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

Senator Neale Richmond has let us know that he will be a little late. A number of MEPs were not able to make it here today and we have been asked to note their apologies, including Brian Crowley, Brian Hayes, Seán Kelly and Nessa Childers. I met with Brian Hayes in person a few days ago and he explained to me what he is doing today. He made it clear that he wanted to be here, but he cannot, nor can the others. Due to Murphy's law, at approximately 3.10 p.m., I will have to vacate the Chair to go to the Dáil as we have been selected for a Topical Issue debate.

I remind members, witnesses and people in the Visitors Gallery to ensure their mobile phones are switched off. I welcome Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, Ms Deirdre Clune, MEP, Ms Liadh Ní Riada, MEP and Mr. Matt Carthy, MEP and I thank them for taking the time to engage with the committee today. We hope to complete this session in one hour so with the agreement of the witnesses, owing to Ms McGuinness's role as first vice president, of which we are immensely proud, I propose to allow her to make a five minute opening statement first, following which each of the other MEPs will have an opportunity to make a five minute opening statement. We will then have a questions and answers session. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Today we are discussing the Brexit negotiations, the future of Europe, the future composition of the European Parliament following Brexit and any other issues which the MEPs and members would like to discuss. Before we commence, I must advise the witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. 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 or body outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now invite Ms McGuinness to make her opening statement.

Mairead McGuinness:

I am delighted to be here. One of my roles as first vice-president is to liaise and dialogue with national Parliaments. I believe we need to dialogue more and to do so better. The chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of national Parliaments meet every six months in the country that holds the Presidency. I attend those meetings. I understand the Chairman, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, has not yet attended. These are meetings where engagement takes place with colleagues from other national Parliaments.

Ms Mairead McGuinness:

Yes and by other members of the committee. I sometimes think there is a little bit of tension, unnecessarily so, between national parliamentarians and Members of the European Parliament. We are all elected by citizens and we do the same work and I think we could do it better together. I would be interested in hearing the committee's observations in that regard.

On the topics for discussion, the taskforce on subsidiarity is in place. National parliamentarians will have a role in that taskforce and the European Parliament will provide the facilities. I hope to be involved in the work of the working group. Specifically on the future of Europe, I am happy to see that Ireland is doing a lot on the future of Europe by way of national consultations led by the Minister with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy McEntee. Last night, a meeting was held in County Meath, led by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy, with a further meeting to be held tonight in Carrick-on-Shannon. We are doing a lot of work in Ireland on very serious issues around the future of Europe which are linked to the budgetary issues. This came across very strongly at last night's meeting. It is important to put on the record that every person who spoke at the meeting last night said that in light of the trend in farm incomes we need not only to hold onto the budget we have but to push for an increase in the budget for the Common Agricultural Policy. While that might be a difficult proposal to discuss it is important to put on the record the view of the people on the ground.

In regard to Brexit, we are trying to garner the UK position from various speeches that have been read into the record, including today. While the UK has said it does not want to see the European Union weakened, with every speech, I get the opposite impression. There is a sense from the UK side that it is going alone on the high seas, breaking off to do global trade agreements without the European Union and suggesting that it can be bigger and better without being part of the European Union. For all its flaws, Europe has been very good at keeping people at the table. Large and small countries have managed to work together and to do so effectively. We are now seeing the consequences of one country deciding that it might be better off doing its own thing. This week, a report was published, which shows the serious consequences of Brexit for Ireland. It will be important for us in the Parliament, in terms of our making sure it fully understands the impact for Ireland.

Parliamentarians are working well together not only on the Irish issues but on the consequences for the European Union around its future but issues are being forgotten about, including public health and consumer protection issues. Europe currently has in place a huge amount of rules and regulations which protect public health not only in Ireland but across the European Union.

On the composition of the European Parliament, Ireland is set to gain two seats, although this has yet to be confirmed by the Council. If that happens, all of us would like to know where and how the boundaries might be drawn to accommodate the two extra seats. The sooner we know that the better because the elections will take place in May 2019. The issue of transnational lists was voted down by the Parliament. My own view is that it is an idea not to be scrapped. It is one that could be developed in future when other matters at a European level have settled down.

While our focus is on Brexit, with so much happening we also have to keep an eye to the debate about the future. I hope that the voice from Ireland that we believe that Europe has a future but that we will have to engage differently. In my speech to the European Parliament last week I made the point that I will miss the engagement with MEPs from the United Kingdom. Those who worked well in the Parliament will be missed. Their voices will be missed at the Council table and we will have to reflect that in how we do our business.

While the engagement between national Parliaments and the European Parliament is working it could be better. I am interested to hear the committee's thoughts on that engagement. I acknowledge that everybody is busy and that the Chairman has to leave soon to go to the Dáil Chamber. We are never in Ireland when this committee is meeting. If we believe that Europe needs to be strengthened and reformed then I think we need to work well. I appreciate this opportunity.

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

I thank Ms McGuinness and I now invite Ms Deirdre Clune to make her opening statement.

Ms Deirdre Clune:

I thank the committee for facilitating this meeting. Brexit is consuming Parliament. In terms of the March session, we are currently working on a resolution on what the future arrangement could or should be with the UK but we are operating in a vacuum because as everybody knows the UK does not know what it wants. I know that the committee has held numerous hearings on the likely impacts of Brexit. At the same time, the future of Europe is very much part of the debate in the Parliament. Only last week the Prime Minister of Croatia was in Parliament outlining Croatia's position and the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, was also there outlining issues relating to Ireland' s position. The budget is dominating procedures today. An announcement was made earlier today by the Commission on how the future budget of the European Union could be structured. When the UK leaves Europe, there will be a gap in funding of approximately €12 billion. How this gap is to be filled needs to be addressed.

