pay that price.

However, there is more to it than the Single Market. As expressed in the Bloomberg speech and repeated in the Daily Telegrapharticle, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, does not wish Britain to participate any further in the process of ever-closer Union among the peoples of Europe. The problem with that is it goes to the very heart of EU membership since ever-closer Union is the first objective of the treaties and one to which Britain solemnly subscribed when it became a member in 1973. The key point is that British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, wants to freeze Britain’s membership of the Union at the point at which it is now. More than that, he wants to freeze the European Union at its current state of development. That is a complete misunderstanding of what the European Union is. It is an open-ended dynamic organisation, forever widening its membership, extending its policy agenda and deepening the interdependence of its member states, of which the euro is the most visible expression. The eurozone has become the real core of the European Union. As it furthers its integration, of course, and as Britain stays still, then the distance between Britain and the rest simply gets bigger.

The book suggests that the referendum offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deal with this dilemma. We suggest coming up with a bespoke solution for the United Kingdom which will endure indefinitely and bring these repeated crises to an end. I think that people will need to swallow hard here and accept that Britain will never join the euro, the Schengen area, the fiscal compact and so on. That should be explicitly accepted by the other member states and would meet the demand that Britain, at least under the Conservatives, would not be required to go any further with closer Union. Where we really need imaginative solutions are on border controls. This could be done by marrying Britain’s desire to be a full member of the Single Market with the common need to protect the Union’s common borders from terrorist infiltration, as well as the common need to limit welfare tourism and control mass immigration. Bundled together and adding in energy and cyber security, we could have a "security union", of which Britain would be a full member. President Juncker has proposed to create a capital markets union and obviously the UK would be a member of that. All in all, the European Union would have four core functions of which Britain would be a member of three. It would not be a member of the economic and monetary union but would be a member of the Single Market, the security union and the capital markets union. That might be sufficient to keep it inside.

I have a word of warning about lists such as those to which we have referred. I said there were seven demands that we could identify from the speech and the article. Lists can be very misleading because they cloak the underlying reasons for Britain's opposition to Europe, which are cultural and psychological and are borne of a very complicated past and bred of a complex future. In politics we all know there are publicly expressed good reasons for doing or not doing something, but behind that there are always the real reasons, usually unexpressed. In the case of Britain, or more specifically England, the real reasons have been expressed by no less a person than Winston Churchill as long ago as the late 1920s and early 1930s when he said: "We are with Europe, but not of it." In other words, it wants to be in but out at the same time. If one was to be unkind one could say have one's cake and eat it at the same time. That is why the lists keep moving and it is very difficult to pin down what exactly the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, wants.

If is self-evident that withdrawal would be a huge blow to the European Union and would cause particular difficulties not least for Ireland but Northern Ireland in particular. We believe that if Britain opts to leave the European Union, Scotland will almost certainly demand a separate referendum and it is almost inevitable it will decide to remain inside the European Union, at which point the United Kingdom will break up and the result could be the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland, which would make Northern Ireland an orphan. This would create a huge range of economic issues for Ireland, as detailed at length in a number of chapters in the book. Also examined in the book, and referred to earlier by Baroness Quin, is Britain's future relationship with the European Union. In this regard we have identified approximately seven models, all of which would be difficult for Ireland and many of which can only be regarded as fantasy solutions to Britain's problems.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both witnesses for their opening statements. I remind members that the purpose of this meeting is not to interfere in any way in the forthcoming election or to suggest how anyone might vote but to discuss the implications of a referendum or exit on Ireland.

Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I regret that I have to leave the meeting soon but I look forward to reading the delegates' responses next week when the blacks of the proceedings of today's meeting are available. I welcome Baroness Quin, whom I met briefly prior to the meeting, and Mr. Halligan whom we all know by reputation and is held in great regard throughout the country. I also thank them both for their presentations.

Following on from Mr. Halligan's presentation, we share the view that it would be a big blow to Europe if the UK, which along with France and Germany is one of the three big players in Europe, were to leave the Union. It would be a blow to the entire European project which has at its core the ambition of achieving and maintaining peace and integration in Europe, improving prosperity and ensuring adequate food supply and so on. It would also be a pity if that happened, particularly in the context of Anglo-Irish relations. I am sure that Baroness Quin will be aware that Anglo-Irish relations, in the history of our two countries, have never been better. Anglo-Irish relations are now tremendously cordial. Rapport and kinship between the two countries is very strong, as are trading, commercial and tourism links and family ties. It would be a pity if, at a time when our relations are excellent, anything were to happen to separate us again, if not emotionally, then in practical terms. It would also not be helpful to the further cementing of good relations.

As a Border representative and Deputy for Cavan-Monaghan, I have a specific interest in the implications of the UK's withdrawal from the EU on the Border area. For example, would issues such as passport control and customs again become difficult? As a result of the current weak state of the euro, there are exciting opportunities for that region in terms of attracting business and customers from across the Border, including Internet business. Perhaps the delegates would give their assessment of the implications of a withdrawal by the UK from Europe on the Border counties, North and South, which areas have suffered hugely because of the conflict in Northern Ireland, and how far back it would set the clock? Currently the Border is not a commercial or economic reality. I am interested in hearing the delegates' views on how the withdrawal of the UK from Europe would apply practically.

