Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 10 March 2015

Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Union Affairs

Possible Exit of UK from European Union: Discussion (Resumed)

2:00 pm

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can everyone please check their mobile telephones to ensure they are switched off? That includes Deputies.

Photo of Eric ByrneEric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Deputy.

For the second session today we are joined by Sir Bill Cash, MP, who is Chair of the House of Commons EU Scrutiny Committee. As members know, this committee is holding a series of meetings to examine the impact on Ireland should the UK decide to withdraw from the EU. A referendum on this question has been promised by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, MP, if he is returned to power following the general election in May. This committee took the decision to examine this matter at this time in view of the potential impact it could have on Ireland.

Before we begin, I remind members 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.

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 associated with today's proceedings is to be given. 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 expect that Sir Bill Cash has something similar in the House of Commons that he has to say at the beginning of every meeting.

Sir William Cash:

We do not actually, but I am perfectly happy to hear what the Chairman has to say. I will do my best to avoid saying something which might cause some degree of offence, but who knows?

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind members that the committee is considering the implications for Ireland of a UK exit from the EU. Members are asked not to comment on the merit of a referendum taking place in another sovereign nation, but just to focus on the issue of the impact on Ireland.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome Sir Bill Cash to the proceedings today. We look forward to hearing his perspective on prospects for UK-EU relations.

Sir William Cash:

Thank you, Chairman. I am very glad to meet the committee. We greatly value the personal and political relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland. The Chairman and I have known one another for some time.

Speaking for myself, my own personal family relationship has Irish origins. My grandmother was a Collins from County Cork. John Bright, who was a great defender of Ireland during the 19th century, was my great grandfather's cousin. He was a great friend of Daniel O'Connell on whom I am giving a talk in the Irish Embassy in London towards the end of this year.

Frederick Lucas was a Member of Parliament for County Meath, which is not very far from the Chairman's constituency of Meath East. For practical purposes I feel very strongly about the Irish involvement. At the more immediate and practical level, I think I was the first to recommend that we should make that £1 billion loan to Ireland at the time of its financial troubles a few years ago. I was greatly heartened to hear what the Minister of State said just now regarding the improvement in the Stability and Growth Pact. I wish the country well because that is the way I feel about Ireland.

I would like to say also, because everything is not always sweetness and light, I recognise there are differences of opinion about the general question of the relationship of member states to the European Union and the need for change in that relationship. It is well known that I strongly believe we need a fundamental change in the relationship as far as the United Kingdom is concerned because otherwise we will be greatly disadvantaged. I will go into the reasons for that shortly. The population in the United Kingdom is getting on towards 70 million, which puts us in a very different category from many other EC countries, other than countries such as Germany and France.

As far as I am concerned the heart of the issue is the question of democratic accountability and, as has been a constant theme of COSAC for a number of years, of which both your Chairman and I are members, also a question of democratic legitimacy. The issue of the national parliaments in relation to the EU institutions, which we debated yesterday in the House of Common and which they are debating again today, is a critical factor because the obligations of member states to accept and comply with EU obligations is an evolving and ever integrating process, compounded by the majority voting system in the Council of Ministers, particularly as reformed since 1 November 2014. By virtue of this reform Germany and France with two smaller states have a blocking minority and so forth. There is the over-riding question of the role of the European Court of Justice.

In 2014, after taking extensive evidence, my committee, an all-party committee, unanimously went so far, rightly in my opinion, having regard to the nature of the impact that the European Union is having on our democratic system, as to propose that we should be able unilaterally to repeal legislation where it was necessary to our national interest and also to veto issues in the pipeline, both of which were implicit in the original entry to the EC. The European Communities Act 1972 was a voluntary enactment by the United Kingdom Parliament in respect of which I would simply make one point, which is that the United Kingdom is the only member state which does not have a written constitution and therefore from that point of view we are in a different position from some others. Our engagement in the European Union is therefore voluntary, as Lord Bridge made clear in the famous definitive case of Factortame some years ago.

I do not believe it is possible to have two governments and two parliaments covering the same issues because of the inconsistency and the contradictions that emerge and the tensions generated simply mean that the European Union, as I believe has become evident, simply cannot work on the current footing. There is a democratic inconsistency between decisions which are taken by voters in general elections and ongoing decisions which are taken under the general rubric of the treaties themselves, and actual decisions that are taken by the Council of Ministers, often without a vote as such and done by consensus. What the electors subsequently discover has been proposed and-or implemented, through the European institutions, for example by virtue of regulations, over which they have little control or say, short of a referendum.