Is it going to be filled or is it going to be addressed by increased contributions from member states or is it going to be a combination of budgetary cuts and contributions from member states, or is it going to be completely left as a gap and the programmes cut? This is going to be a matter for member states. We certainly do not want to see a cut in programmes, especially those such as the CAP, but there is a lot of pressure to increase funding for security. We are all very much aware of the security issue and the challenge is there with the fight against terrorism and ensuring that borders are protected, that information is shared among member states and that citizens are protected. This is a challenge, along with the challenge of migration. While we do not hear as much about the migration challenge in Ireland, dealing with migration is a real challenge for our southern European neighbours as is the contribution to Turkey and dealing with migrants there. These are pressures on the budget. The CAP is very important to Ireland but nonetheless the contribution has decreased to just under 40% or 38% from a level of more than 70% many years ago. These are the challenges facing us. I am aware that the budget will be on the agenda of the EU Council on 23 February, so I am sure we will hear about whether it will increase. Ireland is now a net contributor but we gain substantially in our contribution under the CAP.

I will now give the committee a sense of my own work with the European Parliament Committee on Transport and Tourism, TRAN. We are very conscious, obviously, of the impact of Brexit on transport issues. Next week there will be a hearing on what Brexit will mean for maritime issues and if we should be developing our short sea shipping routes. We have already had a hearing on road transport and the implications for European consumers and for Ireland; how are we going to get across the UK and what that means if the EU has invested in road projects across the UK, how does the investment continue and how do we benefit Ireland. Ireland does a lot of trade with the UK but we also do a substantial amount with the EU mainland. The fastest way to the Continent is across the UK and through its very busy Dover-Calais route, which is the shortest and most efficient route. Where do we stand on that? There is particular concern around aviation because the UK is so close to Ireland geographically. If there is a cliff edge scenario and if the UK leaves the European Union without an aviation agreement in place we are in trouble because there is no alternative arrangement to fall back to without an European aviation agreement. There is nothing in the World Trade Organization, WTO, guidelines that would facilitate that. We really would need some form of arrangement in place to facilitate aviation because European airspace is supervised by the European Air Safety Agency and every EU country abides by its rules, regulations and supervision. If the UK is no longer part of the European Union, then there will be a problem for those who cross UK airspace. These are the kinds of issues that the TRAN committee focuses on. We are moving forward now we are into the second phase of negotiations in terms of what will the future arrangements be and focusing on the real difficult issues relating to transport. This gives the members a sense of the work we do.

The European Parliament Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, EMPL, is also looking at the issues. I am aware other contributors want to speak but I am happy to discuss this and to elaborate on my work in that area for the members.

Ms Liadh Ní Riada:

Go raibh maith agat. I am sorry that I will not be able to stay for the whole meeting. It is very important that we have a cohesive approach when we are dealing with Brexit from the national Parliament, Dáil Éireann and from an EU perspective. I sit on the European Parliament Committee on Budgets, BUDG, as a co-ordinator and the picture for the future is not looking good at all. We are currently discussing the multi-annual financial framework, MFF. Commissioner Oettinger said this morning that they are looking at a 15% cut to the CAP. This is not a big surprise but in real terms it is a cut of €60 billion. How will we shore up that gap when the cut is actually implemented? They are also talking about cuts to cohesion policy or aid to more developed countries, of which Ireland was a beneficiary. This cut will be about €95 billion. It seems to be cuts right across the board due to the debts we now see because of the British going out. How are we going to shore this up? I spoke with representatives from the European Investment Bank yesterday and they spoke of having a €300 million reserve fund in place as a measure to protect us against Brexit. I do not believe it is enough. It is a start and it may be a step in the right direction but we need to be more creative in how we are going to use more strategically the funds that are there to help those who are most vulnerable; those in the agriculture and fisheries sector. Fisheries seems to be very much an industry that is not being talked about. Ireland will be providing most of the waters when the British waters are out of the equation. Those displaced boats will be coming in to fish from Irish waters and Ireland will still be dealing with the same quota. There are huge challenges for the fishing industry, which is already on its knees, and I do not believe it is going to improve after Brexit - not by a long shot. We have to put absolute safeguards in place to protect and sustain our fishing industry. The MFF is a huge worry. Given that we will have less money, the bottom line is that we will do more, or the same, with less money or that member states will be asked to contribute more. It is as simple as that. These are the two options. We must be very robust in how we deal with the MFF, particularly at Council level and with regard to Ireland's representation there so we do not suffer hugely when we see the CAP. I am aware that Ms Anderson and Mr. Carthy will probably speak more about trade and other issues but I just wanted to give the committee a heads up from the budget perspective. Fágfaidh mé mar sin é.

Ms Martina Anderson:

I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee today. I sit on three EU Parliament committees; the constitutional affairs committee, the civil liberties committee and the regional development committee. Each committee deals primarily with the Brexit files, as do other committees. All of us have read, line by line the joint report of 8 December. The European Parliament, the Commission and the Council have stated that the commitments given had to be faithfully and fully implemented and brought into legal texts. This legal text is currently being worked on. Sinn Féin had advocated caution on the 8 December because we did not accept the assessment given to us that these were cast iron guarantees. What has played out this week is proof positive that they were not cast iron guarantees. We advocated caution because nobody knows better than us the British in the context of negotiations. We know how duplicitous they can be and we know they will roll back from negotiation. Once one decides and declares a bottom line, the next stage for the British is to negotiate downwards. Some of the reports we have heard from Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and today clearly shows that this is exactly what is happening.

Without a doubt it is fundamentally better that we do not have any barriers North-South or east-west. There is nothing wrong with trying to explore all that but because Theresa May is always questioned on this, she has repeatedly and categorically said that the entire territory is leaving the Single Market and the customs union. If this is the case then we have to ensure the draft treaty, which is currently being worked on, incudes binding terms, called the back-stop option No. 3. For example, if there is no agreement, then we would have a situation of full alignment in the North. Some people make reference to the full alignment only in the context of North South co-operation but as the committee will be aware, having read the text, it includes North-South co-operation, the all-island economy and protecting the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, which is crucially important.

Today and yesterday we have heard reports that contingency planning is taking place in the State for a hard border. A report came out yesterday or today around the Dublin docklands and its terminal in the context of planning for border controls. Ms McGuinness referred to the Copenhagen report and the damage that it has outlined for the State and how growth will be affected, going down by 7%. We are also aware that the UK's Department for Exiting the European Union has produced a report.