We are all aware that negotiations on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP, which is the trade agreement between the USA and Canada and Europe, are sluggish and slow. Intelligence reports suggest achievement of agreement will be a long-term process. Given the delegates are expert in this area, in the unhappy event, in Ireland's case, of the UK leaving the EU, is it likely the UK will independently negotiate a trade agreement with the USA and Canada and, if so, what would be the implications of that for Ireland? I found interesting Mr. Halligan's thoughts on the measures he believed would alleviate the UK's difficulties. I had the privilege of studying history at school. I agree with Mr. Halligan that there are deep-seated cultural and historical reasons at the root of all of the UK's objections. I found his comments in that regard fascinating. It is not an issue that has up to now been raised with the committee. I agree with Mr. Halligan's remarks in that regard. I also found the seven pointers he referenced very interesting. As stated by other colleagues, it is important the negotiations continue in an effort to stave off the ultimate difficulty.

If Baroness Quin or Mr. Halligan can suggest ways we could practically assist without interfering or causing any damage, we would be delighted to do so. I again apologise for having to leave the meeting at this point.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome our visitors, all of whom are experts in this particular field. Their contributions over the years are unequalled. I am conscious of the need for us not to interfere in an election process in a neighbouring jurisdiction. We need always to be very careful not to do that. When one considers the implications of this issue, it can be equated to a bad hangover in that in the event of following a certain route, one inevitably ends up with a hangover. It would be much better if in the first instance we did not have to go that route and obviate the need for any remedial action.

My questions are similar to those raised numerous times with other delegates over recent weeks. Do Europeans really realise what is involved? Does Ireland and do all other members states, including the UK, recognise the magnitude of the task at hand and the implications of the UK following that route? Do we in Ireland recognise the full implications of what it entails for us, Britain, Northern Ireland and the European Union? Do we fully recognise the implications for the European Union as an entity, which as Mr. Halligan said has grown immeasurably over the past 70 years, and in the right direction? Where are we as Europeans now headed? Do we realise where we might go if we continue in this direction? Is this a first stage in a gradual chipping away from the European entity? Does it mean that a particular country might leave today and another might leave tomorrow, all based on good, domestic political reasons that can be justified? Is it inevitable that the European Union will disintegrate? To my mind, it is.

Many times we have discussed, including with Baroness Quin and Mr. Halligan, that there is no movement in the United States for any state to cede from that union. I have often wondered why that is the case. During my lifetime, and perhaps that of many here in this room today, that union has grown.

It has grown for very good reasons - power, strength, cohesion, unity and avoidance of conflict. These were and still are very good reasons. The European Union is based on the premise of eliminating war, food shortages and doing all the things that would be good in a society. Do we realise where we might find ourselves in ten or 15 years time? Given the unrest at present and the undercurrent that we have not seen for many years, one can realistically draw a comparison with what happened in the 1930s following the roaring 1920s. Many people were disappointed by the way society was going and looked for somebody to blame. In the United States President Roosevelt gave guidance. Based on past experience European leaders have shown themselves, when left to their own devices, to be extremely divisive and extremely anxious to achieve improvements for themselves vis-à-visothers. I do not think that can lead anywhere except to disaster.

I believe in the single currency and that participation in the eurozone should have been an objective for the entire European Union. There is no argument whatsoever that will ever convince me that having a single currency across the Europea Union is not better than having a multiplicity of currencies. I hold the United States up as an example.

In the event that other European Union member states have a tendency toward eurosceptism or anti-Europe sentiments, where would it lead them? What example would they follow? Would they follow the same path and would it then not be inevitable that the European Union, as we have come to know it, would disappear? I had the privilege, as I am sure some of my colleagues had, of meeting some of the founding fathers of the modern Europe. When I think of their aspirations, the basis on which they moved forward and the way they put old animosities behind them in the interests of unity and the exceptionally brave actions they took in the political climate, they pushed ahead for very good reasons. Will all of this work be put at nil in proceeding in the direction in which the United Kingdom is now headed?

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I extend a warm welcome to Baroness Joyce Quin, Mr. Brendan Halligan who served in the Dáil during my time in that Chamber, Ms Linda Barry and Mr. Paul Gillespie who has written on the subject extensively for many years.

In case those viewing the proceedings take things out of context, let me assure them there is no immediacy about the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. There will be a general election there on 7 May. It will be a tough fight and a hard fought election and I wish all candidates in the mother of democracy every success in the campaign. We are conscious of the commitment given by the leader of the Conservative Party that, on being returned to power, he will hold a referendum on EU membership in 2017. That is the reason we are working actively on the issue at the Joint Committee on European Affairs. We want to put in the work before the horse bolts. Mr. Gillespie's book is well researched and worthwhile. I have read the extracts which outline what happened in the past and look forward to the future.

Although what we are facing is not immediate, it is a possibility. The Government, including the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, are quite determined. We worked on the issue at the weekend. I thank the committee secretariat, the Chairman and members who participated in discussions in London with interested parties. Ireland will not be indifferent to a decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. We have a vested interest in the continuation of its work in the European Union. The then Minister, former Deputy Desmond O'Malley, delegated me as Minister of State in the 1990s to lead the Irish delegation in the negotiations on the Single European Act. As I recall it, one of the Conservative Ministers, Mr. John Redwood, was actively involved in the negotiations, but for some reason, those who were involved are not prepared to admit or take credit for the detailed negotiations undertaken at that time. All of the documents are in the archives. In response to the late Dr. Garret FitzGerald who said he would love to publish all of the documentation of the European Union, I said nobody would read it because the process had been long-winded. Ireland had its top team of civil servants, including the current ambassador to the United Kingdom, Mr. Dan Mulhall, who worked hand in glove with the British. Irish and British interests coincided and we negotiated what was a very good Single European Act in the interests of the European Union, Britain and Ireland. Let the Conservative Party take credit for what it has already achieved in this regard, instead of walking away as if it had nothing to do with the negotiations at the time. Its wonderful team worked extremely hard.