To this I would add the way in which COREPER functions and I would refer the committee, if it has not heard of it or come across it, to VoteWatch, a very distinguished body, headed up by Professor Simon Hix, which illustrates the fact that of the order of 90% of all European Commission proposals go through. There may be some adjustments and there may be one or two things that get lost but basically it is around 90%. That, I think, indicates the sheer tsunami of legislation that is coming through and raises serious questions in my judgment about the degree of democratic accountability. It is also, perhaps, worth noting that The Observer newspaper on 22 February, in relation to the question of a referendum, indicated in an opinion poll that 51% would leave. I would go further and say from the evidence I have from a series of polls over many years that if a new relationship was negotiated on the basis of the United Kingdom returning to a structural change in the architecture of the Union as trade and political co-operation with the democratic sovereignty fundamentally being in Westminster that the figure would go up to around 70%, which is pretty significant.

The European Union, in my judgment, is in a state of democratic and economic crisis and there seems to be no appetite for examining the reasons this is so, particularly in terms of the need for structural change in the architecture of the European Union to return ultimate decision making, while insisting on trade and co-operation, back to those who are elected in general elections to their national parliaments. There is much talk of subsidiarity but little or none in practice. I would add that President Barroso, at the time when he was President of the Commission, stated that the European Parliament - and only the European Parliament - is the parliament for the European Union. That does not bode very well for the national parliaments. That was post Lisbon, when we were supposed to have further and additional powers. We discussed much of this in COSAC.

There is also the problem of the over domination of one country - Germany - over the economic and political position of the European Union, not only within the eurozone but by consequence also within the EU as a whole. What was referred to earlier about the question of Greece and the very dramatic crisis which emerged yesterday is a very good indication of that degree of disorder. I would also like, subject to the committee's views, to remind ourselves that there was substantial pressure - some would even say bullying - which took place at the moment when Ireland was in crisis a few years ago. If I am right in what I can recall, the troika arrived in Dublin without even so much as the formal consent of the Irish Government, let alone the Irish Parliament. The attitude of the troika was graphically described by Deputy Eric Byrne just now and I think the Chairman referred to it indirectly in terms of the situation which is currently under discussion among the Finance Ministers. This is yet another indication of the attitude, as I said to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons last week. I challenged him on the language that Wolfgang Schäuble has been using.

It is very unhelpful when one is talking in terms of crises within individual countries which are under intense pressure. We need to be very realistic about what is going on. The late Brian Lenihan was under very considerable pressure at that time. Members will know more about that than I do, but I was watching it pretty closely and I got a very nasty feeling that there was something going on which was both pressurising and very unhelpful to resolving the difficulties Ireland faced.

I believe there was at one stage a rule of no bailouts. We can park that one because we now know the whole European Union functions on bailouts. In fact, it goes even further than that; it actually prints the money to pay for the bailouts on a scale which is simply unbelievable. However, that is an economic argument into which I will not go but I am very worried about it because one earns money by taxing proper enterprise and not just by printing it in the printing presses.

The EU is not merely sleepwalking but is accelerating into disorder which is reflected in what I said I thought would happen when I wrote a book in 1990 called Against a Federal Europe- The Battle for Britain. I hope I do not sound presumptuous when I say that in that book, I said the European Union and European government - this led me to lead the rebellion against Maastricht treaty all those years ago - would be accompanied sooner or later by the internal contradictions of all the kinds I have described and the economic pressures creating a problem of protests, riots, massive unemployment and the rise of extremism. There are not many people who would seriously dispute that has actually happened as well as the lack of jobs for young people. If one looks at Podemos and Syriza and at where the pressure is coming from and asks where all this is leading, I would have said there is a very strong case for everybody to take a step back, to have a really good look at the landscape without prejudice to the existing treaties and to ask what all this is for and if we want to have peace and security, which were what the original intentions of the European Community, now the European Union, were meant to be.

Although many people have received huge sums of money and they have a defence commitment that goes with Article 5, because of the interconnection, none the less the intrinsic internal implosion, which is now virtually unstoppable, is the moment when we should pause to ask what kind of European Union we want, not to mention the imbalance in terms of trade between Germany and most of the other member states. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we run a deficit with the other 27 member states of more than €50 billion per year while Germany runs a surplus with the same 27 member states of more than €50 billion year. We would regard that as pretty indicative of the state of play for the United Kingdom. We have a surplus selling the same goods and services to the rest of the world because we have these enormous opportunities in regard to the Anglo sphere, with our commercial ties, the language advantage we have and so forth .

