Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Today is an unique occasion whereby two joint committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas meet together in public session. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae chairs the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I welcome the members of both committees to this meeting. On behalf of both committees I am delighted to extend a céad míle fáilte, a hundred thousand welcomes to the First Vice-President, Mr. Frans Timmermans, to this the first joint meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Trade and Defence committee and the European Affairs committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

This meeting provides an opportunity to engage and share views with members in somewhat changeable times. I welcome the head of the European Commission representation in Ireland, Mr. Gerry Kiely, whom we meet on a regular basis and the members of Mr. Timmermans's cabinet, Ms Michelle Sutton and Ms Liesbeth Koenen.

As EU Commissioner with responsibility for better regulation, intra-institutional relations, the rule of law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, members from both committees will have much to discuss with you. As First Vice-President, I am certain that members will welcome your views on the future of the European Union, the migration crisis, Europe's Common Foreign and Security Policy and not least the unique challenges that Brexit poses to the island of Ireland and Europe as a whole.

Before we proceed I invite my colleague, Deputy Healy-Rae to say a few words.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the First Vice-President of the European Commission, Mr. Frans Timmermans and his colleagues to the joint meeting today.

On a light note, I hope we will not emulate Mr. Timmermans's political record of having to go through six elections in 11 years. We had an election 12 months ago and I hope we do not have one for a long time not to mind another five or four after that. I echo the comments of my esteemed colleague, Deputy Smith and to say it is a pleasure to welcome you and your colleague today to the special joint sitting of the committees on Foreign Affairs and Trade and Defence and European Union Affairs. As my colleague has noted we live in challenging times for the European Union. My colleague detailed a number of the issues that the committee I chair is most interested in, in particular the upcoming negotiations with the UK on exiting the European Union and working out what the EU should look like without the UK in it. Of course, we must also consider how we as a national Parliament engage with the European Union through the scrutiny process and beyond. We are looking forward to engaging with Mr. Timmermans on these topics and we thank him for his very valuable time. We appreciate his being here and thank him.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Healy-Rae. The format of the meeting is that we will hear brief opening remarks from Mr. Timmermans before going into a question and answer session with the members of both committees. I will call members in the order in which they indicated.

Like any meeting , there are some housekeeping matters and formalities. I remind members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off completely for the duration of the meeting as they cause interference with the recording and broadcast equipment in the committee room even on silent mode. Today's meeting is also being broadcast live on Oireachtas TV and across the various media platforms.

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 Houses, 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 joint committee. If, however, they are directed by the Chairman to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to 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 asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call on the First Vice-President to make his opening remarks. For his information, his opening statement will be published on the committee website following this meeting.

Mr. Frans Timmermans:

I thank the Chairman for inviting me to the joint sitting today.

I am here to listen to the member of the committee and to answer their questions.

We are going through a rocky patch of European co-operation. We have had an unprecedented economic crisis. We have not seen this bad a crisis since the 1930's. Ireland was particularly hit by it and it is astonishing for me to be back here after two and a half or three years and to see how this country has recovered so quickly. There are still many problems remaining but it is still astonishing to see the pace of recovery, which has not been copied by any other country that went through such a deep crisis.

Of course, this crisis has sapped our self-confidence as Europeans across the European Union in all member states. Many of our people are wondering whether we are still masters of our own destiny and if we are still able to shape our future, if our children will still have jobs in this fourth industrial revolution and if we will still be able to maintain the levels of social protection we think we deserve, and that we do deserve. All these questions have created an existential question about this European Union and the way we co-operate. On top of that we have seen an unprecedented event, one of our member states deciding to leave the European Union, which has not happened before. We need to tackle that as well.

We have a migration crisis. We have a security crisis in terms of tackling terrorism. We need to step up our efforts to create an economic success for the European Union, we need to make sure that protectionism does not prevail in the debate about international trade and we need to do all of this jointly. I am also here to stress very clearly, however, that the European Commission will be at Ireland's side when we need to take into account the very special circumstances Ireland has to deal with in the Brexit debate. Through its political ties, its historic ties, its geographical position and its economic structure, Ireland is a very special case in the Brexit debate. I want to pledge here today before this committee that the European Commission will take these interests to heart and we will make sure that these interests are heard by everyone during the period of negotiations. For that to be successful, we also need Ireland's very active engagement in this, all of the creativity Irish people can muster to make sure that we find the best possible solution and all the political energy we can muster together to make sure that we do the least harm possible to all parties involved in the Brexit discussions.

Co-Chairman (Deputy Brendan Smith):

I thank the Vice-President. There are a number of speakers offering. I will take groups of three. The first person to offer is Deputy Bernard Durkan, to be followed by Senator Neale Richmond and then Deputy Seán Haughey.

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

I welcome Mr. Timmermans and his colleagues. We welcome his words of comfort and solidarity with respect to the negotiations on Brexit. We do not need to make that case to him. He is clearly very conscious of our needs in that area.

Mr. Timmermans mentioned that he was surprised at how quickly the country recovered. Yes, we did. We knew at the outset that we had to make severe sacrifices in order to do so, and we did it. It was not without pain. There was a lot of pain across the country in almost every household. Many people lost their homes in the course of it and are still losing their homes. Its fallout still continues. What it results in, unfortunately, is what has now become known as the various poverties, whether poverty accruing from a long period of unemployment, from lack of a home or from being unable to fund a mortgage on the home. In line with the UN's strategic goals to eliminate poverty by 2030, could I ask Mr. Timmermans whether the European Union is conscious of where we are at now and what we need to do from here on? For example, we cannot spend money building homes unless it is off balance sheet. That is the particular quirk here, it has to be off balance sheet.

That is a restriction on the degree to which we can handle the homelessness issue now emerging I am aware that it is endemic in some parts of Europe also. It falls within the fulfilment of the adoption of the strategic development goals of the UN, and the European Union's 2030 strategy. To what extent does Mr. Timmermans feel we can improve the situation whereby individual member states can avail of sufficient funds to provide the homes necessary?