Mr. Chris Hazzard is a Member of Parliament. Every MP has to go into a locked room without a phone, a pen or a pencil to see the report. He is in it today to examine the details of that report as the British Government does not want that report out there. We have heard information that it will result in a 12% drop in gross domestic product, GDP, for the North and we know 10% of the North's GDP comes from European funding. We can see that 54 weeks into the process, there is infighting in the British Cabinet. Mr. Boris Johnson is trying today to give some measure of assurance for those of us who voted to remain but he is certainly not speaking to the people of Ireland, never mind the people of the North. We know from Mr. Barnier's comments in Europe that there is a chaotic Brexit negotiation taking place.

The European Union and the British Government knows this and I am inclined to agree with Ms McGuinness's assessment of the British Government's efforts around Brexit. It has not left any country without leaving it in a mess. This will come to the cliff-edge scenario and it will go over a cliff. Britain will try to create as much damage as it can, particularly for the people of Ireland, including those North, South, east and west. Mr. Barnier, Commissioner Hogan and others have said that if we are out of the customs union and Single Market in the North, there will be barriers, friction and borders. That is something that the contingency planning taking place needs to apply for the island in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. The only way to secure that is a process, whether it is what is known as designated special status for the North to remain in the EU, or as An Taoiseach called it when he was in Strasbourg, special arrangements for the North to remain in the EU. Whatever one calls it is irrelevant so long as the ingredients are the same. That means there must be a role for the European Court of Justice. There has been much talk of trade, barriers and all that is important.

I was thinking today and I remind everyone that I was born into a gerrymandered state 50 years ago. Only this week we have had a report from the British Government that it intends to reintroduce gerrymandering in the North. We can see that in the context of the Westminster elections and the report that has come from that. Esteemed academics like Professor McCrudden, Mr. Liam Herrick of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Mr. Colm Harvey have said that rights are only genuine if they are reinforced. In this State there was the opportunity to hear from a senior judge in the European Court of Justice only last week, Mr. Anthony Collins. He spoke of the first right that will be lost for the people of the North, the right to representative democracy and the right to be represented in the European Parliament. The voice of the people of the North will be lost. He said it is not just unsatisfactory but it is illegal. Paragraph 53 of the joint report agreed in December indicates there were cast-iron guarantees, and it states the rights, entitlements, identity and the opportunity of the people of the North would not be lost as a consequence of the Article 50 agreement. We must be able to exercise those rights.

Whatever about the seats being allocated - I welcome two have been allocated to this State - this is about the entitlement of the people of Ireland. Three additional seats should be allocated to the people in the North of Ireland. The only way to secure that is the Irish Government in Council ensuring there is a greater allocation of the seats. The 14 seats mean a seat is lost to Ireland as an island. As we all know, the Irish Government is a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, so what it has said to the people about cast-iron guarantees must be implemented in this phase and before negotiations are allowed into the second phase. As the European Parliament and Council indicates, these must be fully and faithfully implemented. We hope this committee will ensure the commitments given in the joint report of December 8 will be followed through so the island, North and South, east and west, can be protected from the chaos and madness that Brexit will bring to this entire Ireland, whether one is from Derry or Kerry. We will all be damaged by it unless we come together and ensure the island can be protected.

Mr. Matt Carthy:

I thank the committee not only for today's opportunity but for a noticeable increase in co-operation between this committee and Irish MEPs. It is an important facet of our work, identified earlier as something we needed to improve. The committee has taken that on board and improved the communication. I thank the clerk and Ms Cáit Hayes, the Oireachtas representative in Brussels, who keeps us informed on key debates. I also thank the staff of the European Parliament office in Brussels, who also ensure we are aware of the legislative developments happening in Ireland when we deal with some very similar files at a European level. Ms Anderson and others have spoken about the Brexit position and I will not elaborate greatly on that, except to be positive where I can. Deputy Durkan knows I always try to be positive.

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

Absolutely.

Mr. Matt Carthy:

The last time I attended this committee I was very critical of the Government's position on Brexit. I was critical of what I considered to be a weakness of language and a commitment to protect the entire Ireland. That changed considerably in the meantime and the Government's position improved. It is important to note that and give credit. We must also tell the Government and representatives in this House that this process must continue and we must remain vigilant. The work did not stop on 8 December, when the communiqué was agreed, and in many ways the work only started then. What we got then was not the solution to the problems Ireland is facing as a result of Brexit but we potentially got the capacity to achieve the solution. It will only happen, as Ms Anderson notes, if we are determined to ensure no part of our country is sacrificed.

We must recognise that every part of our country is threatened with economic, political and social upheaval, if the current British Government's position on Brexit and the North of Ireland. Everybody looking at this objectively at a European level that I am aware of and internationally, including in Britain, has not found a solution to the issues pertaining to our Ireland with respect to Brexit that does not include the North of Ireland remaining as part of the customs union and Single Market. Mr. Barnier put that very clearly in his most recent remarks. It needs to be the stated position, in my view, of this committee, all Irish MEPs and particularly the Irish Government.

I will touch on the future of the EU discussions that are ongoing. The Minister has organised consultation meetings but the entire project of discussion at an EU level may be a wasted opportunity. Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker effectively usurped discussions before they were even started in his so-called state of the EU address. He outlined his own position quite emphatically. It can be described as a cursory nod towards Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and other major political upheavals, with the position of the EU doing what it always intended to only, only more quickly than originally envisaged and with less democratic oversight. That can be clearly seen with the move towards Permanent Structure Co-operation, PESCO, and a so-called European defence. The vote in these Houses was rushed through with zero public debate and members might ask their constituents if they are even aware of PESCO. It is a major move with respect to Irish neutrality and it is a step away from what the EU should be doing at this time and in current political circumstances.

In my view, it should be moving towards more democracy, more accountability and more devolution to the national parliaments and not the opposite. I believe the move towards a militaristic agenda is the exact opposite of what the EU should be doing. It is the opposite of what the vast majority of EU citizens want to see happening.

The transnational lists proposal was part of that and shows a completely oblivious attitude to what citizens are looking for. They are not looking for representatives to represent 27 member states all at once. I and others present represent a constituency of 15 Irish counties. It is very hard to remain connected and engaged with the communities I am supposed to represent despite the huge amount of effort we put in to ensure we do. It is impossible to fathom a scenario where somebody could legitimately argue to represent people in eastern Germany or Latvia while at the same time representing the voters in Connemara, Inishowen or Carrickmacross.