We are confronted by a political union which is being presented more forcefully by Angela Merkel, as Chancellor Kohl did before her. This is not a new issue. National parliaments are being dumbed down and the element of trust is gone. More than 60% in many countries in Europe have lost trust, according to the euro barometer poll. The turnout in the European Parliament elections was barely 43% and that 43% only held up because quite a lot of older people voted. The level of turnout among younger people in the European elections was derisory. We are confronted by an unbalanced Union, which we see in regard to Greece, for example, but potentially other member states, such as Spain.

Furthermore, it is clear that subject to a referendum in the United Kingdom, the issue of Britain's role outside the eurozone, because we are certainly not going back in, and therefore being confined to the second tier of a two-tier European Union, is that the UK has a permanently decreasing role of influence. I believe this cannot be remedied by the mantra that the UK has influence merely by being at a table, where the influence is diminished by the voting system and institutional arrangements defined by the acquis, not to mention the role of the Court of Justice which, under sections 2 and 3 of our European Communities Act 1972, overrides our Supreme Court and our Parliament. This acquis, which can only be changed by unanimity and treaty change, is a real problem. None of the answers to the problem is remotely on offer from the other member states. Everybody is locked into the belief that one cannot change any of this. Personally, I believe this is political suicide. The European Union is creating a very serious problem for itself.

Hence the growing case for exit by the UK, bearing in mind that we have these external Anglosphere opportunities and a very substantial surplus with the rest of the world. In any event, we would continue to be in a mutual trading relationship and political co-operation with the other member states, even if we were outside the EU. I strongly believe it would not be in German interests, for example, if it were to knock out the approximately €20 billion worth of cars and trucks that come into the UK, nor would Germany contemplate allowing it to happen. At the same time, the EU as a whole is becoming less competitive in the big league table. Then there is also the problem for us of the City of London, where we have lost five or six of the last seven court challenges. In respect of over-regulation for business in general, as I am sure Ireland is discovering as well, even according to Peter Mandelson, when he was the Trade Commissioner over-regulation was costing the European Union 4% of GDP. It is not a good story.

Many member states have made it clear that they wish the United Kingdom to remain in the EU. I had a one-to-one meeting with the Norwegian Foreign Minister a week ago and he said that too. However, this ultimately must be decided by the UK, and this must be through a referendum in the relatively near future. The UK will hold the EU Presidency in 2017 and I do not believe it is practical to have a referendum then. We must have it soon and I hope it will be in 2016.

This is the ultimate test. If there is a paramount need in individual member states that the UK remain part of a European relationship, and I refer to Ireland in this context but other countries share that view, in light of our contribution to European matters over the last 100 years and more and also the fact, if I can put it in simple terms, that we saved Europe twice from tyranny, and with Irish help in the trenches, the issue must be decided by us. If the UK remaining part of a European relationship is to be sustained and if this is so overwhelming an interest for the other member states, then in the national interests of other member states and in the European interest as a whole, bearing in mind our historic role, does this not lead to an essential question of restructuring the EU for this purpose? If we are so integral, and if everybody says we must stay in, is there not a point where action becomes part of the dialogue to ensure that we get what is needed to preserve the integrity of Westminster as a national parliament? In my view, this is not special pleading. It is based on fundamental principles of democracy, freedom and common interests, which we all share. The stakes are very high, but the principles of democracy are not negotiable and are fundamental in our national interest, and the preservation of our national parliament lies at the centre of this concern.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Sir Bill Cash. I have two questions for him. His script states, "In any event it would continue to be in the mutual interests of the member states of the EU and the UK to continue to trade and to achieve political co-operation, even if we were outside the EU". In the event of an exit, some would say the quid pro quorelationship would not be possible. The model would be more akin to the Swiss and Norwegian models, whereby the UK, in order to gain access to the Single Market, would have to make a contribution to the EU budget and adopt certain rules, regulations and legislation enacted in the Union. What is Sir Bill Cash’s view on that? He referred to the imbalance in trade and stated it is in the interest of the Union to continue to trade. He alluded to the United Kingdom having a population of 70 million and to a market of potentially 430 million to 440 million people. Is he convinced there could be a relationship of equals?

My second question is on the motivation for an exit from the EU. A remarkable aspect of Sir Bill Cash’s contribution, on which I could be wrong, is that I did not hear the word “immigration” mentioned once. The Irish audience often hears that the United Kingdom’s motivation is based on immigration. Members of the committee visited the United Kingdom recently to discuss this issue with political colleagues and organisations there. It was put to us clearly that there are two groups interested in pushing the issue of renegotiation or Brexit. One is concerned with the sovereignty issue, and that is very much what Sir Bill Cash has been discussing this afternoon. The other concerns immigration and what is perceived to be a large number of additional immigrants entering the country over recent years.

