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

As we have a quorum we can begin. We have received apologies from Deputy Cullinane. Other members have made it known that they have other obligations. I appreciate that people are trying to go between this and other committees. I would like to remind members and others to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off. This is important as they cause serious problems for broadcasting, editorial and sound staff.

On behalf of all committee members, I would like to welcome Dr. Peter Rigney, industrial officer with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, to our committee meeting today as we continue our engagement on the future of Europe. What type of European Union we have in the future is important to all of our citizens and those who live here. ICTU is very active on European issues and the consequences of EU issues in Ireland. It is also very active in working with European counterparts within the European Trade Union Congress, ETUC, structure and beyond. I am sure it has many insights to offer us. We are all looking forward to the contributions.

Before Dr. Rigney begins his opening statement, I have to remind everyone of the rules on privilege in the Parliament. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members 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 this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to particular matter and you continue to do so you are entitled thereafter to only qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I ask Dr. Rigney to make his opening statement. After that, we will open the floor to members. I welcome the students and others in the Gallery.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

I thank the committee for the invitation to ICTU to lay out our views on the future of Europe and the particular issues which are forming the debate on the future of Europe. Why do we have a European Union? If we look back to the twentieth century when Europe was laid waste to twice in 30 years we will find that is why/. One hundred years ago this week, armies were grinding each other down in the muddy fields of Passchendaele, among them many people from Ireland. As the number of veterans of these wars dwindles - in the case of the First World War all have died - the collective memory of the founding purpose of the European Union has dimmed.

The founding fathers of the European Union, such as Konrad Adenauer and Robert Schuman, experienced two world wars as adults, with two decades of peace in the 1920s and 1930s like the half time between two halves of a match. Many people think that the Union, particularly under the Barroso Commission, has been its own worst enemy. We welcome the attempt by the Juncker Commission to relaunch Europe and social dialogue at a European level.

ICTU has participated in the debate on the future of Europe through the European economic and social committee, which recently held a seminar in the Mansion House in Dublin to discuss the issue. We also have an input at European level through our affiliation to the ETUC. We launched an international affiliation in 1973 when we joined the European Union because at that time trade union international politics was tied down in Cold War issues. When we joined the EU we took the decision to join ETUC because that was where many decisions were being made at an Irish level. It is often forgotten that one of the first fruits of EU membership for Irish citizens was the decision to do away with the marriage bar on women and introduce equal pay.

There are five options being explored at a European level. When I was young my very first job was in the Civil Service, and I was advised by a cynical principal officer as to how to get stuff through Government. He was tongue in cheek to a certain extent, and said normally one lays out three options, one of which is plainly daft, the other of which has superficial attractions but has a flaw and a third which is what the Department wants.

A number of the five Juncker options are not going to happen such as, for example, carrying on. There will be change. It is politically impossible that there will be nothing but the Single Market. Doing less more efficiently is attractive on the surface, but is probably a flawed policy. What will probably emerge is some amalgam of options three or four or three and four. Scenario three, that is, those who want to do more, is code for a two-speed Europe. There is a debate to be had about that.

I do not want to talk about how those five choices will be sieved through, rather about our two strategic objectives. Our objectives centre on the task of restoring the concept of a social Europe and reversing or mitigating some of the policies and European Court of Justice judgments which privilege freedom to conduct business over labour rights. I refer to the actions of the Troika in some countries and to the European Court of Justice judgments in cases such as Viking and Laval, which were cases taken against Scandinavian trade unions in respect of workers from the Baltic states working there.

There is a whole body of case law there, but the core of it was that the European Courts of Justice found that the freedom to carry out business had precedence over freedom to protect labour rights.

It would appear to us that President Juncker’s proposed European pillar of social rights constitutes a recognition by Brussels that the Union will not survive if it does not re-establish some social credentials with its citizens. Since 2008 the EU has been seen, for better or for worse, as the bearer of harsh tidings to its citizens. Much of the pillar of social rights is at present aspirational, but it will evolve as time goes on, and will form a reference point for the development of European social policy in the future. The two concrete proposals of the pillar are a written statement directive, which will update the previous written statement directive which goes back to 1972. It will deal with issues around the so-called gig economy and bogus self-employment, and with social security rights for self-employed people, focusing again on aspects of the gig economy and work platforms such as Uber. It is planned that the pillar will be proclaimed at a summit in Gothenburg next month, and we expect the full support of the Irish Government for this process.