In the event of there being a referendum on membership of the European Union, there will be negotiations to meet the requirements of the Government at the time. The adjustments required will be the subject of negotiations. We wish that process success. The issue will then be put to the British people. The European Union must outline exactly what benefits have accrued to the United Kingdom since 1973. We know what we have achieved in the Republic through our participation in the European Union. Ireland is an attractive location for inward investment. An example of how successful we are in working with the European Union is the announcement by Apple to invest €850 million in Athenry. From speaking to people in Britain, I know that they are not conscious of the benefits in being a member of the European Union. They are not aware of all the contributions that have been made. The Republic of Ireland should make a case to the people of Britain on the benefits of EU membership. I would have no hesitation in travelling to Britain to canvass the Diaspora and warn of the dangers of a "Yes" vote in a referendum. It would be in order to do this. We would not be interfering in the affairs of Britain; we would be working together toward a united Europe in that regard.

The uncertainty caused by the announcement by the British Prime Minister is not doing Britain any good as far as inward investment is concerned. It raises a doubt about the continuation of the United Kingdom in the European Union. This destabilises negotiations on inward investment, which is unfortunate. We will await the outcome of the general election. I am not putting questions to the delegates, but I hope that in sharing my experience we are opening dialogue on the issue. We do not have the answers.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator and all those who have contributed. I invite Baroness Quin who will be followed by Mr. Halligan to respond to the questions asked and comments made by members.

Baroness Joyce Quin:

I thank the Vice Chairman. Obviously, a large number of issues have been raised and I will try to touch on a few of them.

Deputy Joe O'Reilly stated it would be a big blow if the United Kingdom was to vote to leave the European Union, a view with which I concur. I am perhaps less pessimistic about the certainty of a referendum being held than Mr. Halligan. It is more than likely there will be a referendum. If there is a referendum, the result is likely to be a vote in favour of continuation as a member of the European Union. I say this because once one has a big open debate with discussions up and down the country, as happened in the 1970s, the unattractiveness of being outside the European Union, particularly in the context of trade, will be brought home to people.

Public opinion is in an interesting state as far as the European Union is concerned. It has been very negative towards the European Union for a while, but recently the movement has been somewhat more in favour of staying in the Union.

One has to look behind the headline figures on public opinion. For example, in my old parliamentary constituency there was a difference in view between people who because of their employment were more familiar with the European Union and others. There were many in the constituency who worked in the very successful Nissan car plant in the north east of England. No matter what job they held in the firm, they were very much aware that Nissan was in the United Kingdom in order to have access to the European market. In the course of their daily work most of them were dealing in euro rather than pounds. There would be a different debate if the publicity considered regions where there were industries which thrived because the United Kingdom was in the European Union Single Market, including supplier industries and the overall employment linked with these industries. Having been Europe Minister, I remember vividly that, although the newspapers were full of horror stories about the European Union, I received almost no letters from my constituents about it. On the whole, they raised matters to do with health, employment, education and so on. In terms of public opinion, we need to think deeply about this.

The transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP, was mentioned in the context of whether, if the United Kingdom was outside the European Union, it would try to have an independent deal with the United States. It is possible that it would, although it seems that, even though we have a close relationship with the United States, it is much more difficult to argue from a position of strength if one is not part of the European Union Single Market.

In respect of alternatives that might be raised in a public debate, some people in the United Kingdom look enviously at Norway, but its economy and size are very different from those of the United Kingdom. It is a striking fact that Norway is the tenth largest contributor to the EU budget because in order to have access to the Single Market, it must pay quite a substantial fee and it is also bound by EU trade rules without having a seat at the table and being able to negotiate the rules. When these issues become public knowledge more than they are now, it will influence the debate.

Mr. Halligan and members of the committee have mentioned that the European Union has grown significantly. I agree, although it has grown in certain ways that were not foreseeable at the time such as the measures on the environment which were not thought of in the early days because the environment and climate change were not such big issues at the time.

In terms of there being an ever closer union, the record is mixed, partly because of the very welcome enlargement of the European Union and it is quite hard to enlarge and deepen at exactly the same time. Mr. Halligan and I are old enough to remember when Economic and Monetary Union was designed to come into effect by 1980. It did not and there are many provisions in the Treaty of Rome about harmonisation of taxation which have never come about. We have to see the reality and clarify in the context of the debate in the United Kingdom that it is a democratic structure, that there is no inevitability that certain things will be created. Therefore, we should not be too alarmed or frightened about rushing helter-skelter into an overarching European government which would tell us all what to do every minute of the day. That is not justified by its history.

Senator Terry Leyden said something about archives and the debate which took place in the past. Reading some of the records is a salutary experience. In Britain people tend to say we only joined a free trade area and that now we are lumbered with unpleasant changes. In fact, we had been, with Ireland, part of the European free trade area and at the time the debate was about the contrast between a free trade area and the European Economic Community as it was then known. It may make me sound like a rather sad nerd, but before I came here, I read some of the debates that had taken place in the House of Commons in the 1970s before the referendum was held and they were not just about a free trade area, they were about a great deal more than this, including worries about the loss of sovereignty, agriculture and fisheries policy and so on. People need to be reminded that these things did take place and I hope we can learn from the archives and the information mentioned.