I have a question on how the latter issue affects us in Ireland. As Sir Bill Cash knows, we had the common travel area before the European Union was founded. Ireland, along with the United Kingdom, has opted out of the Schengen agreement. One motive behind an exit would be the desire to control the amount of immigration into the United Kingdom. I include immigrants from countries within the European Union. One could expect to see some restrictions placed on the entry of French citizens, for instance, yet those citizens could fly directly to Dublin from Paris and get a train to Belfast, thus entering the United Kingdom without having to show any passport. Alternatively, they could drive through the open borders. A French citizen who decides to visit or work illegally in the United Kingdom could fly to Ireland and make his way across the Border. Ireland is probably the only country from which this could be achieved. If French citizens entered the United Kingdom via the English Channel, they would have to show some sort of identification or ticket to do so. How would this work? How could those who are concerned about the level of immigration into the United Kingdom be convinced that suitable structures would be put in place at the Irish end to prevent people using Ireland as a back door into the Untied Kingdom?

I invite Senator Kathryn Reilly to ask her questions, and she is to be followed by Deputy Eric Byrne.

Photo of Kathryn ReillyKathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Sir Bill Cash. I might have to leave early to be in the Seanad.

Sir William Cash:

I will answer Senator Reilly's question as soon as she has finished asking it, if that suits her better.

Photo of Kathryn ReillyKathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me pick up on the last points made by Sir Bill Cash, the main theme of whose contribution this afternoon was the central question of the restructuring of the European Union. He commented on democratic accountability and "structural change in the architecture of the EU to return ultimate decision making" to national parliaments. He referred also to the over-domination of one country, an imbalanced Union, the decreasing role of influence, the voting system and institutional arrangements. He spoke about the fundamental change in the relationship and, perhaps, a return to a structure of trade and political co-operation whereby democratic accountability, sovereignty and ultimate decision-making would be returned to Westminster.

In an ideal world, what kind of concrete changes or fundamental restructuring would the witness like to see? He has referred to the integrity of Westminster as the national Parliament and bringing decision-making back, but what changes would he like to see in concrete terms? He might outline one or two.

Sir Bill Cash also referred to the preservation of the national parliament as the centre of concern. Are there any potential negative repercussions of exit? Domestically where people considered there were negative economic consequences, could there be a backlash? Finally, I pick up on something the Chairman was saying on the personal and political relationships between Ireland and Britain. Aside from trading relationships, how does the witness see any exit affecting relations? Specifcally, how would he propose to deal with North-South arrangements here and in the North of Ireland?

Sir William Cash:

Very simply, the model I would go for would not be the EEA, with which there are serious problems in relation to free movement. That raises the question of immigration also. The Swiss model, which is EFTA plus, would be the direction in which I would go, with us regaining our place in the WTO. In other words, we would re-establish relationships on that footing. At the same time, I recognise the question of the North-South Irish dimension. All I can say, as I said at the beginning, is that we have very strong personal relations and, I think, political relations which have been getting better and better in relation to both North and South. The improvements, with some difficulties, which are embedded as a result of the Good Friday Agreement and other developments and the goodwill that has been generated are such that we would overcome any issues.

The Senator referred to a backlash, but I do not see one. While there are risks on the economic front and we trade with the European Union on a very substantial footing, it is only approximately 40% of our trade. I will not bore the committee with all the economic arguments, but I assure the members that very strong arguments have been put forward by distinguished economists to demonstrate why we would not be disadvantaged economically and that the myth that 3 million jobs are at risk is a nonsense. Nevertheless, that is still put forward as an accusation by some of the organisations that disagree with the kind of analysis I have on the subject from, for example, Roger Bootle. We have some very powerful economists on our side of the equation. When the person from the Institute of Fiscal Studies was quoted to the effect that 3 million jobs were at risk, he said immediately that it was Goebbels-like propaganda which he had never issued. Nevertheless, it is still part of common parlance.

Our small and medium size businesses are heavily over-regulated. Many people want a new relationship. Irrespective of whether they want specifically to get out, they want a new and fundamental change in the relationship. All of these things indicate that the good common sense of the British people is coming through. They are being realistic and there is a real opportunity for our relationship with other countries in Europe to continue while extending our relationship with the rest of the world. I do not see it as a backlash, to put it as simply as that. We have a very good opportunity to act here.

With regard to the role of the City of London, we have multinationals, Goldman Sachs and other big companies making statements regularly. Does anybody really think that the British people as a whole will be influenced by international bankers when they come to a decision like this? I do not think so.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think we would all agree on that.