Regarding PESCO and the EU budget, if we want to prevent the potential CAP cuts that the Commissioner has indicated may be coming down the line, an easy place to start would be to remove what is being proposed for the EU defence fund and ring-fence it for CAP and rural development.

Some of the important work taking place at European Parliament level, in which many members here have an interest, is the issue of corporate tax avoidance, tax evasion and money laundering. The European Parliament is in the process of setting up another committee following on from the committee that was established on the Panama papers, called the paradise papers committee. As Irish representatives, we need to engage on this at a number of levels. Irrespective of whether members like it, we need to acknowledge that at an EU level and internationally Ireland has gained a reputation as a facilitator of corporate tax avoidance.

We need to address two areas. One is the issue of tax sovereignty. Our party and all MEPs are on record as saying we will defend to the hilt the right of national parliaments to put in place their own tax rates and policies. The other is the issue of tax transparency and public country-by-country reporting. The two things are not the same. Sometimes Irish commentators argue that they are. It is possible to have maximum tax transparency while at the same time defending tax sovereignty.

I realise that I have gone on for longer than the Chairman might have wanted. I know there have been many debates at this committee, at the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine and in the House about the Mercosur trade agreement. Members need to be aware that Irish farmers - and I would argue the Irish domestic economy - are on the verge of being sold out by the European Commission which has already reportedly increased the offer on beef, for example, to 99,000 tonnes. The Mercosur countries are looking for 200,000 tonnes. We could, should and must now demand that the Mercosur negotiations be brought to a close. I say this as a citizen more than anything else: we have already been treated abysmally in the way the Government has dealt with the CETA trade agreement and other trade agreements. However, the Mercosur deal is the most immediate threat. We should be united in calling for those negotiations to be stopped immediately on the basis that the Commission has advised us that there will be no Mercosur trade agreement without a significant offer of beef being on the table. With the damage that will cause to Irish agriculture along with the uncertainty as a result of Brexit, that alone is a basis for us to demand that the negotiations are brought to an end.

The Irish people have repeatedly let it be known that they want to be part of the European Union. Most recently we saw that in the vote in the North where they voted to remain. I also believe the Irish people have given plenty of messages that they want the EU to change. The two things are not contradictory. I hope we can work together to ensure that all of Ireland remains part of the European Union, but that we work together to ensure it is a better and more democratic European Union.

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

Last, but by no means least, I call Mr. Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, MEP.

Mr. Luke 'Ming' Flanagan:

I apologise for being late. I managed to follow the earlier speakers thanks to technology.

I agree with Ms McGuinness, MEP, that engagement between MEPs and Oireachtas Members is essential. I have asked for this for some time. Perhaps it could be facilitated during green week because we get enough time off. I am delighted to see that is the case and I would like to see it happen more regularly. There is always something happening in what we do and it directly impacts on the citizens of the country, people whom the members of the committee also represent.

I work on the agriculture and rural affairs committee, which is very relevant to the constituency I represent covering the midlands and the north west. I am also on the budget control committee and am a substitute on the environment committee. The budget control committee is a bit of bean-counter committee but it is probably the most interesting committee when one gets into it because we go through every last cent of the people's money that is spent and Ireland is a net contributor. Given the enormity of the CAP budget and the agriculture and rural affairs budget, it is all the more important. We are now entering into the beginning of a debate as to how this money will be divided up.

I am a townie and have never lived on a farm in my life but bit by bit, the penny has dropped as to why the place where I live exists; it exists because we have farmers living outside the town. They are farmers who down the years paid people like my father to put in fitted cupboards. They paid painters in the town to come out and paint their houses. Those farmers and their wives went in and got haircuts. The money was spread around. I know how important this is. At the moment we are talking about a development plan for Ireland and a development plan for rural Ireland; this is integral to it.

We are also talking about how Border areas will struggle because of Brexit. This is also integral to that debate because if we had listened the last time to the then Commissioner Ciolo and had the deal that was done on CAP not been warped and twisted by our Government at the time, people in Leitrim would have got €11 million more per year from CAP and there would have been €29 million more per year for Donegal. There would have been less for the Queen and less for Larry Goodman, but we can get over that. We are now deciding whether we will make that same mistake again or whether we will, in the case of Leitrim, put €3,000 into the pockets of every man, woman and child over the course of the next CAP deal or whether we put it into the wrong people's hands.

People talk about pressure on the budget - there is particular pressure on the CAP budget. One obvious reason is Brexit because the UK is a massive net contributor. There is another reason for pressure on the CAP budget. The penny has dropped among many MEPs that it is going to the wrong people. Rather than arguing that it should go to the right people, many of these people are now saying we need to cut it. MEPs who represent urban areas come in and say this was meant to go to small farmers and was meant to make rural areas vibrant but it is not doing that. They are talking about cutting it on that basis. If it is cut - we will fight to ensure it is not cut - we know who to look at. We need to look at the people who have twisted and turned what was meant to be a payment for small farmers to keep people in family farms and instead left it in the hands of ranchers. We will do our best to ensure it is not cut.

When I went out there I thought I might have had a radical point of view that this money should be redistributed to small farmers. The good news is that even the people in Fine Gael's group, the EPP, agree hook, line and sinker that the money needs to go to the small farmer. Mr. Zeller, who is in the same group as Fine Gael, is on the budgetary control committee. He constantly harps on about how this must change. I am fairly definite that we will get a good deal for small farmers. At one of the last meetings I attended, Marian Harkin made the point that we did not really succeed in the previous CAP negotiations. I am afraid she did not give herself and the MEPs who got the good deal the credit they deserved. The problem was that when it was brought home it was twisted and turned so that it ended up in the wrong hands. We need to ensure that does not happen again if we want rural Ireland to survive.