Mr. Brendan Halligan:

It is a great pleasure to be sitting beside Baroness Joyce Quin again in a parliament building. We were both members of the socialist group which at the time was the largest in the European Parliament. We were present in the chamber in Strasbourg when President Mitterand made his famous speech in April 1984 which effectively relaunched the European movement and led to the creation of the Single European Act. Senator Terry Leyden has said the Act was brought about on foot of publication of the famous Cockfield White Paper which contained, I think, over 330 proposals for various directives to create a single market. He was British and had been appointed by Mrs. Thatcher. The Single Market is most assuredly the creation of the United Kingdom, about which Jacques Delors was always very clear. Senator Terry Leyden’s point that the Conservative Party, in particular, should be reminded of its own history is very important and one it should celebrate. In the most recent conversations with senior figures in the Conservative Party the exact opposite is the case. Unfortunately, the reputations of Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Heath have suffered a great deal as a consequence of their having initiated the process of joining.

Psychologically, I am not too happy about what is going on in the United Kingdom. The Baroness called herself a “sad nerd”. I join her by saying that in preparation for this meeting I re-read parts of the memoirs of Jean Monnet, probably the political autobiography of all time which I read frequently. The section I read last night was a page and a half in which he analysed the British psyche. It is very well worthwhile reading it. It was written over 30 years ago and deals with the psychology of Britain's history and the special role it has conceived for itself. He was always quite relaxed about how to approach the United Kingdom. He said eventually it would follow the facts but that the facts had to be created. I am not so sanguine.

For Deputy Joe O'Reilly when he reads the report on this debate, I could not overemphasise the significance of the point about culture. When we go to lists to read something particular about the movement of this or that or the size of something in the context of the trade relationship, it is completely missing the point.

The second book, Blair's Britain, England's Europe, says that the problem for the United Kingdom and Europe is England's problem; it is not the Scottish problem or the Welsh problem or clearly, not Northern Ireland's problem. It is an English problem and for that we require to understand the psyche, the psychology of England and in particular, of English politics. There are not too many people better attuned and equipped to do that than the Irish, for all sorts of reasons. The answer to the question about what we should be doing to bring about a resolution of this dilemma, is that we should be both explaining to our friends in the United Kingdom what we think the rest of Europe is looking for of them or is prepared to give them, and we should also be speaking to the rest of Europe about what the UK is looking for. We should act as an interlocutor, an interpreter, going both ways. That means we have to be very careful about ourselves.

In conclusion, Deputy O'Reilly raised the point about the Border. At my age I can think back to when the Border actually existed and when one had to physically go through it. I remember visiting Belfast for the first time as a teenager in the 1950s. I do not think any of us wants to get back to that time because what would happen would be that the physical border would be reimposed for a start. That would mean no free movement of people or, indeed, of animals, except those that can be moved across the Border in ways which are not completely legal. There would be a new fiscal border. All the customs formalities would be reinstated at a huge cost. There would be a breakdown of the joint island economy which has emerged and it would be again separated into two economies. Supply chains would be broken. It would be catastrophic.

I note with interest that Deputy O' Reilly used the expression that the clock would be turned back, which is actually the term used in our report. I am afraid that turning it back would lead to a situation where the two communities in the North of Ireland would neither communicate nor co-operate with each other. The fragility of the Northern Ireland solution is one of which we should be very conscious. I completely agree with Deputy O'Reilly's point that in circumstances where Britain were to withdraw, the whole context for Anglo-Irish relations would be profoundly changed and brought back to what it was before 1973. We are now in a win-win situation, we are both on the same team and we are trying to work out solutions in common. We often take the same point as Deputy O'Reilly made.

Our bilateral relations are influenced by multilateral relations. I am old enough to remember what it was like dealing with London before we were part of the European Union, especially in the 1960s. I can only tell members that it was not always a happy relationship. As a young general secretary trying to establish for the first time a working relationship with my dear comrades in the British Labour Party, we were not always warmly received. Joyce Quin, Baroness Quin, was one of those who warmly received us but it was hard going. We were reminded from time to time just how small we were in relation to our partner. It was not a very happy history.

The biggest loss would be in the area of Anglo-Irish relations. For that reason, we have got to do something daring and imaginative to make sure it does not happen. That calls for a special role for Ireland inside the European Council because it will be inside the European Council room, presided over by Donald Tusk, that the solutions will be worked out. The key person is the Taoiseach of the day, as well as in the General Affairs Council, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We need to have a very clear idea of selling to other member states that we must do a special deal with the United Kingdom that does not apply to anyone else. We will all have to swallow it because the alternative is so awful.

Deputy O'Reilly and others asked whether this does not create a precedent. That is the danger because without question it does and we will have to deal with that question. What is termed Euroscepticism had better be renamed and I hope the chairman will be very clear about terminology. What is called Euroscepticism is really nationalism. It is the rise of nationalism in a virulent form in many of the member states which we had succeeded in eliminating until very recently. What we are really battling is the rise of nationalism in the United Kingdom which is English nationalism. It is not very attractive in some of its formats. We need to explain to our continental colleagues that there is profound danger within England, in particular, which we will need to help both the Conservative Party and the British Labour Party in overcoming.

I thank members for their questions and for their interest. Like Gay Byrne on the "Late Late Show", all I can say in respect of the book is that there will be a copy for everyone in the audience. Members can have a soft copy almost immediately and the hard copy will be available within two weeks. If members want to know anything further about the book they should ask the editor, Paul Gillespie.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Halligan for that generous offer. We look forward to reading the book. I thank Mr. Halligan and Baroness Quin for their contributions which have been very informative. I propose that we suspend the meeting briefly in order to allow a change of witnesses. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next session will be to hear a statement from the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, on the Irish Government's view of the prospects for UK-EU relations. I welcome the Minister of State to the meeting. The committee has been holding a series of meetings on the possibility of so-called, BrExit, the possible exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The committee visited London last Monday and Tuesday when we met with the Minister of State's counterpart, Mr. Lidington and a number of MPs and Members of the House of Lords. We met members of the Irish community at an event hosted by the Irish ambassador, Mr. Mulhall.