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

I thank Sir Bill Cash for his dissertation, which was very interesting, but like many things, it carried a few contradictions. For example, we are an international trading country with a small population and an open economy. So we are somewhat different from many other European countries. With our bailout, we had to do things quickly because there was huge erosion in terms of confidence and capital flight that could not be tolerated.

Sir Bill Cash mentioned quantitative easing, which incidentally has been practised by Britain.

Sir William Cash:

I know. Some of us are not too sure about it.

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

He seemed to attribute it to the European Union as being a negative development. It has also been practised by the United States and Japan. It has not traditionally been very welcome in Germany for obvious historical reasons.

Sir William Cash:

The Weimar Republic.

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

The world is now a vastly different place from what it was when Britain and the other countries joined the European Union - particularly Britain and Ireland. Harking back to that era will raise some difficulties that have not yet been foreseen. Sir Bill Cash mentioned the financial services in the City of London. A number of economists and international experts in that regard have appeared before the committee. They do not hold his view on the willingness of the City of London to embrace exit from the Union with his enthusiasm.

Sir William Cash:

It depends on to whom one is talking.

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

It also depends on to whom we are talking now, of course, as you know.

Sir William Cash:

As many people as you can mention, I could give another batch.

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

I put it to you-----

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us be robust, but let us do it through the Chair.

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

Yes, we shall.

Sir Bill Cash mentioned on more than one occasion the protection of the national parliament and the democratic system. Surely the European Union represented a coming together of national parliaments, a sharing of sovereignty, a sharing of democracy. That has been proven by the European Union to date in that it has succeeded in achieving the greatest single period in European history of peace, co-operation and economic development. Does Sir Bill Cash agree that the European Union has developed immeasurably economically in the past 60 years in a way that it had not done before? In a way, Europe was set back by internal, what we would call and Sir Bill Cash might call civil wars-----

Sir William Cash:

Certainly not civil wars; unprovoked aggression.

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

Having a union tends to prevent that. In the United States there was no union in the beginning, but there was a civil war that was fought on the basis of a union or otherwise - there were other issues as well. However, it produced a union that has grown and stuck together. Unlike the European Union, the United States has a single currency, from which Europe shied away, much to its detriment. I believe that unless and until a single currency prevails across Europe, there cannot be economic or political cohesion to the extent that would be naturally beneficial to the Union. The people of Europe will not be able to access the benefits of that huge 450 million people Single Market.

Sir Bill Cash mentioned the need to protect the democratic system of his national parliament. We would all like to think the same thing. We would like to think that we have protected it to a fairly considerable extent. I imagine the French believe they have managed to protect the democratic system. How does Sir Bill Cash suppose that 28 member states can each protect the system, as they know it, and the tradition of their particular parliamentary system, some of which have had varying degrees of democracy over the years? Is it possible in a union?

Does Britain contribute to the concept of that union? Has Britain immersed itself in the concept of the European Union since the beginning? Or, as would appear from what Sir William has told us, has Britain looked at it from the outside? We have a number of people in this country who look at it from the outside as well and as yet do not recognise that the European currency is our currency on which we depend. There is a possibility that Britain has looked at the EU from the outside and a "them and us" situation has developed.

I put it to Sir William that it is not in the interests of the EU or of Britain to separate. I predict that in the event of that happening, Europe will find itself at loggerheads with itself in the very near future. This has happened before, with the full knowledge of all concerned, when all were watching what took place without saying anything and each in turn decided to seize the opportunity for their own particular gain. My view is that it does not work that way and we have moved ahead from that. If we retrench and go back on our word to our fellow Europeans we will be setting an unwelcome and hugely destructive standard.

Mr. Barroso was quoted as saying that the only EU Parliament was the Parliament of the European Union. He was right, of course. We cannot have 28 member state parliaments all claiming to be parliaments of the European Union. They are parliaments within the EU and constituent bodies of the EU and the parliamentary system. National parliaments influence the European Parliament and European thinking.

Over recent years, we have heard about the Swiss, Swedish and Finnish models. All kinds of models have been brought before us in their economic and historical contexts. In the case of Britain it is somewhat different. Although Britain is a much bigger country than Ireland with a much bigger population and much more economic clout, it is now a little like Ireland. Things have moved on from the time of the Commonwealth, which was much more powerful and influential 60 years ago. Now, Britain is much more dependent on the European Union and trade with the EU. Does Sir William believe that an exit from the Union, which he believes the British people will choose as is their right, will benefit the UK economy in any way? Britain will have to make the same contributions to the EU as it does now if it intends to trade with it.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Eric Byrne and then Deputy Seán Kyne.