Another point of great importance - Mr. Carthy and others have mentioned it - is the Mercosur deal. We are apparently going to trade off our suckler farmers and beef industry so that our car industry can thrive. I am sorry, but where is our car industry? We do not have one. We are trading off something we have for something that we will never have and something we are not going to get. If the deal goes through, we will expect our farmers to compete. Our farmers have to explain the origin of their produce and where exactly it has been from the moment the sperm is delivered until a consumer eats the meat on his plate. Now, potentially, we will have to compete with people who farm on the basis that it is sufficient to know where the produce has been for the past three months. Obviously, traceability comes with costs. Costs reduce profitability and make it less feasible for people to farm where we come from. We have to stop this deal. As Mr. Carthy has said, they need beef on the table for this deal to go through. We need to say "No more" to this deal.

I wish to comment positively on the White Paper on the future of Europe. We are now, finally, debating it, but one would have to be concerned. When one sets up a timetable for something, one should stick to it. When the GAA sets up a timetable for the All-Ireland competition, it takes place when it is meant to take place. It does not take place six months later. GAA officials do not come along and say that they did not have to bother telling those involved that it was not going to take place for six months. We were told in March last year by Jean-Claude Juncker that there would be a series of future of Europe debates throughout Europe between March and December and that the matter would brought to the Council and to us for discussion. He claimed there were thousands of debates but there were not. I looked and searched for them. I was obsessed looking for them because I know my future and the future of my children are at stake.

Now, finally, we are having the debates and that is good. As was said already however, we were meant to be debating five options. However, before we got to debate them or before most people even knew there was a debate ongoing, the man who is meant to be leading us, Jean-Claude Juncker, had made up his mind already about a sixth option.

Obviously, there are some brilliant things done within Europe. I may be a sceptic in many areas but when it comes to agriculture I am not. Other important areas include full fiscal union, which potentially we could face and an end to our choice or ability to choose our corporation tax rate - that could be gone. We need a proper debate on that and we need to look at it.

We certainly need to look at defence. At the moment we are being railroaded down the road of something that is described by Federica Mogherini not as a European army but something even more ambitious. We now have socialists standing up in the European Parliament saying this should become our most important project. Food security is our most important project and it has to stay that way but we are pushing in the opposite direction. The Commissioner, Ms Federica Mogherini, continuously cites opinion polls in Europe suggesting support for going further into a European army-type system. If one looks for the information on the matter - at the same meetings where she talks about being open and transparent - one cannot find out what the results were for Ireland even though Ms Mogherini and the Commission have claimed we are all supportive of it. Maybe we are or maybe we are not. Certainly, I am not and I would like to know what the answer to that question is but we cannot find it. Earlier, I said that I am sceptical in certain areas. If we ask a question of the European Commission on agriculture, we get an answer. If we ask a question of Federica Mogherini, we do not get an answer.

We now have a high-level committee on fake news in the European Union. MEPs have a right to find out how the process is organised and how the appointments to these committees take place. I have a serious problem with the person appointed from Ireland. Committee members can find out for themselves who the person appointed from Ireland is - the information is publically available. I have attempted to find out how this process took place with the relevant Commissioner and Commission office. I have looked for an opportunity to express concern over who was appointed. We have not even got an answer. That is what I am at in the European Union and there is far more of it. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak.

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

Thank you all very much. We will now go to our members. I know our members will keep it as concise as possible – we are over-running our time a little. I call Deputy Durkan. During your contribution, Deputy Durkan, we will change over in the Chair, as I explained.

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

I welcome our guests and thank them for their dissertation. It is an interesting exchange of views at an interesting time. As we know, Europe is inhaling at the moment. We have to wait for it to exhale and we do not know what the outcome will be. We do not know whether Brexit will lead to the destruction of Europe. It could, in that it could undermine the whole structure of Europe. The UK could be the first of others to go. I strongly advise all and sundry that such an outcome would not be in the interests of this country, Europe, Britain, ironically, or the globe.

We should all recognise that those present are totally committed to the Irish economic entity on the island of Ireland. We have set that down from the beginning and there will be no watering down of that. It is injudicious to suggest from time to time that we do not believe what people say. If a person does not believe what another says to him, presumably, the person is expecting the comment to become a self-fulfilling prophesy and, as a result, there is no use having negotiations.

It is of the utmost importance that we maintain the stance we have had from the beginning, that is to say, the question as set down by the European negotiators and the Government at the beginning of the year and that we maintain it without variation. Of course, people will decide from time to time that we have reason not to believe it. If we sow that into the ether, then it becomes part of what the defence will use, the defence being the UK authorities. They will say the people did not believe them and will ask what one would expect. Then they will row away from it so they do not have to achieve any agreement.

The Single Market and customs union are of the utmost importance. We are operating as an island nation and that is the way the European negotiators have stated it will be. That is the way the British Government negotiators reluctantly admitted that it would be or how they hoped it would be but they then cast doubts upon the water, throwing bread upon the water, as it were, to try to undermine it. Of course they are going to do that - that is their negotiating position. Anyway, they must remember one thing: they decided to leave the European Union. They did not seek approval from anyone else. We, they and everyone else in the European Union are part of the Union. We all agreed to it. Several treaties were entered into incorporating what we have now as the European Union. We have a commitment to it.

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

The original Brexiteer was here last week telling us about all the good things that could happen from being outside the Union and so on. Nigel Farage is known for many things but being a supporter of the European Union is not one of them. By his own admission, he spent 18 years working to undermine it. Interestingly - and it is symbolic of what has happened thus far - at the end of the day, when he was asked what would happen and what would replace what he had undermined, he did not know. None of the Brexiteers at the time or since has known either. They have shown no indication that they knew anything or had any alternative in mind. They had not and that is sad. It is easy to knock down something in place. It is easy to wreck and destroy. It is not so easy to come up with the alternatives. It is always easy to throw away something but to put it together again and restructure it is not so easy.

We need to reiterate emphatically again and again that we stand for what we have said. We need to stand over the interdependence of North and South on the island. The Single Market and the single entity must remain. Acting to the contrary will do irreparable economic damage to Northern Ireland and the South and, ultimately, to the European Union and the UK as well. I wish to emphasise, Vice Chairman-----

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

I am doing my best.

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

I know that you are keen for me to say what I should say and I am trying to do that.

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

The time in which we live now begs all of us to be strongly supportive of our stance. Regardless of politics, we have to be strongly supportive of that stance. If we move away from it, we are in serious trouble.