The other important point for Congress - this may seem a technical point but it is extremely important - is modification of the mandate of the European Central Bank, ECB, beyond combatting inflation. The ECB website informs us that its mandate is:

"To maintain price stability is the primary objective of the Eurosystem and of the single monetary policy for which it is responsible. This is laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 127 (1)".

If we step back and look at the mandate of the Federal Reserve bank in the US, we see that it is governed by the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, also known as the Humphrey Hawkins Act. This Act specifically instructs the nation to strive toward four ultimate goals: full employment; growth in production; price stability; and balance of trade and budget. Fulfilling in full all of these four goals all of the time is a tall order, but the debate must start somewhere. We cannot blame the ECB for carrying out its mandate. Our attitude is that we have to have a debate on the mandate, and a balanced mandate for the ECB, between combating inflation and the preservation of full employment. This would provide a balance between the economic and the social.

There is a third aspect, and in illustrating my point I would like to draw the committee’s attention to a recent spat between France and Germany on the one hand and the Eastern member states on the other. France and Germany decided to apply their minimum wage laws to trucks passing through their territory, for example from Hungary to Spain. The Commission launched infringement procedures against France and Germany. So far this is a fairly mundane subject. However, according to a Polish radio website, Ireland joined with the Eastern countries, Spain and Portugal in supporting the Commission’s action. My point is not the subject matter. I do not automatically say that France and Germany are right. In industrial relations one must listen to balanced arguments on the other side. If someone decided that his or her driver would not set foot in France or Germany, would they be expected to be paying higher wages? The issue for legislators is that decisions are being made in committee in Brussels to modify European legislation. Do Irish legislators have an input in the process? In this set-piece case, we have France and Germany versus the eastern countries on the other side. France and Germany are big players. Who took the decision that we should pitch in against them? What were the arguments for and against that? This is not a matter for me, for unions or employers. It is a matter for legislators to look and see if there is a gap, to find out who makes the decisions and where the mandate comes from.

It is difficult to know what to expect, reading the newspapers, but it would seem prudent to prepare for the worst case scenario after Brexit. In the world after Brexit, Ireland's foreign policy in Europe will have to undergo a reappraisal. Up to now, if myself or my colleagues were arguing with the Irish authorities over a piece of socially progressive legislation, we would often get the answer, "That is fine, but the British would never favour that". Now that the British are gone we are going to have to invent another bogeyman. We are going to have to form our own foreign policy.

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

It is not gone yet.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

When it is gone Irish foreign policy cannot work in the way that it has until now and simply say, "The British will not stand for it". On a practical level, we have to make other allies. We have tended to work along with Britain at European level. That will be gone and the balance of power will be changed. What other blocks will build up in the EU? There is the Franco-German alliance and the Visegrád group, which is the group of new member states. Where does Ireland fit in all of that? These are matters that concern legislators, and I welcome the opportunity to put forward the view of Congress.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witness for coming to the committee today and for outlining some very interesting points. I agree with the witness on certain matters. The departure of the United Kingdom from the EU will create a challenging environment for us in terms of repositioning ourselves within the member states and the alliances that are formed therein.

The witness raised two points in his contribution which I would take a particular viewpoint on. He asked the question of where we reposition ourselves and mentioned that Ireland supported some of the eastern European countries on the opposition to the French-German decision in the truck drivers case. While I am very much pro-European and support the EU and the development of stronger links, we always have to remember that at the end of the day countries are sovereign states within a confederation of sovereign states. What France and Germany are doing, in my opinion and in the opinion of all other Governments apart from their own, is adopting a protectionist position. It is not designed to protect workers' rights but to protect their own businesses and transport companies by effectively putting companies which operate from a lower cost base out of business. Unfortunately, sometimes in this country our media and some commentators are inclined to take a viewpoint which is very much to the detriment of Ireland in terms of advocating support for policy positions being advocated by bigger EU member states who effectively, under the guise of appearing to be benevolent, are actually trying to re-tilt the playing pitch to suit their own very high cost economies in some ways.

One of the more central points is how the European Central Bank behaves in its key core policy. We have to remember that it comes from the original German Central Bank. The original position - still fresh in Mr. Rigney's contribution - which drove Germany into a war was hyper-inflation and the collapse of a currency. For Germany to come into the new European currency it needed those reassurances. Regardless of German reassurance, the American Federal Reserve, in dealing with the world's strongest currency, has much more latitude in how it develops policy than the ECB has. Central to all economic growth within the euro region is the ability to show that the currency is stable, particularly against the risks of inflation. That is why I would be very cautious about moves to weaken the position of the ECB and its charter in terms of how it would tackle inflation.