I invite the Minister of State to make his opening statement.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Vice Chairman and other members of the joint committee for inviting me here to be a part of this process. At the outset, I wish to compliment the committee on its work in this area. Committee members visited the UK last week undertaking an extensive programme of engagements. Yesterday, I had a conversation about that with Senator Leyden and also, in the past 20 minutes, with Senator Hayden. I look forward to seeing the committee's report, including the transcript of today's proceedings. I acknowledge the presence of members of the diplomatic corps at this meeting.

The UK’s relationship with the EU is undoubtedly a subject of significant importance, as is the UK's relationship with Ireland. Irrespective of our party affiliation, we all recognise that the UK’s continued membership of the Union is very important in the context of our own country’s continued economic, political and social well-being. So it is heartening that we are all working together to identify the issues that arise and safeguard the interests of our own country and people. The committee's hearings in recent weeks have made a significant contribution to this process and I appreciate the hard work that has been done so far and which continues to be undertaken.

Given what the committee has already accomplished, my intention today is not to repeat what members have heard in previous weeks. Instead, I will focus on the Government’s approach to the EU-UK question. I am conscious that we have much to learn from this committee. I have already referred to the engagement that a delegation from the committee had in London earlier this week, which was an important part of the process.

I want to start by addressing a seemingly trivial point but an important one nonetheless. We are here to officially consider the United Kingdom's possible exit from the European Union. On the face of it there is nothing wrong with this, but I would much prefer if the agenda read: “United Kingdom: Keeping Britain in the European Union”. That is because our focus, across our political system and across Ireland, needs to be on keeping the UK in the Union, rather than preparing for the consequences of its departure.

That is not to say we cannot do both at the same time - we can - but Ireland should be sending strong, positive messages about the benefits of continued British membership of the EU, especially, to be blunt, in terms of the relationship between our two islands. That is how we can best make a constructive contribution to the debate in Britain. It helps us to avoid lending weight to the negative notion that a UK withdrawal from the EU is somehow inevitable. That is something which I, for one, certainly do not accept.

What is the Government’s fundamental approach to the EU-UK question? The first point to make is this: British membership of the EU is absolutely in Ireland’s best interests. That conviction underpins the messaging, the diplomacy and the strategy when it comes to addressing this question. Everything we do is predicated on the belief that we want the UK to remain in the Union. This committee has already heard evidence in recent weeks as to why this is the case. Instead of repeating much of that, I will briefly outline four key ways in which we benefit from our joint membership of the European Union.

The first is our economy. The UK is our biggest trading partner, by far, with which we trade over €1 billion worth of goods and services every week. The publication in 2013 of the results of the joint UK-Ireland economic study – the genesis of which is to be found in the March 2012 joint statement of the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister – set out clearly the nature and depth of that economic relationship. For example, the UK is the destination for 16% of Irish industrial exports and is also the largest recipient of service exports with an 18.5% share. Nearly 200,000 Irish jobs, representing 10% of total Irish employment, depend on that close economic relationship which, in itself, is partly dependent on the fact that our two economies operate under the common umbrella of the EU’s single market. No matter what the sector, be it agriculture, pharmaceuticals or financial services, Ireland benefits from working with the UK under the EU’s common economic framework. We therefore cannot afford the potential deep uncertainty that would inevitably result from a fundamental change in the EU-UK relationship, let alone the concrete difficulties which could arise.

The second factor is the strength of the wider British-Irish relationship. Our shared membership of the EU has played a vital, if often underestimated, role in bringing our two countries closer together. Working together, side by side, within the EU apparatus helps to forge bonds and cement ties between our political systems and administrations. That relationship could not but suffer if we were no longer part of the same European club.

The third factor is Northern Ireland, where the EU has been a genuine force for good, something which is often overlooked. It has helped to foster peace and reconciliation, and has provided a framework for co-operation, including between North and South, and between Unionists and Nationalists. As a wider Union of which we are all members, the EU has silently but seamlessly buttressed the peace process. That is something which should not be forgotten, notwithstanding the great contribution of other countries such as the United States.

The fourth factor is the fact that the UK is an important friend and ally within the EU, in many ways our most important friend and ally. On account of our shared history, similar economic model and common-law legal systems, Ireland and the UK think similarly when it comes to a range of policy areas, such as trade, the digital single market, better regulation, and co-operation on police and justice matters. We are therefore frequently allies when it comes to hammering out agreements at the Brussels negotiating tables and we often rely on each other’s support.

A British exit from the EU would therefore be a serious blow to the protection and promotion of Ireland’s interests within Europe and, thus, to our strategic position within the EU itself. It is no wonder, therefore, that we feel so strongly about the merits of British membership. The stakes are so high that we need to take a proactive, determined and consistent public approach on this. That is exactly what the Government has been doing and continues to do.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, outlined our concerns and why the debate matters so much to Ireland in a major speech to the European Council on Foreign Relations in London last November. The Taoiseach has reinforced these points on several occasions, most recently to Irish ambassadors in Dublin Castle. Other Ministers have outlined our views too, including last Friday when the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, spoke about the importance of the EU for our relations with the UK, at an event organised by the British-Irish Chamber of Commerce.