I wish to acknowledge the situation of Irish fishing. There will be a problem in that sector and with the Common Agricultural Policy as well. They will be resolved. The CAP problem has to be resolved. There is a big population in Europe amounting to 500 million people and they have to eat.

If somebody decides to trade that off against a car, people cannot eat the car no matter how hungry they are. That should not be done.

The security issue needs to be dealt with. We have become more dependent on our neighbours for security as time has passed and we cannot have it both ways. We need to enable our Defence Forces to be upgraded and trained in line with the best available in Europe, which would not be a breach of our neutrality. Alternatively, will we rely on the British Government to come to our aid in the case of a terrorist attack? I would not be happy about that. We need to recognise that, unfortunately, for security reasons, we need to upgrade our Defence Forces in order that they can understand their colleagues in Europe in the event of a security breach.

The stance adopted by the Taoiseach and Mr. Barnier in respect of the Border still stands and we should not presume that there will be any backing off from that. If we do back away from it, we will have made a serious negotiating error.

On the urban-rural divide, people tend to support their own bailiwicks. As matters progress, there is a great need for all European politicians to represent the people of Europe and not one sector against another, one village against the next or one country against another. They need to provide universal representation. We are either a European Union or we are not. If we want to go in different directions, we can do that but it will be at our own cost.

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

I have four minutes left. I am sorry about that.

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

I know. I should not be allowed to talk at all but we will not go there.

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

I was going to finish on CAP reform before I was distracted. We should recognise that the Europe which will emerge in the future will, hopefully, be of our making and will not go in different directions to suit everybody. It should have a common bond with which all the people of Europe can have common cause. I thank the Vice Chairman for his interruption, which I very much appreciate.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be as brief as possible because we do not want to keep the European Ombudsman waiting. We are anxious to hear what she has to say. I thank the MEPs for attending. We will not get to have an exchange of views because we have had a series of statements. The committee needs to work on that for the future.

I will not address Brexit because it was dealt with by previous speakers. The committee has considered the future of Europe. We had a series of meetings and we are finalising a report. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy McEntee, has conducted a public consultation process. While something is happening, we all have to make a greater effort to engage with citizens regarding the future direction of Europe. Many politicians have made statements. President Macron and Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker have outlined their visions and the European Commission has put forward a series of options. From the point of view of balance, the EU is either a union of sovereign nation states or a federal united states of Europe. That covers a wide spectrum and we need to be tuned in to that debate. Most Irish people see it as a union of sovereign nation states but there is a move towards more integration. The Franco-German axis is reappearing, which is a threat to smaller nation states. These are fundamental issues about which we need to be conscious.

I have a question but the MEPs will not have an opportunity to answer it. The UK is leaving, regrettably. It was an ally on many of the key issues that Ireland faces in the EU, including the CAP, tax sovereignty, corporation tax rates, immigration and mandatory quotas, security and defence, Cohesion Funds, and the principle of subsidiarity. Cohesion Funds are important for central and eastern European member states and, therefore, we need to forge new alliances on theses issues now that the UK is going. I will not get a response to that but I have no doubt that our MEPs will take up the challenge in that regard.

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

I thank the MEPs for their interesting commentaries. The previous speaker did not want discuss Brexit but it is dominating all our thoughts, regardless whether we like it. I cannot fathom that Britain would countenance leaving the Union and a market of 500 million people without wanting what has become known as option A. While its representatives say that Britain will leave the customs union and the Single Market, something similar will have to be negotiated, whatever it is called. Phase 1 of the negotiations has concluded and we will not let them off the hook on that. They signed up to all the rules, regulations, treaties and so on and legal obligations have to be met on leaving the Union as well as acceding to it. They will, presumably, have to be observed and complied with. What do the MEPs think is the bottom line? As Ms Clune, said, Ireland does not want to give up the short sea route between Dover and Calais because it is essential to us. Whatever happens, there will have to be regulatory alignment, no matter what it is called.

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

I thank the MEPs for attending. There is a huge opportunity cost for them to spend time here in light of their massive constituencies. I am sure they have plenty of work to do. It is good that everybody is wearing the same green jersey on Brexit as our Government, which has done a tremendous job so far. The representation we have in Europe has been excellent across the board.

On the future of Europe, the conversation that has begun, with public meetings being held throughout the country, is good. It is good to bring Europe to the people for good or bad. Whatever comes out of the process, let us hear it. Like Deputy Haughey, I would be interested in Ms McGuinness telling us about new allies as we move towards a new Europe. Clearly, we are losing a major ally and, therefore, we will have to sectionalise our allies with different allies on finance, agriculture, etc.

Ms Clune mentioned transport, which is a serious concern. A number of haulage companies have mentioned to me that they have will difficulty crossing a third country in a post-Brexit world. I refer to the requirement on the European Investment Bank to support Ireland as new super highways to Europe will have to be developed to avoid crossing the UK. I do not know if I will get a response to that but I would be interested in hearing it.

Fisheries are extremely important. I will not discuss agriculture because, like Mr. Luke "Ming" Flanagan, I think milk comes in cartons and that is all I know about it.

The issue of Northern Ireland with respect to Brexit comes up all the time and we constantly hear that 56% of those in Northern Ireland who voted in the referendum opposed leaving the Union. On the one hand, we cannot talk about democracy while, on the other, rejecting it. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. As long as that remains the case, there is no way there will be a border in the Irish Sea. This will be a major problem because unionists will not accept it. It should be borne in mind that they sit in Westminster, a forum where nationalists have no voice.

We cannot negotiate where we do not have a voice. It is as simple as that. I am sorry to bring it up because I have tremendous respect for the work that has been done by the nationalist politicians in Northern Ireland over the last 20 years or so to make the country as safe as it is and to make it so welcoming for anybody who wants to travel there from abroad. The truth is that unless people get up off their bums and start giving Northern Ireland a voice - outside, that is, of those of us in the Republic of Ireland who have been screaming to the high heavens - it will be hard to make progress. I know Mr. Carthy does not like hearing this but unless somebody goes to Westminster and starts representing the republican side of Ireland, we will end up with a hard border. I predicted that in June 2016 and people laughed at me but there is nobody laughing now. We are coming ever closer to a hard border on this island and that would be detrimental to the people of Northern Ireland. It is they who will suffer. I asked the unionists and Mr. Carthy knows the answer to this. At the end of the day, Britain will not provide the level of financial support to Northern Ireland that the European Union has been providing. We really have to exercise the full democratic imperative in order to protect those citizens of Ireland who are geographically separated from their country by virtue of the fact that they are located in a place that is currently regarded as part of the United Kingdom. One hopes that will change in time but it is how matters stand.