Neale Richmond (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Vice-President Timmermans. I appreciate his very brief opening address, which is a change from how things are usually done here.

Co-Chairman (Deputy Brendan Smith):

I asked that mobile phones be turned off entirely, not just put on silent mode. There is complete interference with the broadcasting. Everybody's phone is to be turned off entirely, please.

Neale Richmond (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can confirm my phone is on aeroplane mode.

I appreciate the Vice-President's reassuring remarks about Brexit. Looking for possible solutions to the huge challenge it poses, what is the best forum to submit ideas and suggestions, not necessarily from parliamentarians either here or in the European Parliament, but from civic society - the business groups, the farming lobbies, the NGOs? How can they really address the many huge problems that we will be facing into, particularly on this island and in the cross-Border context?

As I said to the Vice-President's colleagues when they were here, a key concern is what comes after Brexit. Where can the European Union and the European ideal go after that? Europe has taken a battering over the past decade. It is vitally important that Europe stands up for itself and takes the fight to the eurosceptics, to the likes of Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders and Nigel Farage. It needs to say that this is something worth fighting for, this is something worthwhile and that the outdated notions and generalisations of an aloof Brussels are not true. It has to be done clearly, simply, and very aggressively. I ask for Mr. Timmerman's views on that.

Mr. Frans Timmermans:

On the issue of strategic development goals and housing, while I do not have a complete solution today, the five presidents' report on the future of Economic and Monetary Union may include elements that will allow us to invest more. The money is available in the markets and the need is there. In some countries a failure to speed up building capacity will create another bubble in the housing sector, which would not profit anyone and be a big risk in any society. I know what I am speaking about because we had a bubble in the Netherlands also.

It is already possible for Ireland to access the Juncker fund for investment in infrastructure. This would be an interesting avenue to explore. The fund is successful in a number of member states, but I am not fully aware of how successful it has been in Ireland to date. It is growing very rapidly, especially in cases which involve a sustainability element. If sustainable housing is being built, it is more interesting to look for options with the European Fund for Strategic Investments.

The Deputy referred to another problem - I do not want to dodge the issue - when he asked to what extent it was permitted to do this while continuing to be in line with the rules of the Growth and Stability Pact. We will have to have this discussion down the line because it is one that has popped up in a number of member states.

How do we best submit suggestions on how to solve some of the fundamental problems some member states, especially Ireland, will have with Brexit? We should use all opportunities available to us to influence people, including through the European Parliament and its representative in this area, Mr. Guy Verhofstadt, and the Council of Ministers, in which Ireland is very active and held in high regard, in order that Mr. Didier Seeuws and his team will have all the information they need. We are absolutely at the disposal of Ireland if it has issues it wishes to discuss with our team - Mr. Barnier and his people. If people want me to be helpful in that regard, I will be at their disposal. However, we need to be extremely creative because even if the Commission pays full attention to Ireland's challenges in this respect, it can never be as knowledgeable of the Irish situation as the Irish themselves. While we will engage, we will also need Ireland's full engagement. I would not advocate referring all of this to us. The active participation of the Irish people will certainly help in finding solutions, especially those directly involved in cross-Border issues or certain industries, be it agriculture, fisheries or manufacturing. It will be extremely important to have their input. Already, industries in a number of member states have alerted me to their specific interest in this matter and called on me to ensure their interests will not be hurt in the forthcoming negotiations. Mobilisation through trade unions and employers could also be very useful to all of us.

While I could speak for hours on it, I will make a couple of remarks about the big question Senator Neale Richmond and Deputy Seán Haughey put about the future. What we have been doing in the past ten years is firefighting, as people in this country know better than anyone else. Whenever people had worries or concerns, we responded with figures and statistics. Politics is about striking a balance between hearts and minds. In this matter, only the brain, not the heart, is involved. We ended up in many countries, fortunately not Ireland, in the underbelly rather than the heart or brain.

The passion of anti-Europeans cannot be fought with PowerPoint presentations or statistics. Passion can only be fought with passion. Hate cannot be fought with hate. Hate can only be fought by love and inclusion. I think we have forgotten about that.

I am not into party politics, I hope the committee does not get me wrong, but that is why I really appreciated the Taoiseach's speech on Europe last week, in which he did not talk primarily about the Internal Market or the common currency. He spoke about values. He spoke about the values we share. The Common Market and the common currency are just instruments to underpin what we share in common in terms of values and where we want to be as a society. If I look at that, what Europe needs in the coming decade is for us to tackle some of the problems that we have left unsolved. People are disappointed in us and the European project because we have not yet found sustainable solutions for the migration crisis. We have not yet found sustainable solutions for the security challenges, both those coming from the outside but also those internal to the European Union. We have not offered an optimistic and sustainable prospect for the future of our economy. We have so many opportunities in circular economy areas and in digital economy areas. Why are we not using that potential to the full? Why are we not doing something about youth unemployment? In some of our member states youth unemployment is at 45% or 50%. This is unacceptable and only when we start bringing solutions to these issues and can show that we are able to collectively provide a way forward, that people can people can believe in, can we start talking about the future shape of Europe. This is exactly what the debate was about in Bratislava.

I am not one of those that one sometimes encounters in the European Parliament, who wish to have a huge debate about treaty change and changing all sorts of structural elements in the way we organise our co-operation. I do not think our citizens are waiting for that. Our citizens are waiting for us to come with solutions to the problems which they understand we cannot solve on our own in our member states. Trade is one of them and a question on trade was also put to me. If we do not counter the argument that most radical nationalists use, which is that to protect is to be protectionist, all of our economies will suffer, but none more than countries like Ireland and my own country, the Netherlands. Protectionism has never and will never be an answer. We need trade. We need trade agreements worldwide. CETA is a good example of where trade should be heading. We need to have similar agreements across the world with other partners who believe in free trade as a driving force for our economy. If we are successful in doing that and convincing people, I have no doubt that there will be a change of heart in the United States in that area because I honestly believe that protectionism will only weaken all of us and will not strengthen us.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Vice-President. In view of the time constraints and the large number of committee members offering I will have to insist on questions rather than statements in the contributions. The next grouping is Mr. Hayes, MEP, Deputy Crowe and Senator Craughwell.