Photo of Eric ByrneEric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Sir William Cash, who is a breath of fresh air for us here. This is about the sixth meeting we have had dealing with the issue of a British exit and he is the sole witness we have heard speak on behalf of the proposition. This is in contrast to our huge team of academics, economists, specialists in international law and people who understand the function and role of the city of London and international bankers. We will send Sir William a copy of the final report. To a man and a woman, and not from an Irish nationalistic perspective, it has been argued here that an exit would be disastrous for both Ireland and England. Sir William is aware that we in Ireland are very supportive of the European relationship. He is also aware that we have a divided island, and his traditional allies are the Northern Unionists who sit in his Parliament.

It would be interesting to know what position they might take post an election.

Unfortunately, our Sinn Féin colleagues have left. They, being eurosceptics, would probably like to side with Sir William's concept, but they will be voiceless because they do not take their seats in Parliament. We are full of contradictions.

I compliment Sir William for wearing the tie. He pays us an honour, as our Presidency was a couple of years ago.

Sir William Cash:

I am very proud of it.

Photo of Eric ByrneEric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sir William is waving the green flag for us.

Sir William Cash:

I have four.

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

It is a concession.

Photo of Eric ByrneEric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate Sir William on it. He is a breath of fresh air because I have just returned from Riga, where I met a gentleman I had never met previously, Mr. Mike Gapes, MP for Ilford South, and whose view was totally different than Sir William's.

Sir William Cash:

We are old sparring partners.

Photo of Eric ByrneEric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sir William believes that there would be a 60% or 70% vote by the British people to exit Europe. He might answer my next proposition. It is the United Kingdom, comprising three and a bit parts, the bit being Northern Ireland, with England, Scotland and Wales. We know the political divisions that exist and that Scotland would be pro Europe. Would it not be ironic if the flag bearer of the campaign, UKIP, which terrorised the Conservative Party, succeeded in breaking up the UK's Union, albeit inadvertently and without ill intent?

If the Conservative Party gets an overall majority, there will be a proposition to hold a referendum. What would the party put to the people? Which treaty elements would it want to renegotiate? Is it the party's intention to put to the people a simple question: "Yes", membership of Europe, or "No", leave Europe? Given the fact that even delving into the issue of what elements of the treaties the UK wanted to keep would take years of negotiation, what question would the Conservative Party put to the British people? Would it be more complicated than "Yes" or "No"?

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call Deputy Kyne, we have only had two political guests so far, those being, Sir William and Baroness Quin. It has been one from each side of the-----

Sir William Cash:

She and I disagree, but she is a nice lady.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We invited Mr. Nigel Farage or a representative of UKIP, but our invitation has not been accepted. The other guests were academics and such like who had expressed strong views.

Sir William Cash:

Whom I encounter the entire time.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excellent. I call Deputy Kyne to ask a final question, after which we will revert to our guest.

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

I welcome Sir William. We met last week in the House of Commons.

Sir William Cash:

Indeed.

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

We have met a number of his colleagues at various events. One made the comment that, currently, the UK has the best of both worlds. It has the Common Market and all of the benefits derived from same while it has its own currency, central bank and so on.

Deputy Byrne touched on the question of the impact on the Union. If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were to vote "No", which is possible, while England voted "Yes" to exit and the overall vote was "Yes", what would the implications be? The SNP has taken some soundings in Scotland along these lines. Would such a scenario hasten the break-up of the Union?

In light of our meetings last week, three issues keep arising: loss of sovereignty, on which Sir William has a strong view; immigration and the free movement of people, which I believe he mentioned; and bureaucracy, red tape and so on. Various facets of Sir William's party have different problems with these issues. Some are more easily solved than others, with bureaucracy and red tape probably the easiest.

A number of countries would share Sir William's concerns in that regard. Some countries might find common ground on the issue of immigration and free movement, while sovereignty is a bigger picture. Is there scope for some of these issues to be solved in order to persuade members of Sir William's party to support continued membership of the Union? If the UK leaves, we have a vested interest in terms of our common border with Northern Ireland. How does he envisage the operation of a land border with a country that is not in the European Union? After all that has happened, passport controls would certainly not be desirable. Ireland might be viewed as an easy way for EU migrants to enter the UK.

The party appears to be becoming more anti-EU at the grassroots level. Where does Sir William see scope for former pro-Europeans? If Michael Heseltine or Kenneth Clarke came along today as young aspiring MPs, would they even get through the selection process to stand for Parliament? They were capable individuals with strong voices, even if Sir William might have disagreed with them on European issues.