I fully agree with the view of Congress that other factors need to be taken into account to aid job creation, to create a buoyant economy and to fund the types of social services that people want to see, but for me that is a role for national governments working co-operatively with the commission to develop the correct economic policies, some of which are not in play. I would caution against dragging the ECB into that area, because fundamentally, if we undermine the strength of the currency, everything else we do will have little or no impact.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

Can I come back on that point?

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

We will take all of the answers together.

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

I welcome Dr. Rigney.

The future of Europe concept is slightly unreal at the moment because Europe is very much wrapped up with the Brexit talks which, currently, are not going well. The deadline is March 2019. That is the date when the British MEPs will physically leave Brussels according to the arrangement that has been entered into. That will be a major change because there are between 75 and 80 British MEPs in the European Parliament. It will also be a major change from our point of view because as a former Minister of State with responsibility for trade I was involved in the Single European Act and our allies were the United Kingdom, as we were theirs in terms of derogations because at that time we were not ready, for example, to have an open economy in trade but such things have developed. It is most regrettable to say the least that the British are leaving. I am just back from the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Liverpool where we had deliberations and we brought forward a paper on the preferred option on the Border post-Brexit as far as the UK and Ireland are concerned. All those issues have been well thrashed out already.

Ireland's position on Europe has changed since the troika and the European Central Bank were involved in very dubious activities during the 2007 to 2008 period when we were given enormous loans and we carried the can. The question was whether we should have burned the bondholders and just walked away from the situation but we did not. The standing of Europe, as such, has been reduced since that. What happened at that particular time heralded a major change in Ireland. Many good things were achieved by our membership of the European Union, including the removal of the marriage bar and equal pay, which strangely enough did not seem to filter through to RTE. RTE has operated a regime of unequal pay between men and women for so many years. It is unacceptable to say the least that of two people presenting the news at 6 p.m. on television one is paid perhaps €60,000 less than the other. RTE must not have realised that equal pay applies to it.

There is no appetite here for a federal Europe. Mr. Juncker and others are pushing towards a federal approach whereby there would be one Minister for Finance and other issues would also be dealt with centrally. I am happy with the status quo. We developed the Single European Act and we worked together in harmony but if there is any move to try to undermine in any way our 12.5% corporation tax we could not and would not accept that Europe would have any responsibility for setting the level of tax throughout Europe. That is something successive Governments have been adamant about.

As far as the present situation is concerned we accept that it is more than likely, but it is not guaranteed yet, that the United Kingdom will be gone if various changes occur. We are not sure yet but there is no doubt we are moving in that direction. The European Union should proceed with the expansion of Europe in relation to Montenegro, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. That region could do with the stability of being a member of the European Union and would replace one with three. From an Irish point of view we should be at the forefront of supporting the applications of those countries because, as was mentioned, they will be the allies we will require in the new Europe after Britain leaves.

The future of Europe is bound up by Brexit and it will be a different Europe. It will be a less inclusive Europe if the United Kingdom eventually leaves because the UK has played a very important role. We joined together in 1973 and we have been together for that period. It is leaving and we are staying with the 26 member states and we are negotiating with the United Kingdom although we are conscious that a bad deal for the United Kingdom is a bad deal for Ireland. We are in danger of being affected by collateral damage. I was in Brussels recently and there seemed to be an attitude towards the United Kingdom that it must pay for its treachery and disloyalty to the European Union but we could be affected by collateral damage. Most of the other 26 countries are not that worried about us. We are worried about ourselves but I do not see much concern in Estonia, Latvia or other countries about our unique position whereby there is €1.2 billion in trade per week between both countries. We are big customers of each other. It is a major step forward.

I am encouraging British companies to relocate some of their plants to the Republic of Ireland, in particular in the west in order that they would have access to Ireland West Airport Knock, ready access to the markets and a guaranteed access post-Brexit to Europe. If tariffs are applied then the United Kingdom can prepare in advance. The same will apply to some Irish companies who will have a continued foothold in the United Kingdom by arrangement and agreement and by virtue of making investments there. It is a reciprocal process. We must ensure that we look after our interests. Our interest lies in staying with the major European countries but that we can attract enterprise from the United Kingdom in terms of parts of their companies to the west. We are and will be the gateway to mainland Europe.

