Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Most of the focus of the debate has been on trade and our trade with the European Union and the UK. We recognise that we are a small open economy and that our biggest trading partners are the UK and the US for historical and emotional reasons and because we have a shared language. There is no doubt that it is of critical importance if we want people to stay at work and to have people to trade with. Clearly we are not a big enough country to be self-sustaining in terms of producing for ourselves and that being sufficient to run the economy. The Social Democrats would prefer for the UK to continue to be part of the European Union, but a changed European Union. We would prefer to see the UK address its concerns as a member state.

The European Union has changed since the EEC. We have shared additional sovereignty and made different agreements over the years, which were not always honestly sold. Most of the treaties, such as the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty, were sold to people here on the basis of how much we would get in monetary terms rather than what, in fact, those treaties meant. I suspect that now that we are more a net contributor than a net recipient, it is part of the reason why people will look more critically and why it has been more difficult to have treaties passed, because people are more likely to look at what the treaty is about.

There is an influential sociologist called Jürgen Habermas, some of whose work and writings I am fond of reading. At the time of the debt crisis, people were not highly critical of the European Union until they saw how crisis management happened but he made a comment regarding the euro in an argument that equally could be made about the migrant crisis. He stated:

The actual course of the crisis management is pushed and implemented in the first place by the large camp of pragmatic politicians who pursue an incrementalist agenda but lack a comprehensive perspective. They are oriented towards “More Europe” because they want to avoid the far more dramatic and presumably costly alternative of abandoning the euro.

Much fear and insecurity has been evident in the debates that have taken place here, such as the debate on the fiscal treaty. The point Deputy Wallace makes regarding housing is interesting and is one to which I subscribe. While one is told it is necessary to grow the economy and to be competitive, it is impossible to be competitive in the absence of affordable housing or modern public transport systems that address issues of how people move and which adhere to our climate obligations. At the same time, the fiscal rules prevent us from borrowing the money to do this. Ireland must increase its population because it is not large enough to pay pensions into the future, as its ratio of people at work to dependants is out of sync with its ability to so do. Nevertheless, these restrictions are preventing us from doing the very things we must do, were we taking a longer or a more collective view from the perspective of what the European Union should be in its totality. Consequently, it is not simply a question of considering this issue from a perspective of self-interest or with regard to the interests between Ireland and Britain. We must consider this in the context of the kind of Europe we seek and advocate for Britain to remain in a different kind of Europe, because this Europe has been one of intergovernmentalism and of nations' self-interest. It has not been a Europe of solidarity and certainly has not been a democratic Europe. I accept fully there have been benefits with regard to workers' rights, which would not have been put in place without Ireland being told of its obligation to have equal pay for equal work. I was at work on the day on which I was paid the same as a person beside me who did the same job. It is a day one remembers and it was shameful it required the European Union to more or less insist we did this. Certainly, women's rights and environmental improvements have been as a consequence of the European Union. Undoubtedly, if one considers this in a balanced way, there are pluses and minuses.

From an Irish perspective, there is no doubt but there is a degree of self-interest we must consider. As has already been pointed out, Ireland is the only country within the European Union in this context with which there is a land border. Most of us who encountered that Border when it was a hard Border will be aware it is not merely about it being a barrier to trade. It is a physical reminder of the division of our country, which has been less pronounced by virtue of the absence of a hard land Border. This is not a minor issue because it has an impact when one arrives at the Border only to be asked by somebody, perhaps a young guy who happens to be dressed in an army uniform, where one is going. Moreover, we cannot be sure this will not be the case. The Border issue is important both from that point of view and with regard to the time it would take people to cross were a hard Border post put in place. In addition, consideration must be given to the land bridge issue and Ireland's access to the rest of the European Union, were Britain required to set up customs posts in Liverpool, Holyhead, Dover or wherever. This would give rise to a real issue with regard to delays, trade, tariffs and many other similar matters. I do not doubt but there is the prospect of a real problem for Irish trade in this regard.

I remember that when the Lisbon treaty was being debated, several of the great and good from the European institutions arrived to instruct us what to do. I must state this nearly sent people the other way. Can we please be respectful in this regard, as the people of Britain have an entitlement to make that decision for themselves? It certainly is important to introduce valid arguments in the case of people perhaps not completely understanding or perhaps having not factored in the idea of the possibility of the Border or the issues of tariffs, that is, practical matters. However, one thing we should not do is to lecture any other country on how it should vote in an election. If any country can state how that felt, Ireland probably is the best place because we were obliged to do it twice in respect of two different treaties. I do not merely seek a debate about our relationship with Britain regarding Brexit, as we must have a different debate about the European Union. Serious practical issues exist as to how Ireland is hamstrung by decisions, some of which were self-interested, that have been made regarding wealthy people and more powerful states. I believe this is shaping the view Irish people have of the European Union, which is a matter that must be addressed.

See this speech in context