Mr. Brian Hayes:

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity of being here today, which is our green week in the European Parliament. I welcome Vice-President Timmermans and I congratulate him on the work he is doing, particularly on the regulatory agenda which is often not recognised.

I have three specific questions. The first is on the issue of a transitionary period. The Commission has said nothing really thus far, until the negotiations start, about a transitionary phase being required. From our country's perspective it is essential that we have a transitionary phase given the close connections between the UK and Ireland. I believe it would actually help the atmosphere of the negotiations if Michel Barnier and his team and President Juncker were to make that clear.

My second question relates to the existing six pack and two pack architecture. Under this architecture, we have a procedure for exceptional circumstances which could affect the debt and deficit rule and the potential of flexibility for capital investment that some of my colleagues have raised with the Vice-President thus far. Does Mr. Timmermans potentially see Brexit as an exceptional circumstance under the existing architecture?

The new lingo in Brussels is what we call asymmetric shocks but the existing financial governance package under the two-pack and six-pack is already there . Does Mr. Timmermans think Brexit could be one of those?

At the end of the two year divorce settlement, it states it will be determined by way of a strong qualified majority voting, QMV. Is it not the case that we can come to an agreement by unanimity, whereby the 27 members states would have to accept the outcome of that divorce settlement with the United Kingdom? Stage one of a three phase negotiation, would be a divorce settlement, a transitional phase and ultimately a new relationship. Does Mr. Timmermans accept that it would have to be by unanimity rather than strong majority voting?

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to comment on Mr. Timmermans's opening remarks about the Irish recovery. Many of the households who are watching the proceedings have not experienced that recovery. We do not have as high a youth unemployed rate as that instanced by Mr. Timmermans, but what is unfortunate is that our young people from towns and villages are leaving our shores and that is why our youth unemployment rate is not high. There are significant areas that are suffering, with many households in huge debt. We are always sensitive to those remarks. It would be great if, like other areas of Europe, we had not been impacted by the recession. Some areas of Ireland have done extremely well, but others have not.

I am sure Mr. Timmermans is aware that a motion has been passed in the Irish Parliament on a special category status in the EU. What does Mr. Timmermans think of that? People are talking about the Good Friday Agreement and joint sovereignty. The EU has been imaginative in its approach to other areas of territorial dispute. I hear from politicians about their huge sympathy and understanding for Ireland's part in the peace process. I welcome his remarks on that.

Would it be helpful if a delegation were to travel to the Border area to get a sense of the current position? At present, there is no sense of a border. The last thing that the peace process needs is a sense of fear or further division. The worry is that if there is a permanent checkpoint, that will lead to a greater security detail, further militarisation and so on. That delicate balance in the process itself will be lost. Do the officials of the European Commission have such an understanding? Do the EU parliamentarians understand the situation?

I am aware that in 2014 there was talk in terms of a follow up to the Anti-Corruption Report 2013. We have seen protests in European capitals, such as Romania. There have been allegations in respect of NAMA. What is the rationale for dropping this report? An issue arose during the French elections that the wife of one candidates was paid for fictitious work. Would he agree with transparency? Some members of the committee met with the Office of the Ombudsman, who spoke about the importance of transparency. Clearly this is one of those areas, which I cannot understand, but why we would drop that report?

Migration is the significant issue facing Europe. On the EU-Turkey deal, a country of safe origins, many of us across Europe have concerns about that. We are speaking in terms of replicating that deal in respect of Libya. Libya is a failed state, a country that is tribal and so on. Malawi is another country in the middle of a civil war similar to all of the difficulties that we know are happening in Turkey. Why are we replicating those ideas?

The German Chancellor is talking about member states not participating each time in all steps forward towards integration. It is almost as though there will be different tiers and different ways forward. The concern is that there will be first-class membership and second-class membership. Again, we need better reforms, democratic and transparent accountability and so on all over the European Union. They are three of the huge concerns and worries that people have with regard to the governments. I would appreciate it if the witness could expand on those points.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Timmermans is very welcome. I have a couple of questions for him. First and foremost, everybody we speak to in Europe talks about the special status for Northern Ireland. Will the witness accept that it is a three-way process that will involve the goodwill of the European Union, the United Kingdom and Ireland in negotiating some sort of special relationship? I feel that it will ultimately be a political solution. Is it the case that the Commission is waiting for the Irish Government to come forward with a proposal and possible solution to that political problem? Would that be the view of the witness, or are we to expect the Commission to come forward with a solution to that problem? If the European Commission is expecting Ireland to do it, is it going to give us the freedom to negotiate bilaterally with the UK in the lead-up period in order to establish what the ground rules are?

Due to the massive trade relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the UK, if we are to remain good Europeans - and I sincerely hope we do - we will need massive support for market diversification in order that we can start to withdraw from the UK market as other non-EU countries start to enter that market, particular in the area of agriculture. There are various other areas as well. We will need support and funding for that process of market diversification to take place and we will possibly need a relaxing of some of the rules with respect to State aid for local industries. The witness will be aware that there are creameries on the Border taking milk from as far north as one can go down to Roscommon. That is a problem for us.

I am interested in the Commission's role in representing Ireland. I know that Ireland will have a place at the table. How important is a tiny little island on the periphery of Europe? How do our needs fare in the Commission's thinking? We talk about forging new partnerships with governments. However, it is not governments that I am concerned about. I am concerned about the people on the ground. The rise of populism is coming from the people on the ground. In this country, a lot of people feel that we were hung out to dry in order to save the economic community and the euro as a result of the financial collapse. The collapse occurred right across Europe. We talk about the recovery in Ireland, but many people here feel that we carried the major burden.