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

I will be brief. I welcome Mr. Rigney here this afternoon. I will follow on from the final point made by my colleague, Senator Leyden, namely, Brexit and encouraging enterprise and new companies into Ireland. A critical part of that is investment in infrastructure. We have raised it time and time again and it was raised last week during the budget speeches and will emerge again as the various Bills pass through the House. Senator Leyden is correct that we must aim to relocate business into the midlands and into the west and north west but in order to do that we must have a road infrastructure, proper broadband and access to rail services, roll-on-roll-off facilities and airports. It is hugely important in that context that we should see this as an opportunity to invest in what is required to attract foreign direct investment into our country and have companies set up here.

When we talk about the future of Europe does that create some level of uncertainty and instability because we are aware of what has happened with Brexit? Senator Leyden has outlined that the United Kingdom is standing back a little now and has changed its timeline as it has become more aware of the significance of the change to it as well as to everybody else, not to mention the direct relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom. Who knows what will eventually happen? Does continued talk about the future of Europe increase instability and uncertainty for those who are anti-Europe, who probably started the entire conversation on day one in the United Kingdom? Those who led the campaign are no longer to be seen after all the promises were made with no substance behind it. Does that give oxygen to people in other countries with similar agendas to try to push the anti-European agenda from which we and other countries have benefitted? I would like to hear Mr. Bergin's thoughts in that regard.

A point was made earlier about the financial crisis, which was an international one. The views of Irish people changed somewhat on Europe because of the lack of support that came through and the hard lines that were taken. We know what created the problem and how international factors contributed to it but help and support to deal with the issue were not forthcoming and as a result we were left to carry the can on our own.

Does Mr. Bergin believe that the discussion on Europe is driven by the media, which cherry-pick the stories to suit their agenda? Have they given rise to a vacuum which has resulted in a discussion on whether parts of Europe are bad rather than taking a holistic view and a balanced approach?

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

Mr. Bergin should please forgive me for being late as I was attending another meeting. I am just going through the written submission he made. I was in Brussels last week where we spoke about the future of Europe.

I was mindful of the fact that a youth group had appeared before the committee some weeks earlier. Their focus was on social rights, a European Union that would move slightly away from an over-concentration on funds, banking and the like towards protecting citizens' rights. Bearing this in mind, the European Union was not kind to Ireland or Greece during the recent banking crisis. We could argue all sides of what did and did not go wrong. Recklessness on all sides led to the collapse of banks all around Europe. However, I believe the European Union was not very helpful to Ireland. Ultimately, we have pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps and, with due respect to the Government, it has done a good job. We are coming back towards full employment, which is to be cherished.

We talk about price stability. One of the issues that concerns me greatly about the European Union is that we appear to be able to arrange a single market for items such as beef or milk, but we cannot do so for the drugs industry. There is a marked difference in what I pay for my tablets in Dublin and what I would pay for them is Spain. I know people who take what they call their drugs holiday. They bring their prescription to, say, the Canary Islands and bring back a year's supply of the drugs they use. The Single Market is failing in that regard as we have not brought all industries within it. We must work towards achieving that objective. Given the size of the European market, the European Union should negotiate with the major pharmaceutical companies, rather than Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the other member states doing so individually.

As we approach Brexit there is much talk about hard and soft borders and whether Britain will leave with or without an agreement. There are approximately 1.5 million people living in the northern part of this island who are entitled to dual citizenship, Irish citizenship or British citizenship. They can choose which of them they want to have. There is the Good Friday Agreement, every aspect of which protects all of the things that concern us. It protects trade, North and South; the movement of people, rights and access to the European Court of Justice. When we talk about negotiating with Mrs. May through the European Union, we should hold firm to the Good Friday Agreement as being the bottom line, with anything outside it being considered unacceptable to Ireland. Anything outside it will simply mean that the European Union cannot facilitate an agreement in that regard. There is a major vacuum in the political system in Northern Ireland. The politicians need to get their act together and represent their communities. In recent days I have seen articles in the newspapers speculating to the effect that perhaps we might park the Northern Ireland issue, move on to dealing with the trade talks and address the Northern Ireland issue somewhere in them. My view is that unless we solve the Northern Ireland problem before we enter the trade talks, there should not be a deal with the United Kingdom. It is as simple as that.