Despite the often loud exchanges that characterise discussions on this question across Europe, we know that our messages are reaching our European partners. However, our diplomatic campaign on this extends to far more than set-piece speeches. As virtually ever Minister will attest, the EU-UK relationship figures prominently and regularly in bilateral discussions with our international counterparts, whether EU or non-EU. While we are never slow to raise it ourselves, because of our close strategic relationship with the UK, others often look to us as well for insights on the debate in Britain. I can attest to that myself as, last week, I was in Riga and Helsinki where our opinion on the UK question is valued and frequently sought.

The most important partner, however, is the UK itself. While ultimately the nature of its relationship with the EU is for those in the UK to decide, we try to ensure that they are fully aware of, and sensitive to, the concerns of their nearest neighbour. To that end, we have already had a number of productive discussions, both at political and senior official level. Most notably, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, had a substantive exchange in December in Dublin with the British Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, MP, where they addressed the intricacies of the debate and the Irish dimension to it.

I have discussed the matter with my British counterpart, David Lidington, whom the committee met earlier this week, as well as the British ambassador to Ireland, Dominick Chilcott. Of course, discussions will only get us so far. That is why we have been examining what further steps we can take to help the UK to remain firmly within the Union.

As a starting point, which was highlighted in the Dáil last week by the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, we are continuing to work closely with our British partners, as well as other similarly minded EU states, on those policy issues where we share the same interests. The main British political parties have all made it clear that the achievement of common EU economic aims is a key goal and will help strengthen the case for UK's continued membership. For Ireland, this means that we should seek to progress on matters such as the digital Single Market, the completion of trade negotiations with third countries, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, and the move to a more streamlined approach to EU regulation. These are all goals that we wish to achieve anyway, but now they have the added bonus of helping to anchor the United Kingdom within the Union.

The UK might also seek changes to the way in which the EU functions or operates. In this respect much will depend on the outcome of the forthcoming British general election in May. It is fair to say that nobody here today would be surprised if a British agenda for change in one guise or another is presented soon after the election. While I do not wish to engage in needless speculation on hypothetical scenarios, the likelihood is that the outcome of any subsequent negotiations between the UK and the EU on this agenda could be material in determining whether our British friends remain in the Union.

For its part, Ireland will take a pragmatic approach when it comes to considering any such proposals. We are always open, as we should be, to effecting sensible changes to the Union that could improve the way it works for the 500 million Europeans. This is only normal. We have a shared collective interest in getting the EU to function as efficiently and effectively as possible. We also recognise, as the European Council has done, that the UK has some legitimate concerns that should not be ignored. Ireland will be sympathetic and supportive when it comes to addressing those, especially because the UK remains our closest friend and ally in Europe. This does not mean that we should write blank cheques; far from it. True friendship requires both parties to be fully honest with each other, so if and when we believe a UK proposal would be unrealistic or damaging either to our national interests or to the broader functioning of the EU, we will be direct, candid and forthright in saying so. For example, the Government has already made it clear that it considers freedom of movement to be a cornerstone of the European Union. We therefore could not, and should not, support anything that would undermine or weaken it. That is not to say that we would reject out of hand any reforms to this, British or otherwise. We should always be prepared to consider proposals on their merits, so long as this fundamental principle is properly protected and respected.

I assure the committee that all of the areas I have outlined are the focus of ongoing reflection and analysis within the Government. Government Departments are examining the matter on an ongoing basis, and our embassy in London is also very heavily engaged. There is concerted and significant activity under way to ensure we best understand the issues at stake. Ultimately the question of the UK's future in the European Union can only be resolved by the British people and their government. I am fully respectful of this democratic reality, as I am sure the committee is also. However, there is no question of us avoiding the debate. We have far too much at stake for that. Accordingly, we will continue to contribute to it as constructively as possible.

In conclusion, it has been a pleasure to speak today on this extremely important subject, which is obviously of particular importance to this committee. I hope I have been able to add some value to the many distinguished speakers who have appeared before the committee before my attendance today. It is essential that this committee, the Government and the Opposition continue to exchange views and ideas as the issue evolves. I appreciate that I have gone a little over time, but I will be happy to take questions from the members.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. We have been left in no doubt of the Government's views on our important relationship and its wishes that Britain would remain strong within the European Union. I call Senator Leyden.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a short point to raise, as I must leave for another engagement. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy. We met him in the Seanad yesterday when we had a brief discussion on the situation. I concur fully with his speech and with his remarks about the support of the Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He has outlined the correct approach, and we will stay with that script. This committee is very conscious that it should not be seen to interfere in any way with the decision to be taken in the general election on 7 May, but beyond that we will have a respectful approach to what will happen. We are preparing, and that is the key point. We must plan ahead, be conscious of where we stand and try to alleviate the fears and concerns of the ordinary people in the UK at that point in time. At present, however, what the Minister has outlined is an extremely good blueprint for where this Government, and any future Government, should stand. We are very united as far as Europe is concerned. Our approach is united regarding where our interests, that is, Ireland Inc., lie in Europe. We are very close in what we do and I believe every Member of the Oireachtas would be of the same opinion. I regret I must leave but I welcome and concur with everything in the Minister's statement.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and his colleagues and I congratulate the Minister on the content of his address. It was very positive, as it should be and as we would have expected given the Minister's previous membership of this committee.

