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

That was an extensive set of questions. I will start with one asked by Deputy Dooley, which was picked up by others, in particular Deputy Crowe. Deputy Dooley stated that the approach to migration was not working. I agree with his sentiments, as we do not believe it is working. This country showed good, strong ambition that reflected the views of the Irish people. We are a welcoming nation and, notwithstanding our opt-out, we were willing to take 4,000 people. A low number of migrants have come to our shores. Regarding relocation in particular, this approach is not working for a variety of reasons. We have sent our officials to the hotspots in Italy and Greece. The December Council was politically aware that the agreements, which were very difficult to achieve, exceptionally divisive and involved a qualified majority vote, had not delivered for people the opportunity we know they want, namely, to live in the EU and escape from the barbarity of regimes in certain parts of the world.

To that end, it will be on the agenda for the February Council to consider why procedures and processes have not worked, particularly with respect to relocation. As to whether we can act - Deputy Dooley asked, quite understandably, if we should act unilaterally - we cannot at this time. We are working as a small peripheral member state. This is a major crisis for the European Union and, given the quantum of people involved, progress must be made collectively. I understand the frustration; we experience it too. It is something that must be acted on quickly. There is a small period of grace given that it is winter, but we can expect that, unless action is taken, there will be an increase in the numbers as soon as the weather improves.

All of the members had questions in respect of the UK. While we support the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union, we do not support it any cost. We do not support it if it diminishes two core principles - first, that there is full and free movement of European citizens, including ourselves, around the Continent and, second, that in any member state all people regardless of what European Union country they come from are treated equally. That applies to work benefits, social protection benefits, employment and everything else. These are core principles.

It is fair to raise the debate in the UK. Deputy Crowe asked if perception was a problem. First, the United Kingdom has benefited significantly from the free movement of people. It has one of the lowest levels of unemployment and has a strong and dynamic workforce. In terms of so-called foreigners, be they from inside the European Union or outside it, the United Kingdom is about average with regard to the number of people who are not British living within its borders. For example, there are more eastern European people living in the Republic of Ireland, as a proportion of our population, than is the case in the United Kingdom. To be blunt, there is a strong benefit in having a country that will attract young, well educated Europeans because there is a cost in educating them. It has been a strong benefit to the UK such people in its workforce. We believe that the principles of free movement of people and goods and services have worked for the European Union and we do not believe there is a need for change in these areas. I tend to agree sometimes that the fears of fraud and abuses can be overstated. However, that is not to say there cannot equally be ways of addressing them as well.

We have made a significant contribution to the debate in Ireland, particularly by pointing out that many of the suggestions from the UK, especially in the first three baskets, are things we should have been doing to a greater extent in any event. I refer here to making the Union more competitive, improving governance in some sectors, developing trade agreements and so forth. There are many elements in the original set of proposals from the United Kingdom which benefit our citizens as well as the UK. The Taoiseach, in particular, was to the forefront on that.

Regarding the question about Northern Ireland, my view is that the journey we have travelled on this island has been remarkable. Regardless of any vote in any referendum, the people of these islands have made remarkable progress. Equally, we must acknowledge the reports. The ESRI points out that the country that would be most disadvantaged economically by excluding the UK will be ours, while there are other reports which indicate that within the United Kingdom the area that will be most disadvantaged will be Northern Ireland. If one combines the interests of the North and the South, we collectively have a significant interest in the development of this discussion. There is the possibility that the land border between the United Kingdom and Europe would be the Border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That clearly would create difficulties. A total of €2.3 billion has flowed in the past five years from the European Union to Northern Ireland from both the Structural Fund and the Cohesion Fund. It is correct to point out that these would be difficult to replace. Yesterday, the Dáil discussed the issue of whether the referendum is undemocratic in light of the nature of the four countries within the United Kingdom. However, that is a matter for the UK. At this stage, it would be speculative to consider what would occur if certain countries within the UK voted one way and others voted differently. While all of this is speculative, a British exit would potentially cause some difficulties.

Senator Hayden is correct. The Schengen Agreement is under significant threat. It is currently suspended. We are all aware of the challenges now faced by the legislators. Ireland is not part of the Schengen Agreement but the free movement of people is threatened when some countries have borders between each other as they have now. Aside from the British question, that is yet another reason that this migration crisis must be addressed. To be clear on treaty change, I fully accept there is a nuance here. The British and David Cameron want legal certainty to the outcome of these talks. We have no issue with that. However, we do not believe at this point - we are not alone in this view - that there is a requirement to open the Pandora's box of widespread treaty change. Perhaps, as happened with ourselves and the Danes, legally binding protocols which would satisfy UK demands could be agreed and these would then come into effect at the next point of treaty. We hope and believe that this could satisfy the UK's concerns.

I do not have anything to say about the rumours from Poland. I have only seen the reports but not anything else, so I cannot comment on that only to say that it seems quite a stretch. The rumours in question were stringently denied by authorities in Poland subsequently. I do not wish to toss out the phrase, "Do not believe everything you read", but in this instance there might be some merit in that.

I note there was also a question about a plan B.