My next point relates to workers' rights. I am glad that the European Union is taking a position in moving towards the protection of workers' rights. Perhaps there should not be a single hourly rate for the same job in different countries, but if one is working in Ireland, irrespective of one's geographical point of origin, one should be paid the same rate for the job in Ireland as an Irish citizen would be paid.

My final point relates to those us involved in politics. When we negotiate something in Brussels with the European Union that we do not particularly like to pass on to the public, we bring it home and say Brussels has told us that we have to do it. We must get away from that approach. We must start to take responsibility for the negotiations we enter into and the agreements we bring home. Irrespective of which party is in power, it must be a case of saying, "We went to the European Union; we had meetings and negotiated; and this is the outcome which we have accepted." In that way the body politic in Ireland would be taking responsibility for it. We should stop trying to push everything towards the Commission which need not necessarily dictate to us.

I thank Dr. Rigney for his time and again apologise for being late.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

I will try to respond to all of the points made. I will start with those made by Deputy Colm Brophy.

On the mandate of the European Central Bank, I accept that it is built into the DNA of the Germans that their great-grandparents or grandparents lost their savings in the big Deutsche Mark inflation of 1923 or 1924 when one virtually needed a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread. However, that does not mean that we cannot have a debate on having a balanced mandate for the ECB between inflation and full employment. That is the reason I am glad to have this debate with members.

With regard to German and French truck drivers - I note that as the French ambassador is due to appear before the committee, its members might ask him about it - as a negotiator, I find that it is always great to be reasonably consistent. I presume this issue was discussed at the transport committee. It does not apply to us in respect of foreign truck drivers crossing Ireland. We have said at the transport committee, with regard to the rail package, that this is an island nation and that as our track gauge is different from that in the rest of Europe, it does not apply to us and that we have no view. It does not do our image any good if suddenly, with regard to road transport, we say we support the Visegrád Group. Again, it is a matter for debate.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I strongly disagree with Mr. Rigney. He talked about forming alliances and the necessity for Ireland to have its voice heard in a number of alliances. In terms of the changing position we will have to adopt, we should not sit out simply because things do not impact on us directly at the time. The logical end of that argument is that by the time member states do things that will impact on us, there will be no one left to help us in our argument. Therefore, I cannot agree with what Mr. Rigney said in that regard.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

I always find in negotiations that a modicum of consistency is of assistance. My point was not related to truck drivers' wages but to the positions taken by Irish representatives in Brussels. Where does the Oireachtas have an input? Truck drivers' wages was an example as much as anything else.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I point to the general principle.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

I wish to make a number of points about Senator Terry Leyden's comments. First, I agree that this is increasingly becoming a yawning issue in Brussels. The view among some members states is, "The UK is gone; Godspeed to it and we will get on with our business." I was at a meeting of the executive of the European Trade Union Confederation, ETUC, approximately three months before the vote took place in Britain. A motion was brought forward to try to be helpful to the pro-Remain position of the Trades Union Congress, TUC. Certain large member states which shall remain nameless were not exactly helpful and I had to row in and point out that we needed support for the motion, word for word. Incidentally, I subsequently regretted the wording as almost every use of the phrases "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" was incorrect. In any case, let us not underestimate the number of people on the European mainland who are utterly indifferent to the departure of the other island. However - this is important - bad things can happen, can happen very quickly and have unintended consequences.

In Senator Terry Leyden's county of Roscommon there were coalmines that were thriving in the period from 1940 to 1945. Suddenly, against all the odds and the written assurances of the Secretary of the Department of Supplies who was also named Leyden, the British decided to cut off exports of quality coal. We had an existential crisis. Some 82% of our natural gas comes down a pipeline through Scotland. We have a common electricity market with Northern Ireland. We assume and hope no bad things will happen, but assumptions and hope are not enough to guard the well-being of citizens.

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

My question related to the expansion of Europe.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

I believe it would be entirely illogical to have accepted two members of the former Yugoslavia into membership and then block meaningful accession talks for the remaining parts of the former Yugoslavia. However, there are several problems. First, what does the southern-most ex-republic call itself without provoking the Greeks into a fit? Second, how do we deal with Kosovo?

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

Is it called New Macedonia?

Dr. Peter Rigney:

It is called the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYROM. How do we deal with that? Then, how do we deal with the Kosovo issue? The Serbs feel badly done by and feel they were set up. These are political issues. By and large, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions does not take a view on accession matters – these are political matters. At a broad level of principle it is difficult to make an argument that if a country of the former Yugoslavia fulfils membership requirements, it should not enter into some sort of dialogue with the Union.