Whatever about forging partnerships with parliaments, what plans has the Commission in place to forge partnerships with people on the ground? This would mean supporting new infrastructure in Ireland through the European Investment Bank and providing direct access to Europe without having to cross to the UK, which would mean developing our ports or a new highway to Europe, if the Commission wanted to do so. I would be interested in the witness's comments on that.

Mr. Frans Timmermans:

Firstl, it is a great innovation to see members of the European Parliament participating in this debate. I highly welcome that. A number of member states do this and it leads to cross-fertilisation, which is extremely helpful for the work on both sides. Mr. Hayes also knows that he has put questions to me that I cannot answer at this stage.

Mr. Brian Hayes:

That is why I deliberately-----

Mr. Frans Timmermans:

He knows that perfectly well. He did this intentionally. One can always try and I do not blame him for trying.

Mr. Brian Hayes:

The witness can try too.

Mr. Frans Timmermans:

I do not blame him for trying at all. However, he will appreciate that many of these questions can only be answered once we know the terms the British want.

We can only answer that once they have triggered Article 50 and laid down what they want out of this. I will try to answer some of the issues Mr. Hayes and his colleagues have raised anyway.

Perhaps we should picture this process as enlargement in reverse and look at how enlargement processes have gone in the past. That might also be how this process will develop in the next couple of years. However, that all depends on what the British want out of this. We have heard a lot of comments made in the United Kingdom, but the real judgment can only be made when we have the letter stipulating what they want.

I will speak about Ireland and its exceptional circumstances. Let me be brutally clear about this. Yes, there are exceptional circumstances. No, there cannot be bilateral negotiations. That would play exactly into the hands of the British who are trying to play off one country against the other. However, we can only convince Ireland not to have bilateral negotiations if it feels that what the European Commission is doing is in its interest and reflects what it needs and wants. That is why I feel so engaged in this. The Commission should prove to Ireland that its interests are being taken fully on board. That is the only way we can convince Ireland and, by the way, all of the other member states not to start parallel negotiations. Britain will try with every single member state to see if it can create a bilateral parallel process in the nature of diplomacy. Again, I do not blame them. They are fighting for the interests of their country like we are fighting for the interests of the 27 remaining countries. That is how this will play out. I do not think it will be in the interests of the 27. I believe that if we do our job well, it will not be in the interest of Ireland to opt for a bilateral negotiation apart from what the European Commission is doing.

On the unanimity requirements, I believe we need unanimity for the new relationship because that will have to be decided unanimously. However, at the end of the Article 50 process-----

Mr. Brian Hayes:

Strong.

Mr. Frans Timmermans:

-----strong qualified majority voting, QMV, is needed. The process can be discussed. Legally, it can be discussed. However, politically, these two processes will somehow be connected, to put it very mildly. In that sense, we need everyone on board if we want it to be successful, regardless of all the legal questions we might have.

I fully share Deputy Crowe's analysis when he says that people do not feel the recovery. I appreciate that a lot. I also see it in the country I know best. That is a country that was not hit as hard by crisis as Ireland was. That is a country with just 5% unemployment, probably zero budget deficit this year and rapidly declining public debt. Still, people feel that they are living in a country in deep crisis and that the bankers are doing well again but the people are not. One of the reasons why populism is so much on the rise is that across the EU many people, especially in the middle classes, feel that it is no longer about them. They feel that it is about the rich people, the bankers, the multinationals and not about them. If we are incapable of proving to our voters that this is about them, that they are reflected in our policy and that they will see light at the end of the tunnel, they will sooner or later be tempted by the very easy solutions of the populists who say that it is about us, that we should close our societies to differences and remove those who are responsible for our problems. This divisive and almost xenophobic attitude is on the rise, and not because people are xenophobes or racists, but because they are desperate. They do not see that their interests are reflected enough in our policies.

It people like Ms Le Pen, Mr. Wilders and others and their ideologies that are to blame for this and not the people who vote for them because many of the people who vote for them would vote for somebody else if he or she had something to offer they could believe in. There is a lot for us to do across the political spectrum from left to right. All people of good will across the European Union need to come to terms with this challenge. It is interesting that in those countries hardest hit in the crisis there are almost no extreme right movements on the rise. People always say that the rise of such movements is linked to poverty but I am not so sure about that. Greece lost one-quarter of its wealth and while there is an extreme right movement in Greece it is marginal. There are no extreme right movements in Spain, Portugal, Cyprus or Ireland. It is an interesting phenomenon that it is in the richer countries of Europe that they are on the rise. This is not about what people have suffered but what they can expect for the future. We have a huge responsibility to offer a better view of the future that we have thus far.

On the anti-corruption report, the Commission decided not to revisit the 2014 exercise in relation to the anti-corruption report. Personally, I was a little disappointed that this stood apart from all of the other policies, such that anti-corruption would be discussed only in the framework of the anti-corruption report. I want this to be mainstreamed. I want anti-corruption to be part of other reports such as our economic forecasts for member states and other reports in relation to member states. It should not be set apart. I am still in a debate with the European Parliament on this matter. I will need to prove to Emily O'Reilly and others that we can do a better job by mainstreaming our fight against corruption rather than having it set apart in a report. The onus is on me to prove that we can do that. Romania is an interesting case. As soon as the population of Romania got the impression that the Government was going to be lax on anti-corruption they took to the streets. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets and the Government changed course and overturned its decision. There is a strong appetite in all member states for the fight against corruption. It is always one of the top items in our euro barometer research, particularly in those states that are still suffering a lot of corruption. We need to stand by the people who want corruption to be removed from the public sphere.