Sir William Cash:

Members asked very interesting questions. Deputy Kyne and the Chairman raised the issue of immigration. The fact is that we are actually a small island. We debated this very issue in the House of Commons yesterday because I had to force the Government to accept an amendment on the question of the Commission's work programme. For more than a year, it had refused to hold a debate on free movement. My committee had recommended that we should have a debate on the floor of the House of Commons on benefits migration and benefits tourism. It resolutely refused such a debate but it would not tell us why other than that it was a matter of collective responsibility. As Deputy Kyne indicated, it is a very controversial subject. The reason it is controversial is not because people do not like immigrants, although some elements clearly take that view, but because of practical questions about size, scale, social housing and education. Many people take a realistic and common sense view of immigration. A large number of people who come from other countries to do things in the fields for the agriculture sector, and in London generally, are playing an important part in the British economy. Incidentally, one can hardly be surprised that they want to come to the United Kingdom given that we have a very good economy thanks to this government, or at least matters are certainly improving a great deal. There is a natural magnetism towards the United Kingdom. I do not want to present an entirely negative picture of immigration but practical questions arise.

I believe we will resolve the specific issues of the North and South of the Border because of the common purpose we would have if Ireland recognised that, in an effort to tighten the relationship, we would be out of Schengen, just as we are now.

I do not see a practical problem because it is between us and Ireland, and our arrangements regarding voting and common travel have been embedded for a very long time. Our historical ties are such that I do not see a problem. Any problems that did exist would be ironed out. I do not see it as a problem for Ireland.

I cannot say whether we will enter an EFTA type arrangement, given that I am offering only my personal views based on having been on the committee for 30 years, having studied it carefully and being chairman, although I am not speaking as chairman. However, while I do not want to sound presumptuous, if we were to enter an EFTA type arrangement, we would have a very good opportunity for other countries to join us in the new EFTA arrangements. Although this would not be the view of Deputy Durkan or, perhaps, anybody else in the room, I believe, given the extent to which Ireland is connected to our economy, that there are other countries which, if there were a structural change in the relationship, could look to their electorates. Given that these countries want to have European co-operation and trade, they could consider all the advantages in terms of the implosion that is happening with protests, riots and unemployment. Given that the UK has this dynamic within it which is extremely valuable to us as a country - I refer to Ireland - a new relationship could include Ireland in its framework as well as some other countries in an EFTA type arrangement. We could have the advantages of co-operation and - if I may say to Deputy Durkan - the UK's strength, history and tradition, mixed as it might be thought to be.

I do not buy the argument that the EU has created peace since 1945. Bluntly, NATO and the Cold War did that. The EU is moving in the direction I predicted in 1990, towards implosion. It is time, as I said earlier, that people stood back and asked whether there could be a new relationship between all the countries. I must address the question Deputy Durkan raised on the extent to which we are examining the European issue from the outside. No. I would say the opposite. We are very much examining it realistically from the inside, and those who agree with me do not like what we see as it has evolved, although I voted "Yes" in 1975. I also voted for the Single European Act in 1986. However, I proposed an amendment, which I was not allowed to debate then although I could now, specifying that we should preserve our sovereignty within that framework. I believe there is far too much ideological nonsense about the fact that one cannot come up with a new concept of a European co-operative association, such as EFTA plus, in which everybody could benefit from trading co-operation without being bullied and forced into doing things by a majority vote when they do not want to. Such bullying creates more internal resentment and democratic and economic protest, which we are seeing throughout Europe with the exception of Germany and one or two other countries. There is another model. The single currency has proved to be a straitjacket which has caused immense problems for many countries. I see Deputy Durkan shaking his head. There are countries that regard it as a straitjacket. One cannot devalue within it.

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

We have done that.

Sir William Cash:

Theoretically, but I would not say that it is allowed under the rules as such.

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

It has reduced in value by approximately 20% in the past-----

Sir William Cash:

That is a way of putting it but I would say the objective of the single currency is there should be homogeneity within the respective member states and the object of the single currency, as the Deputy was indicating himself, is effectively a move towards political union.

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

Cohesion.

Sir William Cash:

