Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the first point Deputy Howlin made. The visit was organised at the last minute. In future, I will make sure everyone is invited. On that note, the French Minister, Cleménte Beaune, is coming to the country on Monday week, I understand. It is planned to have a visit to the Border. With Covid-19 restrictions, we will make sure that every party is represented from the areas affected. I am sure Deputy Ó Murchú will be on the invite list when the French Minister comes to the Border. We have not finalised the arrangements yet but I assume it will be in Louth. I take on board the point made by Deputy Howlin.

I have not seen the Portuguese Prime Minister's speech but it is obviously a view I have heard previously. It is not a new view to me or any of us who have been working on European affairs. I was a member of this committee 11 or 12 years ago and I heard the view that we need a two-speed Europe, and we certainly hear members saying that. It is clearly not something we would favour. In respect of Brexit, for example, all we have seen is a one-speed Europe, absolute solidarity and full backing for our position but, importantly, full backing for the negotiators also. If we had a two-speed Europe I believe it would divide Europe and make us weaker. One point I and all my colleagues would make about the Brexit process, and now to be visited in the Covid situation, is that solidarity and unity makes us very strong and gives our citizens strength also. Again, I have not seen the Portuguese Prime Minister's speech but not every member state will be on the same page on each of the issues the Deputy mentioned in terms of debt transfers, migrant quotas and rule of law. I am not sure where he gets the one-speed and the two-speed approach. A certain number of countries are on those three issues and a certain number are not.

To be clear, we have to be tougher on the rule of law. There is one speed on the rule of law and it is the treaty, which every country has signed up to, and those treaties have to be complied with by every country. There is no two-speed process. We have the Article 7 procedure and the Anglo rule of law report, which the European Commissioner, Didier Reynders, has said he is willing to go before national parliaments to talk about those issues, and the conditionality in the Multiannual Financial Framework, MFF.

Related to that, Deputy Calleary wondered whether we have been quiet on this issue over the past number of weeks. We have been very strong on the rule of law. I have written to my Polish colleague on the issue and in any of our interactions with Ministers we have raised rule of law issues, and at my interactions at the General Affairs Council also. The Taoiseach has been very strong on that issue at the European Council, as have the vast majority of member states.

On the current events on rule of law and the MFF, the German Presidency has been taking a calm approach on that. It has not overreacted. It seems to be confident that it is working on something that will get agreement. Everyone will have a veto on this issue. It is a difficult situation for them.

Two countries have made their views known. It was pleasing to hear it from Spain and I heard it directly from my Italian colleague as well. They have been saying it in the media. These countries are keen to ensure that European money is spent. They will be major beneficiaries of what is coming in this multiannual financial framework and the next generation EU. They are keen that the rule of law be complied with as well and they have been strong on that. They have not wavered in any way. Every country needs spending but they have been clear. This is encouraging on rule of law. Every member state is the same. Let us see what happens with the German Presidency in the coming days. There is no doubt this is urgent. It is one of several urgent issues on the agenda, unfortunately.

I was asked about unused provisions of the Lisbon treaty. Obviously, it will be for the conference chair to look at the treaty and see what elements could be used better. There will be some arguing for provisions from the Lisbon treaty. I have already seen this with the MFF and commentary on enhanced co-operation. We had considerable discussion about the passerelleclause when the Lisbon treaty debate was going on. These issues could work effectively in some areas but they may not work in other areas. They may work to our disadvantage or to the disadvantage of other countries. We will have to wait and see.

We will see with the pandemic as well. This is a good example of why treaty changes are not the be-all and end-all. We have seen extensive work at European level on the pandemic and the vaccine in a climate in which health is not really a competence of the European Union in the same way as other matters. We believe there is major scope within the Lisbon treaty. Climate change is another example. I remember in the referendum it was mentioned as an item that could be dealt with. It is only now really coming to fruition in terms of the actions the European Union is about to take. That is one example of something that is about to take off.