On agreements with other countries and the replication of the Turkish agreement, the Turkish agreement cannot be replicated because the circumstances are not comparable. When it comes to Turkey and Libya, the only thing we need to do that is comparable is break the backbone of the smuggling operation. We need to stop smugglers putting people on boats, which puts them at high risk of drowning in the Mediterranean. That is unacceptable. We need to fight the smuggling rings and to do that with determination. We also need to have arrangements in place with the countries of origin such that they take back people who do not have the right to international protection, or prevent people from leaving by giving them a better perspective. We also need to have arrangements with the countries bordering the Mediterranean so that we jointly fight illegal migrant. That is what we need to do but it is not comparable to what we have done with Turkey. The deal we have with Turkey is working. We have been able to improve the living conditions of Syrians living in Turkey, including through increased access to education and work. Their living conditions have also been improved and they have greater access than ever to health care. We have never been able to disburse so much money in such a brief period of time as in the case of the Syrian refugees in Turkey.

On multi-speed Europe, much depends on how one defines that. Some would define multi-speed Europe as a bunch of countries setting up something entirely new and going off in their own direction. I would interpret it as being similar to what happens in the areas of economic and monetary union, the euro and justice and home affairs. We all travel in the same direction but not necessarily at the same speed. In some areas, if it is not convenient to do so, then a country does not participate in the next phase of co-operation. That is how I would interpret multi-speed Europe. It is a way of keeping Europe together, it is not a way of creating divisions in the European Union. We have good experience of this in the past. Ireland has chosen not to be part of the Schengen area because of its special conditions. That is an acceptable example of multi-speed Europe.

We depend on the goodwill of the EU, the UK and Ireland but it is in all our interests that we, as a Commission, prove to Ireland that we can be its best advocates and representatives in those negotiations such that it should not have to engage in bilateral negotiations. On market differentiation, it is a good idea regardless of what happens. It would be a good idea to review our Structural Funds policy. On partnerships with people, I am not sure how that would pan out. For example, in the context of the European Fund for Strategic Investment, EFSI, or the "Juncker fund", in a country such as France, never before have SMEs had such direct access to European funds. Never before have we been able to create a direct relationship between the European Investment Bank and local entrepreneurs in all parts of France. That is working well. For the first time, SMEs have direct access to European investment. Under EFSI, the European Investment Bank approved four agreements with financial intermediaries. Financing totals €106 million and is expected to trigger €589 million in investment. Some 2,900 small companies or start-ups will benefit from this support. In terms of partnerships with people that is the direction we should be going.

Co-Chairman (Deputy Brendan Smith):

I thank the Commissioner for his responses. The next grouping comprises Deputies Grealish, Barrett, O'Rourke and Darragh O'Brien. I appeal to members to ask questions because there are more people offering and we are under time constraints because the Commissioner has other engagements.

Noel Grealish (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted that the Commissioner had the opportunity to come here. A number of speakers have already touched on the issue of Brexit. I was disappointed to hear the Commissioner say that there should be no bilateral negotiations between Ireland and the United Kingdom. I say that because at the time of the economic crisis in Ireland, David Cameron, the then Prime Minister of Britain said in a speech that the UK trades more with the Republic of Ireland than with China, Russia, India and Brazil together. That shows the strong level of trade between our two nations. Also, 90% of our exports to Europe go through the UK. As a result of the fact that Ireland will be worst affected by Brexit we should engage in bilateral negotiations with the United Kingdom. Ireland is a small nation in Europe and it could be left behind. Perhaps the Commissioner would elaborate on why Ireland should not seek to put in place bilateral agreements with the UK. Ireland is the only country that will share a border with the UK when it leaves Europe.

The EU as a whole must change its attitude towards European citizens. As the Commissioner said, the extreme right movement is on the rise in the major European countries. In that regard, it will be interesting to see the results of the elections in Germany and France.

We read constantly about how Greece is finding it difficult to adhere to the bailout programme. What are the challenges for the EU if Greece reneges? What are the views of the European Commission on the ban President Trump is imposing on people from seven Muslim countries?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Timmermans. It is very sad for us to lose a member state. There is no great delight in my heart about losing the UK from the family of the European Union. The warning bells are ringing loud and clear. We would be foolish to bury our heads and pretend that others are not thinking the same way.

Mr. Frans Timmermans:

Who specifically please?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not matter. It has been said and I think it is because we have lost our way. What do we mean by the European Union and the family of European countries?

I was first elected in 1974, a year after we joined the then Common Market. The sense of joy at feeling Irish and European was great. There was great excitement. There was a sense of pride when we held the Presidency, a sense that it was great for Ireland. That has disappeared. We now have a non-elected President. What has gone wrong with the European Union? We have lost the people. They are not interested in the various things that are happening out there in Europe. They are lost. The sooner we cop onto ourselves the better because this is not the first country to seriously consider leaving the European Union.

We joined the European Union because Britain joined. We are now left, an island in the Atlantic, separated from Europe and as time goes on we will feel lost because there is no sense of being European. I regarded myself as an Irishman first and a European and I was proud of that because I was made feel part of Europe. Now things are hived off here and there. We have even lost the concept of the free movement of people because some member states do not want people moving around Europe. When there was a crisis with people coming in from outside they closed their borders and nobody said boo to them but poor countries such as Greece took many on board.

I welcome the visit of Mr. Timmermans but it is an opportunity to be truthful with each other and to say what we feel. I am saying what I feel. I do not know whether my colleagues feel the same way. It is dissolving in front of us because of rules and regulations and funds. We were so pleased, especially as an island nation, to be part of a bigger family and to feel that we could move around freely and broaden our views. The present generation does not have the sense of excitement that we had when we joined first. The European Union as a body needs to reinvigorate itself, to bring us back to feeling European. We do not feel European. I respect the European Commission but we need a contact between the member states, the executive, which is the Commission, and the overall management, that is, the prime ministers of member states.

Maybe it was a small thing but holding the presidency was so important to Ireland and certainly it was important to me. It cost us money but it brought back a sense of pride and it connected us to Europe. That was taken and what have we got? We have a European Parliament of 780 odd people.

Mr. Frans Timmermans:

There are 751.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have 13 members of the Parliament. We are stuck out here in the Atlantic. Our near neighbour is gone. It is a great tragedy. Let us think of where we are going and reconsider this huge structure. Individual member states want to run their own affairs but share responsibility with colleagues in Europe. It is sad to see what is happening. I hope we do not see any other members leaving.