It is good to see the Government taking this stance. Of course, there is no other stance to take. I believe there is no other stance for Europe to take, but that matter will be decided by the British people. In the discourse between the Irish and British Governments to what extent do we, and can we, encourage our parliamentary colleagues in the UK regarding the need to recognise the importance of membership of the Union for the UK, that is, the importance from its point of view, our point of view, the point of view of Northern Ireland and the point of view of Europe? How well is that being received, and how well will it be received?

Also, to what degree can the Minister and his colleagues convince other European member states, which might have like-minded tendencies? For example, we were told by a representative of a committee some time ago that a certain number of European governments tend to liaise with each other on the basis that they have a common theme, and that euroscepticism, anti-Europeanism or nationalism, whatever one wishes to call it, is growing. To what extent do we liaise with Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, all of which have shown some reticence in this area in recent times? How convincing can we be? Can we make serious impacts in terms of canvassing support from those countries within the European Union which might have a tendency to go elsewhere as well?

There are many Members of the European Parliament who are openly anti-European or eurosceptic. What measures have been taken within the European Union by each member state to identify the reasons for the growth in euroscepticism? There must be some reason for it, apart from the growth of nationalism which was referred to earlier. There are consequences. If we reach a situation where everybody is opposed to Europe, and the public representatives who are elected to the European Parliament show there is a huge degree of reticence towards the European project, that is bound to impact in a negative way. That is the basis for my asking whether it has been found possible to address the issues that appear to cause the problem of anti-European sentiments. There are different reasons in different countries. However, just because it becomes fashionable to be anti-European, it does not necessarily mean it is right. I will be interested to hear the Minister's response.

To what extent have we convinced our colleagues of the financial and economic cost to Europe, to Britain and to Ireland of a British exit from the EU? That short and simple question pertains to something that resonates with most people eventually. It is all right to fantasise about things of this nature. It is all right to be jingoistic from time to time. It sounds good. It is great rhetoric and all that kind of stuff. However, it is hugely important that we recognise the financial or economic implications of such an approach.

It is imperative that each EU member state recognise the importance of maintaining the European project. Any deviation from the European visions, ideals and objectives that were set out by the founding fathers many years ago could have permanent and lasting consequences, perhaps not immediately, that would have a disastrous impact not just on the EU but on the entire continent of Europe.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy. It is very good that we have an opportunity to explore the Irish Government's perspective on this issue at a reasonably early stage in the process. As the Minister of State said, there is no other country that would be as affected by a potential British exit as Ireland would be. That is true for a number of reasons, not least of which is that we are a small open economy on the periphery of Europe. Britain is also an island nation. We have the same peripheral interests, to some extent. Maybe the centre of power in Europe has shifted to further to the east than it was when we joined. Apart from anything else, it is very important for us that Britain stay in the EU because it is a friend, colleague and ally, is also an English-speaking country, also comes from a common law tradition and shares many of the same interests as Ireland. In that context, it is worth mentioning the common border, the North-South issue, trade, and all the other matters the Minister of State has mentioned. Does the Irish Government want a referendum in the UK? We know the political realities. The Conservative Party has indicated that it will have a referendum. The Labour Party has indicated that if there is any move towards a closer Europe, it will put a referendum to the British people. Ultimately, there is a likelihood that there will be a referendum in the UK, regardless of whether this happens today, tomorrow, two years from now or four years from now.

I looked briefly at the paper submitted by Mr. Brendan Halligan. I would like to pick up on an interesting comment he made. I would have some sympathy with his view that Britain's half-in-half-out relationship with the EU over the last decade is not particularly helpful for the future of the EU. It can be argued that it would not necessarily be any harm, in the wider European interest and potentially in our own interest, to draw a line under this. That would enable all of us to move on with the European project, regardless of whether that project is moving towards a closer Union or perhaps towards a less close Union, as some of the proposed British reforms would be indicate. I suppose that is my first question. Does the Irish Government have a view on whether we want this matter to be concluded by means of referendum? If we want it to be concluded in that way, do we want it to be concluded sooner or later? Is there a cost associated with all of this indecision over a period of time? If so, is it a cost to the UK and not necessarily to us? Do we have a particular view on this?

We are all aware that there is a shopping list in terms of the UK renegotiation. The Minister of State mentioned some of the items on that list. Could he expand on his understanding of what the items on that shopping list are? He indicated that we would be prepared to assist the UK with certain matters on its agenda, but perhaps not with others. He suggested that we might not have much sympathy with the UK's freedom of movement concerns, for example. I suggest that those concerns relate not to freedom of movement per sebut to some people's freedom of movement for the purposes of welfare tourism. I refer to the idea of people being entitled to benefits in the UK without ever having worked in that country or earned social protection stamps or other benefits there. Could the Minister of State outline what he understands the shopping list to be? Which items on that list do we have sympathy with? Which items do we have no sympathy with? If the Minister of State answers by saying it is a developing concept I will understand, but it would be good if he could give any indication in this regard.