PESCO continually comes up along with this nonsense about a European army. I hear today that perhaps we should be putting the money into the CAP. The CAP will not be worth a continental damn if we experience a serious cyber attack that grinds this country's information technology system to a halt and leaves us in a situation where we are praying for security. It is not that long since a major cyber attack in the United Kingdom brought its entire health system down. That weekend, Ireland did not have anybody on duty in cyber security because we did not have the numbers to do it. Let us get away from the nonsense of a European army. PESCO is a menu of choices. We can pick what we want from it and avoid what we do not want. There is an article being published this weekend, I understand, that will explore the security of this country and the need for us to modernise our equipment. Ireland is a small country and, on its own, it cannot have the purchasing power that would be available under PESCO. If somebody is talking about a European army, I urge them to remember that this country is militarily non-aligned. It is not a neutral country. It is militarily non-aligned and we will not be changing our position short of a referendum of the people. I take grave exception to people trying to pretend that something different is happening.

Niall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not a member of the committee but I always appreciate the opportunity to engage with and hear from MEPs because they are operating at the coalface. Unfortunately, it seems we are not going to have the opportunity for an engagement today. I had a number of questions and will put them on record in any event. Perhaps the witnesses can provide answers at the next session.

I also want to refer to Senator Craughwell's points, for the purposes of balance. He cannot admire people for pulling on the green jersey and then whip that jersey off in order to have a pop at those who adhere to a democratic imperative not to take their seats in Westminster. If we are going to talk about democratic imperatives, let us remember that core one. I will not hang on that issue for too long, however.

Ms Anderson referred to a number of the issues I want to raise. Other colleagues have mentioned the issue of the Border. It seems to me that the cast-iron guarantees the Taoiseach may have got from Theresa May are much more precarious than they appeared to be a number of weeks ago. Do the MEPs want to expand on that? Is there merit in asking the Taoiseach, publicly and privately, to do more to ensure that those commitments from the British Government are honoured, particularly in light of what Ms Anderson outlined in respect of the previous form of British negotiation teams when it comes to Ireland?

One of the issues I have consistently raised, as my Seanad colleagues will be well aware, is that there are between 800,000 and 900,000 Irish and, therefore, EU citizens in the North. An Taoiseach has said those citizens will not be abandoned, a position I support fully. When Mr. Guy Verhofstadt was here, he also said that the EU citizenship of those of us who are going to be held hostage in a post-Brexit scenario will not be undermined or weakened in any way. Two questions flow from that. First, should one or more of the two additional MEP seats for Ireland be used to represent Irish citizens in the North, given that we did vote to remain in the EU, as Senator Craughwell said? Second, I have raised on a number of occasions the potential for the Government to put its money where its mouth is in terms of practical infrastructural service investment in the North, through something like the location of an Irish passport office in the Six Counties, particularly in view of the fact that last year alone there were over 82,000 applications for passports from the North. I have also proposed the idea of a citizenship hub, a facility that would be dedicated to supporting citizens in the North to engage with the Government and, indeed, the EU structures regarding their rights and entitlements post-Brexit.

My concerns in the context of PESCO are not nonsense. They are very sincerely and legitimately held. PESCO moves us onto very unsavoury ground and has the potential to impinge upon Ireland's neutral status. For example, while we can be very proud of the Defence Forces operations in the Mediterranean, which have a humanitarian focus, PESCO has the potential to shift us towards a much more militarised and, I believe, anti-immigrant and anti-asylum seeker status. Senator Craughwell is not here any more. He should not simply dismiss the concerns that we and many other human rights, humanitarian and charitable organisations have in respect of PESCO, just because he disagrees. Sin é.

Ms Mairead McGuinness:

I apologise, but it is important. The Vice Chairman said the text was a fudge and that it was not being put into law. Let me say, on behalf of the European Union, to the citizens who are listening, that it regards the text as an agreement. It is not a fudge. We believe it is an agreement which will be put into law.

Ms Mairead McGuinness:

As a global player and a major country, the United Kingdom will be mindful of the fact that if it reneges on an agreement with its EU partners, the world will be watching it. Every country is watching and if it misbehaves, it will be noted. Who would conclude a trade agreement with a country the word of which could not be taken as the truth?

I also caution those who are saying the budgetary outlook is bleak for the future. There is a danger that if we keep repeating that narrative, as Deputy Bernard J. Durkan stated, it will become real. We have to fight hard and are doing so to achieve an increase in the budget. Member states will have to put money into the pot. If we believe there is a future for the European Union, we have to fund it. I hope Ireland will be part of that battle.

There is democracy in Europe, despite people saying we need more of it. This is democracy in action. The proceedings of the committee are being broadcast live. We meet regularly. There is no harm in reminding ourselves when we are critical of the European Union, as many of us are, with what are we comparing it. Where on the globe do citizens have the freedoms that they enjoy, enjoy the rule of law and live a democracy that functions as well, despite its flaws, as the European Union? If we remember this in the battles about where it is and where it is going, it will at least put us on the one sheet in saying the European Union is worth defending because without it, we would all be much worse off, not only financially.

Ms Mairead McGuinness:

My efforts will be.

Mr. Matt Carthy:

It is always good to see a Roscommon man in charge.

Mr. Luke 'Ming' Flanagan:

I agree.

Mr. Matt Carthy:

I will respond briefly to some of the points made.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked an important question about whether Brexit could lead to the destruction of the European Union. Obviously, we all hope it will not. The answer to the question lies in whether the rest of us will learn the lessons from it. It is true - it has been repeated ad nauseam- that in large part the Brexit vote result was caused by a xenophobic negative racist element which was epitomised by the Deputy's good friend who was in Ireland.

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

Not mine.