Frank O'Rourke (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Timmermans for coming here this morning and for his opening address. I share some of my colleagues' concerns. Is Mr. Timmermans concerned that anti-EU groups are allowed a platform to oppose the EU and to talk about other member states considering doing what the UK has done? That is a reality. A vacuum seems to be allowed exist where these groups can articulate their case and we do not seem to be combatting it and talking about the positive aspects of being involved in the EU and the advantages it brings. Notwithstanding all the positives, the people of this State feel that the EU issues diktats on legislation and policy. It is becoming difficult for people in rural Ireland or running businesses to manage and survive with the level of legislation they have to comply with and which they sometimes feel is unnecessary. Is Mr. Timmermans concerned about that and how could it be dealt with?

I share my colleagues' views on exports, given the amount of business we do with the UK. Mr. Timmermans says Ireland will be treated as a special case in these talks. The exports to and via the UK are very important for our small economy. The small and medium enterprise SME sector is trying to survive having gone through a difficult time for trade. It is very important to our economy especially in the food industry.

Is Mr. Timmermans suggesting, given that we know the difficulties this poses, that we need to bring forward solutions to the problems? If he is advocating that I would agree with him because we are in the best place to identify solutions.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is good that the Commissioner is here. I would like him to be clear that most of us would not agree with having a bilateral arrangement or negotiations with Britain. I rejected that on behalf of my party when it was floated following the report from the House of Lords.

I, on behalf of my party, rejected this when it was floated after the publication of the House of Lords report. It would not be in our interests but that is where it is right now. It stands as long as our interests are considered and included in the EU negotiations with the United Kingdom. However, to be clear, if we were to feel that our views and concerns were not being dealt with in this regard, we of course would reserve the right. I agree with the position of Mr. Timmermans that everyone will enter these negotiations and look for advantages and so they should. Britain will try to look after the best interests of its people. We want to look after the best interests of our people, North and South - I will return to that - and, most importantly, the future of the European Union itself.

I am somewhat more confident than some members. Sometimes it is good to be in the middle of the Atlantic while being part of Europe. Our relationship with Britain as a country is that we are its fifth biggest market. We must be confident that we, the European Union and Ireland, will continue to trade with Britain. The question is how to get to that stage. This is why I wish to ask Mr. Timmermans about a matter Mr. Hayes, MEP, raised earlier. With Britain exiting the customs union, Mr. Michel Barnier gave his view that there would be some transitional arrangements. I agree with him. However, Commissioner Moscovici then said nothing would happen until after two years. This would be dangerous for all. We should be realistic about how this will be done, particularly in respect of customs and trade. I understand there are people on both sides of the fence who do not particularly like one other. Those on one side do not like the fact that Britain is leaving and sometimes feel we need a big stick to punish those on the other. This is not in anyone's interests. It is neither in Ireland's interests nor the European Union's interests. I ask Mr. Timmermans to clarify this from a Commission perspective. Which position is it - Commissioner Moscovici's or Mr. Barnier's - or is there a third person in the middle who makes some sense of this?

I have put my next point to our Government by way of parliamentary question. What is the Commission's view on an EU reform fund? There are unique aspects to Ireland's position and other countries also trade extensively with Britain and vice versa. The relaxation of state aid rules for certain sectors should therefore be considered. Most crises just fall on one's lap. They just happen, and every country, every government and its people, must deal with them. This is a crisis we know is coming down the track. We can plan for it and should be able to do so already, considering in particular the sectors that require our support, both in Ireland and the European Union. We know there will be difficulties when the Article 50 letter is sent and over the next few years. I do not sense that such preparation is under way and I do not believe it is okay just to say we must wait and see what the British are looking for. That is true in one respect, but I know, as I am sure does Mr. Timmermans, that Britain is supporting its indigenous industries. We have also seen this with export industries from outside the European Union. We do not know what support Britain has been giving to some of the car manufacturers but one had better believe it is probably better than the EU supports given to Irish companies, for argument's sake, or Dutch companies for that matter. Consequently, we should consider this again. Will Mr. Timmermans give a commitment that consideration will be given to a relaxation of the state aid rules and the creation of an EU reform fund to which all countries or sectors, not just Ireland, could apply?

I was very heartened by Mr. Timmermans' comments about the head versus the heart. He is 100% correct that one cannot fight anti-EU sentiment with spreadsheets and pie charts. We must try to be positive and show what has been positive about the European Union. For too long all its negative elements have been emphasised. It is right people are critical - do not get me wrong. However, the fact that the Commission's judgment on the Apple case came a few weeks after Brexit happened should be considered from a political perspective. I thought the Commission was the best and brightest of the European Union but even the timing of the judgment should be considered. I still believe the Commission overstepped the mark in that case. We must be more conscious of the EU itself and how our people feel within it. I for one want to see the European project move forward. I would be particularly interested to hear Mr. Timmermans' views on the few items I have raised with him.

My very final point concerns the common travel area, which was reaffirmed by the Amsterdam treaty. We believe the common travel area is not in any way up for negotiation.

We will have the largest number of European Union citizens living outside the EU, that is, Irish citizens in the North of Ireland, to whom we in Ireland have a duty of care under the Good Friday Agreement and previous international treaties. This is our unique case and the unique aspect to our position. Hundreds of thousands of people - indeed, more than 1 million people - living outside the EU will be more than entitled to Irish citizenship and, by extension, EU citizenship.