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

Croatia is in and Montenegro is not.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

Croatia is in and Slovenia is in.

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

It is moving step by step.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

This is relevant for Serbia, Montenegro and whatever we want to call Macedonia, or whatever the Greeks allow us to call Macedonia.

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

Then there is Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

Is that a functioning state with a functioning government?

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

The principle I am highlighting is that they should not be frozen in time. We should not say we are not going to expand now because Britain is leaving. That is the point I am making. We should continue the discussion with countries. If they comply with the requirements of the European Union, then let us move on. Does Mr. Rigney understand?

Dr. Peter Rigney:

I understand it, but again the architecture of enlargement is not something that we take a position on.

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

That is fair enough.

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

There are diminishing marginal returns to expansion. Given that Britain is pulling out at this stage, any rush to expand, in any direction, the European Union could be to the detriment of the Union in the long-run.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

It could, but sometimes politics trumps economics. Arguably, Greece should never have been let in to the euro. People knew at the time that it would not be prudent to wager a month's salary on some of the figures being put up. I remember being in Greece at the time on union business. I was a member of the board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training in Thessaloniki. I remember landing in Thessaloniki Airport during the Balkan wars. Planes were dispersed. There were fighter planes on the ground, because a live war was under way up the road. There was a political reason that Greece was admitted to the euro. It was to show the western Balkans that there was a beacon of stability in the area, that is, the EU and the euro. There were probably some dutiful civil servants in the EU who said that the Union should not allow it because of the sums, but the politicians decided that was the way they would go. Politics trumps that.

Senator Leyden and Deputy O'Rourke referred to another point. I met a man from Ireland who met a man from Germany who was party to a meeting in Frankfurt with Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht or BaFin, the German banking regulator. BaFin representatives were meeting some people who were keen to flee the City of London. The BaFin representatives said to them that they wished them luck going to Dublin, because Dublin did not have the necessary housing, infrastructure or people.

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

I disagree with that.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

I disagree about the people, but housing and infrastructure are big problems. Committee members should bear in mind that we operate in Northern Ireland as well. There will be companies that will move to the South, and some already have. Some Irish companies will move operations to the North or to Britain. Other companies will close. Let us consider the mushroom industry. It was decimated almost the week after Brexit because of the adverse effect of sterling changes. There are big issues at play.

Let us consider it from a regional point of view. One of the things we should be doing as a counterweight to Brexit is to sell twin towns with a cross-border element. Examples include Newry and Dundalk as well as Letterkenny and Derry. We should say to people that they could have a base in the EU here and, only a bicycle ride up the road, they could have a base in the UK as well. That may be a useful way of doing it.

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

We were asked to think imaginatively about the future of Northern Ireland. I suggested the notion of a federal state of northern Ireland, with representation in Dublin Belfast and London. That would allow those who wanted to be part of the Republic, especially companies, to remain part of the EU.

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

Let him finish, Senator. There is no problem if there are supplementary questions after that.

Dr. Peter Rigney:

We have members in Northern Ireland of all political opinions. We tend not to take stands on the constitutional position in Northern Ireland. The constitutional position in Northern Ireland is laid down in the Belfast Agreement or the Good Friday Agreement, whatever we wish to call it. Sin an scéal – that is it.

I will advert to one point on the movement of people. From 1940 to 1952 no one from any part of Ireland could enter any part of Great Britain without an identity card. People did not fly in those days. On the routes from Rosslare to Fishguard, Dún Laoghaire to Holyhead and Larne to Stranraer, there was a man on each side – they were all men – and people had to produce a little card with a photograph on it. The point is that this is not without precedent.

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

Are there any supplementary questions? I thought Senator Leyden had indicated.

We are grateful to you for coming in today, Dr. Rigney. As you know, some members were unable to be here and they apologised in advance. It is because of the other committee that is running simultaneously. We are competing at the same time because that is the way the committees work. Anyway, those members will be furnished with the minutes and they will be grateful to see your speech and the record of the meeting.

Thank you very much for coming here today, Dr. Rigney. Any time that we can engage and work with you in your important role, we will do so. This committee is a workmanlike and personable committee in that if we can help in your role at any time, we would be glad to facilitate you.

The French ambassador is supposed to be here next. If he is not here we will have to go into private session for a short period to get rid of that business. We will see whether he is here.