I would like to ask the Minister of State about our position on any renegotiation of the UK's membership of the EU. Clearly, much of the work on any renegotiation will be done in advance of any potential UK exit, if that is what happens. Does the Minister of State genuinely think there is any real recognition among our European colleagues of our particular interest in this? It does not seem to me, on the basis of some of this committee's discussions in the UK, that there is an understanding at this early stage of the debate of the real impact this would have on Ireland as a nation. I know we are small beans in terms of the UK's overall consideration. In the Minister of State's opinion, how much understanding of Ireland's position exists at this point, not only within the UK but within the wider EU? Is there an appreciation of how important it would be to us if the UK were to leave the EU? Is it understood that we would need special consideration? It concerns me that there seems to be a view abroad that we will go back to business as it was before by negotiating a free trade agreement with the UK. It is being suggested that we will have our own special little arrangement. There does not seem to be a wider understanding that we cannot do that. It is no longer open to us because any arrangement with the UK would have to be made via the EU bloc of countries. How hopeful is the Minister of State that there would be an understanding of our position in such circumstances, and that a special accommodation could be reached? I apologise for asking so many questions.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to take up the Senator's point. When we were in London at the weekend, we met a wide variety of MPs from both sides of the House of Commons. They touched on a number of issues that were of concern to them or to other people in their parties. They spoke about issues such as loss of sovereignty, immigration and free movement. The question of bureaucracy within the EU was raised in relation to procurement. Red tape is a concern. Like Senator Hayden, I would like to know whether these issues are being raised in any way by the Minister of State's counterparts. Mr. Brendan Halligan spoke earlier about the need to be daring and imaginative to stop the UK leaving. Perhaps the Minister of State might like to comment on the roles he feels the Council of the European Union and the General Affairs Council might have in this regard.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Vice Chairman. I have been asked some very extensive questions. I will respond to the question asked by the Vice Chairman and Senator Hayden before I come back to Deputy Durkan's question. Ireland and many other European countries would agree with elements of what the British Government has been discussing. We share its frustration with regard to issues such as better regulation, proper completion of the single market for services and the digital single market, the turbo-charging of measures such as the Juncker package, which we are now seeing, and trade agreements. This ties into the question of how we can support Britain's ongoing membership of the EU. We concur with much of what they say. Perhaps we do not feel it is a sustainable method of negotiating national positions.

At the same time, reference was made by Senator Hayden to the fact that we have had a period in which euroscepticism or even Europe in general has been a matter of debate within the United Kingdom. It is interesting to see polling and commentary to the effect that there is still strong public support within the United Kingdom for ongoing membership. It is having a debate unique to the United Kingdom and it is for those people to engage on it. As to the question of how we can influence the debate, I am not sure we can. The Senator was correct in saying we would be more affected if events concluded in a certain manner, but the country that would be affected most is the United Kingdom itself. Such events would have an impact for all the European Union. There would be an impact for Ireland, but there is potential for it to affect everybody. We are still in a very hypothetical position. It is likely that there will be a referendum at some time in the future, but it is far too early to speculate on the question that may be asked and its context. We must be aware of that.

Deputy Durkan mentioned common allies and themes. It is very apparent that within the 28 member states there are different allies, depending on the issue. Quite often we find ourselves on the same side as the UK, but that is not always the case. That serves to indicate the very highly developed relationship we have as a community of 28 member states. We can be most helpful not by engaging in the debate based on a selfish or economic interest; we should point out that Europe is much stronger by virtue of the fact that it has the United Kingdom, which is a big, democratic and powerful country, at the heart of decision-making. That is not just in our national interest but in everybody's interest. The United Kingdom is and always will be in Europe, as it is part of the geographical area of the planet that is Europe. It is vital that it continue to play a very strong and pro-democratic role in engaging in politics across our continent, just as it has throughout modern European history.

If we consider how beneficial the European Union and the Single Market have been for everybody, it is fair to say that any weakening would have the potential to bring some economic cost, either through ourselves, through the United Kingdom or collectively. The common European Union has been of benefit, so one would have to accept that there may be some economic difficulty if an exit came about.

The question of the origin of euroscepticism has been raised. That has largely been based on the economic difficulties experienced across the European Union. The European Union has taken the blame, even in our country, and perhaps unfairly at times. There are parties to the left and right that do not even represent a cohesive group in the European Parliament. The three biggest blocs are pro-European: the European People's Party, the Socialists and Democrats and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. Europe has collectively elected very significant numbers pro-European politicians to the Parliament. It is a debate that will evolve. I am not sure at this point what role any other member state can have in the democratic decision making of another member state. We have had many referendums in our country, and other countries also like to have sovereign decisions. The process in the UK will start in May's general election.

I have been fairly blunt today, as has the Taoiseach and others. There was a question about the level to which other countries are aware of this. At a political level, they are very aware of it. Our view is being solicited. There are 27 member states that would like to keep the European Union united, irrespective of the views they have about the difficulties the UK would have.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When we were in London, we met a number of Irish groups. There is a very large Irish community there. The ambassador gave a speech last week to the University of London. It was a powerful speech that reiterated the views on Europe of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister of State who is before us. What role could we have in influencing those people? Would that be considered after the election?

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ireland's relationship with the UK has evolved and become much stronger through our shared membership of the European Union and the equal status we have at various councils and at a political level. The European Union has had a general role in the peace process in a broad range of areas, including by providing financial and other supports. The relationship between Ireland and the UK will continue to be strong. We have issues that have been made far more straightforward by virtue of the fact that we are jointly within the European Union. It is particularly in the interests of the Irish community in the UK and British citizens living here that we both remain in the EU, for a variety of what can sometimes be technical, bureaucratic and administrative reasons. In remaining in the EU, we can engage repeatedly on so many different matters. One can consider how American politics works, with the rotation of Democrats and Republicans on different issues. Europe functions by consensus, and the process can be very slow and difficult. Nevertheless, when decisions are agreed, they tend to be very robust, as countries may have had to give or agree a little. Within that process, the United Kingdom has a very valuable and important role to play. I very much look forward to the evolution of the process. I believe the UK will remain where it belongs - at the heart of the European Union.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and the other witnesses for appearing before the committee and for their contributions. I propose that the private session be deferred until the next meeting of the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.