The next few years will not be easy. I ask that we consider the few matters I have raised. I welcome Mr. Timmermans' engagement. It is very useful.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Vice President Timmermans is very welcome, and it is good to hear his views. My questions are largely tied in with those of the previous few speakers. We feel very European, as opposed to the British. However, as has been said, we have such a tie-in and connection with them, in respect of people and trade, with both the North and Britain, that we cannot ignore them, whether we like it or not. We have agreements with them going back to 1922, despite our history of having fought with them before that. All of this predates the EU, so it is natural that our Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister have had these meetings. I fully accept that we cannot have the bilateral arrangement to which Mr. Timmermans has referred. We wish to be on the European side in the negotiations. However, at the same time, Mr. Timmermans must appreciate that we must keep our free travel arrangement with Britain. As he said, this is a question of the hearts element of the notion of hearts and minds. I do not understand why Britain wants to leave both the Single Market and the customs union. I do not know how we will bridge this but I feel, from what Mr. Timmermans has said - I suppose this is natural - that until we get into the negotiations, it cannot be worked out. However, there is a willingness on his part and, I think, some of his colleagues to make the transition, although I do not know how. The fundamental question is whether he is confident it can successfully pan out.

Declan Breathnach (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Co-Chairman for the opportunity, as a non-member of the committee but as a Border county representative, to make a contribution. Mr. Timmermans talked about solutions. I wish in a non-partisan way to throw two short questions out to him. We all know about the formation of the EU. It was a peace project in the first instance and then an economic project. Is there merit in the EU taking a clear stance on the peace process and recognising that this North-South project needs special status on its own? While I know there are links in this regard to the economy and peace on our island, is there merit to the Commission's considering this and saying we must deal with this aspect of peace? This includes a continuation of the lack of a hard Border. Any diminution in the invisibility of the Border that currently exists is probably one of the most contentious issues that will arise in negotiations. The unequivocal support for this is significant in the context of the status of the Good Friday Agreement as a solemn, sovereign agreement.

My second question is rather simplistic but concerns probably the biggest issue arising in the Border region. I refer to our agriculture industry. I will ask a simple question. The integrity of our food on an all-Ireland basis must be protected. We know the history of foot and mouth disease, BSE and the horsemeat scandal in recent years. Without talking about special trade deals, would it not make sense for the EU to recognise that Ireland needs to brand its agricultural produce on an all-island basis and be allowed to market that produce on an all-Ireland basis, North and South, into England and the EU to bestow on this island an integrity regarding its food produce?

Co-Chairman (Deputy Brendan Smith):

I have three brief questions. Can Mr. Timmermans clarify the Commission's intended negotiating approach? According to some reports, the British preference is to negotiate all strands at once and in parallel, while the Commission wishes to negotiate one strand at a time. If that is the case, how will this impasse be resolved? While we accept that the major Brexit-related decisions will be taken in Brussels by the European Council, with the input of the Commission, is it not the reality that we have seen in recent times when major crises have affected the European Union that much of the behind-the-scenes discussions were carried out in Berlin and Paris, sidelining the views and concerns of other member states?

We do not want to see a repeat of that. Can we be assured that the decisions will be taken by the 27 remaining states at Council level rather than behind the scenes in the capitals of some of the major member states?

On enlargement, Georgia, for example, has made huge strides in attempting to meet the necessary criteria for accession. Is there any environment within the Commission for enlargement with regard to the Ukraine-EU-Russia relationships? They are also critical. Obviously, we have seen difficulties there.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a clear message for the Commissioner on Brexit. Ireland is committed to the European Union and recognises its key role in ensuring peace and prosperity on this island. The work done in developing the Good Friday Agreement must not be endangered, nor the peace process and the prosperity that came with it. The lack of a visible border is an integral part of that and any moves to change that would be not just troublesome, but disastrous. The imposition of tariffs with the potential to decimate the economies North and South must be avoided.

I support what the Co-Chairman said about Georgia. There are representatives here today and I was very glad to meet them last week to discuss their plans. They are making great strides. I would be interested to hear about the progress on Georgia's accession, which is fresh in our minds at this time.

Mr. Frans Timmermans:

Some of the comments and questions are so specific that the members will appreciate that I cannot answer them. I wish I could answer them, but if I were to answer them in public they would have an effect immediately on things still to happen in the future. I am simply not in a position to pre-empt some of these elements. I want to assure the members that I have taken very careful note of these remarks. I will take them back and share them with Michel Barnier and others so that the people are very much of where this Parliament and Ireland stand on this.

As Commission, we need to prove we duly represent the interest of Ireland in this negotiation. Then all bets are off in terms of how Ireland behaves in that. This applies to every single member state. Every single member state will want to be seen as duly represented by us. However, Ireland is not every single member state; Ireland is a very special case in this negotiation. If I was not already aware of that before this meeting, this meeting has confirmed that in so many different ways.

Let me repeat something I have said publicly before. I was born in 1961. Throughout my childhood and early adulthood I was witness to terrible violence in the North of this island. We were all brought up with that. Many of us thought this could never be solved. When I was young I truly thought that this was part of life and that people would continue murdering each other for generations to come. Then this miracle of the Good Friday Agreement came about. I believe we have a political and moral duty to do everything within our power to maintain the Good Friday Agreement and everything that entails. I am sorry I cannot be clearer than that today, but I hope members will understand my personal commitment to this.

The EU has been a strong supporter of developments in Northern Ireland. I remember Belfast 30 or 40 years ago. If we look at Belfast now, what has been achieved is incredible. The EU has spent up to €2 billion in developing the North in many ways. Many years ago it was a terrible rust belt, especially Belfast. Now we should look at what is coming up there in terms of the economy. We also have reason to be optimistic. However, I am fully aware of all the difficulties in agriculture, transport, manufacturing and trade that we will face in the coming years. I again pledge that the Commission is on Ireland's side on that.

Referring to what the Co-Chairman said, there is a paradox in having a predominance of big member states, which is logical in a Union of so many small countries. The big countries are big only in name because globally we only have small member states by comparison with the rest of the world. However, the response to having big and small member states is not to take competences away from the Commission and put them in the hands of the European Council because that would be rewarding big member states. The Commission can offer protection against the force of big member states. It is what we have been doing traditionally but we need to prove we can do that every day; I agree with the Co-Chairman.

The onus is on us to prove this is not just driven by Berlin and Paris but takes into account the interests of all member states. It is not just Ireland; certain other member states have very big interests at stake here, some of which I know extremely well.