While the Deputy says cohesion, I say union. For practical purposes, Europe already is at loggerheads with itself and this is evident. It may not be that there have been riots and protests in Ireland but go to Italy, Spain, Greece or other countries, Portugal also has had its dose, and there are really serious problems that could be avoided by having a more flexible arrangement. The idea of having vetoes does not mean to say one would use them the whole time. As for the way one could achieve co-operation, which I would have thought is what subsidiarity ultimately is all about, one would achieve that degree of agreement whereby, if it was clear there was a vital national interest a particular country could not stomach, one would not go down that route. If I may, I will refer to the White Paper of 1971 when we joined. That might seem a long time ago but it is only 40-odd years. The structure of the 1972 Act with which we still live, and which is quite clear - it is a very short Act - effectively rules out the idea of our being able now, as a result of subsequent treaties, to exercise a veto. However, at the time the aforementioned White Paper went through, it included a very important statement that when entering the European Community, we would do so on the basis that in our vital national interest, we would retain the veto. Moreover, there was an interesting further sentence that went on to state that to do otherwise would endanger the very fabric of the European Community itself. This was because people recognised that if one tries to push everybody into a compression chamber and they do not want it, one will get the lack of trust that now has developed to the level of up to 60% to which I referred. In addition, one will have a low turnout of approximately 40% of the whole of the European Union. Moreover, as I believe some countries have compulsory voting, this means the turnout was very low indeed. This is not good evidence that everything is hunky-dory and it is very important for us to step back.

If I may, I will refer briefly and finally to the question of what will happen within the respective parts of the United Kingdom. I think Deputy Kyne is right and that in Scotland, there is a very different perception as reflected by the SNP. The SNP had a meteoric rise around the time of the referendum and is embedding itself. I think I was the first to identify this point and will give the joint committee a book I wrote about John Bright afterwards, which has a chapter on the entire question of Britain and Ireland in the mid-19th century in respect of the issue of home rule, but at the 1922 Committee a few weeks ago, I stated that I thought Alex Salmond would be like Parnell. I said that what will happen is he will come down and some even think the SNP might get 40 to 45 seats from Labour. I agree with the Deputy that they are very different in their attitudes to the European Union, but in the event of a referendum, David Cameron, in reply to a question I put to him, has ruled out the possibility that Nicola Sturgeon was putting forward, which is that Scotland would have its own separate referendum regarding the European Union or would be able to disaggregate the votes that were taken in the referendum. I can only state that they will strive for that, as they will strive for the disintegration of the United Kingdom because like Parnell's objective, that is absolute for them, and will create massive disruption in the House of Commons. This is why I was in favour of English laws and presented my paper to Chequers for that purpose when David Cameron invited us there.

I think there is a real problem with the SNP. By the way, I do not think the SNP will enter into a formal coalition with the Labour Party because that would be a Trojan horse for the Labour Party for sure. There is a lot of debate about this. Alex Salmond is a very accomplished political performer and, more than that, practitioner. He will create havoc if he has a lot of seats and holds the balance of power. On the European issue, I remind the committee that the preponderance of the United Kingdom population is in England. We could be presented with some very difficult questions if the SNP comes down and really disrupts the House of Commons on the basis that it wants to achieve independence for Scotland. I do not disagree with the Deputy that the SNP has a different view on the EU, although I have heard it is not as consistent as some people think. There are people in Scotland who recognise that being part of the United Kingdom has great advantages. It should not be forgotten that we won the vote on that by ten percentage points.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excellent. On behalf of the committee, I thank Sir William for giving up his time and travelling here today. I know he is flying back tonight.

Sir William Cash:

Yes.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had a very useful discussion. As Deputy Eric Byrne said, it is the first time a coherent argument in favour of a UK exit has been put before the committee. We appreciate that. We will have a number of additional meetings on this subject, including one this Thursday. We will make sure Sir William gets a copy of our report, which we intend to produce before the summer recess.

Sir William Cash:

Just before the Chairman finishes, am I allowed to quote from Edmund Burke?

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely, yes.

Sir William Cash:

I regard him as an enormously important and incredibly influential figure in English and Irish politics.

Photo of Eric ByrneEric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it about the right to property, by any chance?

Sir William Cash:

I ask the Deputy to wait a moment. Perhaps he is thinking about Tom Paine.

Photo of Eric ByrneEric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am thinking about Edmund Burke.

Sir William Cash:

When I wrote about "the role of national parliaments in EC co-operation" in 1989 - this shows I was thinking about these matters even then - I quoted from Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. I regard this as a sort of backdrop or kind of theatre. I know it is a long time ago, but this is what he said:

We know that we have made no discoveries, and we think that no discoveries are to be made in morality, nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty, which were understood long before we were born .... We have not been drawn and trussed, in order that we may be filled, like stuffed birds .... with chaff and rags and paltry blurred shreds of paper about the rights of men.

That was his reply to Thomas Paine.

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

Could I-----

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not going to have a Burke-Paine argument here today.

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

No, we are not. However, I think we should ponder for a moment, aproposof the concept of the European Union, Oscar Wilde's comment that duty is what we expect of others but not always of ourselves.

Sir William Cash:

Well done.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will leave it there. I ask members to stay back because we need to discuss a number of items of private business today. It will not take long.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.10 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Friday, 27 March 2015.