Mr. Matt Carthy:

Undoubtedly, people looked at the actions of the European Union in Greece and its refusal to heed other national democratic messages. We do not know the overall percentage who were disillusioned at the direction the European Union was taking in latter years, but we can assume that it was more than 3%, which was the difference between winning and losing in the referendum. I argue, therefore, that we need to learn the lessons.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan also stated we needed to make a decision on whether we were all moving in the same direction or in different directions on whether we should have European Union representatives across member states. The secret of the success of the European Union lies in the fact that we have the maturity to agree that there are areas in which we should all move forward together and also areas in which there are national priorities which will trump EU priorities and that national governments should have the ability and the freedom to decide what they shoould do in those instances. We need to be honest with ourselves in all matters.

In response to Senator Gerard P. Craughwell's points about PESCO and whether it is a stepping stone to an EU army, almost every other member state that has signed up to it refer to it as a stepping stone to an EU army, yet in Ireland we are supposed to expect that it is something different. We should be honest and say that is what it has been sold and championed as.

Obviously, I do not have time to deal with all of the other points made by the Senator, but I suggest that if President Higgins is to seek a second term, he should replay the comments made by the Senator and that he will not face much opposition in the ballot box.

My final statement is on the future of the European Union, the debates on which provide an opportunity. Thus far, they have not be capitalised. If they do not include space for critical keynote speeches by those who have a different view on issues of concern to citizens within the European Union such as membership of PESCO and trade, they will have been a missed opportunity.

On a positive note, I can speak on behalf of all Irish MEPs when I say we are in absolute agreement that the next speaker, the European Ombudsman, Ms O'Reilly, is doing a magnificent job and that we are very proud of her. She is not afraid to be critical and stand up to the most powerful interests within the European institutions when required. That should be noted.

Ms Martina Anderson:

I will capture what has been said by Deputy Bernard J. Durkan, Ms Mairead McGuinness and others who are telling us that it is not a fudge, that it will be put into law and that the Irish Government will stand over the cast iron guarantees given in December, but I will also remind the committee that historically the British Government has a track record on reneging on every agreement it ever signed.

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

We know that, too.

Ms Martina Anderson:

The Deputy knows it; so do we. That is part of the problem we have in the North. It goes back to what Ms McGuinness stated about the reckless behaviour of the British Government on where it may be going and the damage it could do to us all, but I take on board and accept her statement that it will be put into law. Within it, it states there will be no diminution of rights. Therefore, it is about ensuring the rights and entitlements of the people of the North will be upheld. Fifty years after the civil rights campaign, it is the Irish Government that needs to ensure it will stand over those rights. We have had comments made on the issue of the passports. It is not just because someone holds an Irish passport. As a result of the Good Friday Agreement, some 1.8 million of us have been afforded the right to be British or Irish or both. That means that the rights of the people of the North have to be applied, regardless of whether someone holds an Irish passport. Without a doubt, we need passport offices in the North, but that is another subject matter.

The principle of consent was built into the Good Friday Agreement. Senator Gerard P. Craughwell talked about the people of the North being part of the United Kingdom. For the first time in the North, we have been given an opportunity to identify as Irish, to have our Irish citizenship recognised and to have the aspiration of Irish unity to be taken forward and addressed in a Border poll. Let us remember that in April the European Council gave a signal to the people of Ireland when it stated that in the event of a Border poll being triggered under the Good Friday Agreement, it would mean that the North of Ireland would rejoin the European Union. Therefore, what we need is for the Irish Government to become a facilitator. Perhaps the Senator does not realise - I want everyone to know in case those listening do not realise it - that there is already a border in the Irish Sea. Animals, animal products, plants and plant produce are all checked at the port and airport in Belfast. I am not saying that border needs to be enhanced. I do not want to see a border between the North and the South or east to west, but let people realise that for decades there has been a border. We were able to tackle bluetongue on the island because we were able to work together on an all-island basis. One does not have to have new infrastructure put in place, but what can never happen and be accepted by anyone on the island is the re-emergence of a harder border. That cannot be tolerated. I accept that is something that is being said by everyone at this committee.

Ms Deirdre Clune:

I will make two points. On the points made about the agreement reached in December, I do not accept that there was a fudge. In fact, we, in the European Parliament, had our own resolution, of which the common travel area and the Good Friday Agreement formed parts, as well as the fact that there should be no border between the North and South. That was recognised by the European Parliament which will eventually agree to whatever arrangement is put in place between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union. We take the issue seriously. I understand the European Commission and Mr. Barnier who is heading its delegation take very seriously the commitments given, to which the United Kingdom will be held. The groundwork has been done.

The groundwork will have to be acknowledged and be part of whatever agreement is reached. We spoke about the budget but did not deal with it enough. It will be very important. This debate will dominate our proceedings for the next few months as we decide where the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, from 2020 will go. Last week, Mario Draghi came to the Parliament. He said that in December 2016, he had predicted that the European economies would grow by 1.5% but in fact, they grew by 2.5% over 2017. We are in a positive period in which economies are growing across Europe. Our country is doing extremely well. The last time the MFF was put in place there was, unfortunately, a recession and that also should be borne in mind.

Ms Deirdre Clune:

I always have a positive outlook and I will continue in that vein.

Mr. Luke 'Ming' Flanagan:

We will have to find the money from somewhere for future budgets in the European Union. We are net contributors and will have to increase our contribution. One of the factors taken into account in calculating the contribution is the size of our economy and our gross domestic product, GDP. We must remember that only a couple of years ago, we were described as having a system of leprechaun economics. While those leprechaun economic growths in GDP may not trickle down to the people, the cost to the State rises because our contribution goes up. We need to take that into account when we massage our figures on GDP unrealistically.

As far as fudge is concerned, I think the Vice Chairman is suggesting it might be on the British side. Maybe it would and will be but the idea that someone will be worried about not being able to make future trade agreements because they would not be trusted is complete and utter rubbish. The European Union and Ireland trade with China, which harvests the organs of people who do not agree with certain people. Germany sells tanks to Saudi Arabia, not to plough the fields in Yemen and not just for money but in return for votes to host the World Cup. There are no morals or fairness when it comes to trading or doing deals. There are more morals in hell.