On the issue of the EU per se, it is time for those of us who believe in the EU to speak up for the EU and stop being intimidated by this populist rhetoric. The EU is not about Brussels; it is not about the European Parliament; it is not about the European Commission. The EU is about citizens who want to live in peace with other citizens with whom they have had wars for centuries. That is still the essence of the EU.

In every member state Brexit has led to less support for leaving the EU rather than more support for leaving the EU. There is not one member state today where a majority of the population would be in favour of leaving the EU. I apologise to Deputy Barrett for interrupting him, but I wondered what countries he was referring to when he said that there would be a host of countries wanting to leave the EU. While it might change in the future, at this stage I do not see it. Rather than driving euroscepticism, the shock of Brexit has led people to reconsider. Paradoxically the fact that this European Union could collapse, which I think is a reality, has brought forward more pro-European feelings than we had previously.

What is most threatening to the EU is that we take it for granted and are completely indifferent to what happens to it. The enemy of the EU is not anti-EU feeling; it is indifference about the EU because anti-EU feeling is a minority view in almost all if not all remaining member states. We need to mobilise the population for this project. I passionately believe in this project especially if we can interest younger people, not in the structures of the EU or the institutions but in the ideals of the EU. Our young generation are no longer ideological but they are very idealistic about working together with others. I think that is where Europe's future resides.

Let me be perfectly clear about this. The problem with young people is that they take Europe for granted. It is not that they do not like it. It has created their natural habitat of Europe as a place where they can go wherever they like without any problems because of cheap air fares - some Irish companies are very successful in providing that. It is not an institutional Europe or a Brussels Europe but a Europe of the people because they can travel to Barcelona for the weekend or to Riga to have a stag party or whatever. That is the reality of our children's lives. This is a Europe that should also be recognised as a positive thing. It was unimaginable for my parents for whom the German was still the enemy. I think it is a miracle.

I need to answer the specific question on Georgia. President Juncker has been very clear that in the term of this Commission up to 2019 there will be no enlargement of the European Union. There is also very little appetite in member states to start enlargement discussions. I believe we can make huge progress with Georgia.

Georgia should feel that its wish to be part of the European family, if I can put it that way, should be translated in measures in terms of co-operation, investment and visa-free travel. All that should be done and it is urgent to do that, but we should be realistic about enlargement. It is not going to happen for the foreseeable future, certainly not in the mandate of this Commission. My assessment today is that the urgency with enlargement would probably reside more with the western Balkans before we go into the Caucasus, but I am speaking beyond my brief because my brief only goes to 2019 and that will happen after 2019.

I answered the question on whether we should negotiate separately. In terms of the questions on Mr. Trump, I have been very clear that if immigration restrictions are based on religion or race, they are a discrimination which should not be allowed to happen. We have been very clear about that. We have seen also that the American judicial system works rather well in correcting these things. We can have faith in American institutions in so far as that is concerned.

We now have the Maltese Presidency and it is performing very well. In my experience over the past 30 years, the smaller the country, the more successful the Presidency because small countries can more easily sell at home that it is at the service of the 28 or later the 27, whereas when a big member state holds the Presidency, it has to prove that it brings a lot of success to that member stateper se, and usually that does not work very well. The Maltese Presidency is successful and I very much look forward to the Estonian Presidency, which will be the next Presidency, as of 1 July.

I believe I have answered-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked about state aid. That is important.

Mr. Frans Timmermans:

I am sorry. Yes. I have to be very careful in what I say now because it is linked to the negotiations. It is clear that exceptional circumstances allow us to digress from the rules. Deputy O'Brien was correct when he said that one can see exceptional circumstances coming, but that is not how it works. They have to be there before we can invoke them. I think we would all be well advised to prepare well for this eventuality. I am afraid that is as far as I can go in response to the Deputy's question today.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I thank Mr. Timmermans.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Timmermans very much. I was very heartened with the comments attributed to him in one of yesterday's national newspapers in regard to the importance he attached to the Good Friday Agreement. I am delighted that he put it on the record of the committees of the Houses of Parliament that he wants the Good Friday Agreement upheld and protected. His comments are very heartening. He said as well that the Commission has a political and moral duty to maintain the Good Friday Agreement. That is so correct. What we said in discussions with other groups that appeared before the committee and to other committees of the Houses is that the outcome of the Brexit negotiations must not result in the diminution in any way of the workings, aspirations or the potential of the Good Friday Agreement.

The role of the European Union has been critical in getting us to this stage. The financial support for the various programmes such as INTERREG and PEACE has been critical. Substantial funds have been drawn down by both the Irish and British Governments and by statutory agencies and voluntary groups throughout the island in support of the peace process. Much of the funding went to the least advantaged areas in Northern Ireland and the Border area and it was very important in terms of improving the lot of disadvantaged communities. We want to see that continue.

As a representative of a Border area, I have seen this island transformed since 1998. We do not want to go one step backwards. The outcome of Brexit is critical for the entire island. I hope the First Vice President can reinforce to his colleagues on the Commission the importance of ensuring no aspect of the Good Friday Agreement is diminished and that we want the island to continue to grow on a North-South and east-west basis, and that we will build on what has been achieved to date.

We cannot countenance going backwards. Those of us who grew up in Border areas grew up with checkpoints on both sides of the Border and the resulting restriction on the movement of people, goods and services. That is not something we can go back to. I am sure all of my colleagues present are very heartened by the comprehensive remarks Mr. Timmermans made and his detailed knowledge of the issues affecting us.

I am very pleased that Mr. Timmermans has got a sense of the feelings of the members of these committees on the European Union, the opportunity and need for governance reform among other issues, and that Europe must return to the ideals of the communautaire approach that drove it heretofore. I hope we will have the opportunity to meet the First Vice President again during the process of negotiations. I sincerely thank Mr. Timmermans for the very comprehensive manner in which he dealt with all the questions posed to him by members of both committees.

Mr. Frans Timmermans:

Thank you very much, Co-Chairman.