Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for a very interesting set of contributions and responses. I hope Dr. Day is not frightened by this, but I agree with her approach, in that we should examine issue-based rather than theory-based changes in planning out the future of Europe. We have to go through a few logical steps. First, what is not happening that people in Europe want to happen? Second, does it need to be done at EU level or, as a subset of that, would it be far better done at EU level? Third, what is stopping it from happening at EU level? Is the issue treaty based or does it arise from a lack of unanimity? Logically, the final step is to determine whether the treaties are preventing something that needs to happen from happening. That is my view of the logical order to be followed if we are to bring citizens on board.

Let us take something controversial, namely, migration. People say that we need to have a common EU response to migration, but can they articulate what that common response will be and are they willing, in the absence of a consensus on the matter, to confer a competence on EU institutions to decide it in a way that might not suit them? I presume that is the underlying attitude in Budapest, for instance, if we forget about Ireland for a second. This seems to be an important point that we need to bear in mind.

Professor Barrett referred to the justice and home affairs opt-out and the question of whether we were missing out on something. Are we missing out on something? I know of no sense in which Ireland is missing out from not being involved in the Schengen arrangements. I do not believe we are, but maybe I am wrong.

This brings me to a second point on which I would like a contribution from any or all of our guests. Post Brexit, Ireland will have a peculiar and unique relationship with the UK because we have a common travel area. This means that, on migration, customs control and so on, we will have to remain integrated in some respects with the UK. We cannot pursue a different approach of an open border, free movement and citizens' rights being mutually agreed as if we were Sicily. We are going to have our own set of issues. This feeds back into the question of home affairs because we and the British have a fairly similar justice and home affairs arrangement. In light of Northern Ireland and the South, diverging our systems gratuitously or unnecessarily would pose significant issues. I hope I do not sound reactionary or too conservative. I am just saying that we should not cod ourselves.

Is the conference driven by an appetite for integration at a theoretical level or is it driven by an appetite for improving effectiveness at a practical level? I hope that Dr. Day is not frightened that I agree with her, but her approach is the pragmatic one to bring citizens along with the whole process. The alternative is to discuss treaty change and amending treaties by qualified majority among member states. That is a theoretical issue that kicks the hornet's nest in terms of popular reaction.

These are my points, and I would like a reaction to them.