Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Eleven days after the result of the UK referendum the future direction of the European Union is no clearer. In fact, the incoherence in London has actually become worse. Anything which increases uncertainty and drags out the process before hard decisions are reached is damaging for Europe and for Ireland. Last week's summit involved no significant progress. It is welcome that leaders expressed their solidarity, but this is something they express on every issue at every summit, even when they are fighting relentless battles on issues. Warm words and anodyne clichés about shared visions are irrelevant when set beside the urgency of the issue at hand.

The Dáil’s debate on this topic last week demonstrated that Deputies representing the overwhelming majority of the Irish people agree on the core principles of Ireland's response.  We are absolutely committed to remaining a full, active and constructive member state of the European Union.  We recognise the scale of the economic and social threat posed to all parts of this island from the decision of the UK.  We believe that this issue must now be an absolute priority for us.

This is a consensus which has a strong democratic legitimacy and an even stronger basis in the facts of progress directly linked to Ireland's place in the European Union. We are not uncritical and we see the need for reform, but we also refuse to accept the anti-EU rhetoric which pushes aside as irrelevant the peace and prosperity enabled by the Union. This view was not, of course, unanimous. A minority of Deputies continued in the anti-EU tradition of accusing it of being some vast neo-liberal conspiracy beating down the people of Europe and inflicting aggression on others. To them, there is a socialist utopia available outside of the Union. Sinn Féin, of course, continued its new policy of attacking everything the EU does and its core principles and then claiming that it wants to stay in the EU. Incredibly, and in the face of overwhelming evidence, our far-left anti-EU Deputies again claimed the result as vindicating their critique.  According to them the xenophobic, neo-liberal and anti-social campaign to leave had nothing to do with the decision to leave. This ridiculous position, a political manoeuvre more cynical than anything of which they have accused other parties in the past, is even less tenable a week later.  As we have all seen, the first response in London has been to plan lower corporation tax and argue over how to have the maximum amount of free trade with the minimum amount of free movement, workers' rights and consumer protections. The sinister attacks on EU nationals, particularly those from more recent member states, are a new development directly linked to the Leave rhetoric.

The speeches we heard denouncing the sinister anti-foreigner rhetoric of some English politicians were, as usual, forceful and eloquent, but if one does not acknowledge the centrality of these views in driving anti-EU sentiment in the referendum and in other countries, then clearly one cannot help confront it in reality. The far right in France, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy and many other countries is to the fore in pushing an agenda of dismantling the EU.  Nothing should be done which can help to legitimise their arguments.  This was the core mistake which David Cameron and his allies made when they embraced the idea of painting the EU as an enemy to be fought. The fact that the clear majority of the Irish people, of all parts of society, and their representatives reject this gives us a very positive foundation upon which to move forward.

Given that all of the potential holders of the office of British Prime Minister after the start of September have ruled out maintaining full freedom of movement and continued budget payments, the so-called Norway option of the United Kingdom joining the European Economic Area appears to be a non-starter. As such, a very complex trade negotiation is required.

The idea, floated by some in Brussels, that the United Kingdom could only start such a negotiation post-exit is foolish and one we should oppose. It is in everyone’s interests that the UK’s exit causes as little disruption as possible and that the terms be as generous as possible within the major constraint of protecting the core principles of the Union, particularly fair trade based on agreed standards of workers' rights, consumer protection and freedom of movement.

Regarding the timetable, a delay in triggering Article 50 until the new London Government is in place is reasonable. Anything which delays it for a substantial period would be unacceptable. We are not looking at the equivalent of the Canadian trade negotiation, which took six years, because there is already a vast body of shared regulation in place. Two years is an entirely achievable goal. Ongoing uncertainty helps no one.

I welcome the meetings which the Taoiseach is to hold with Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande. It should be noted, however, that these meetings have a poor record of producing substantive results for Ireland.

We have to be clear about exactly what we want. At the top of the list should be Irish involvement in the negotiations as part of a specific team appointed by the Council.  President Junker has not been reassuring in his response so far and it would be unacceptable for him and the Commission to be in charge; I welcome the Taoiseach's comments earlier in terms of the Council being in charge.

One very real issue within the Union has been the failure to find a mechanism for ensuring that more voices are involved in critical discussions. The growing number of initiatives between a limited number of members must be opposed as it is causing real damage. The original meeting of the six, for example, was foolish, counterproductive and sent the wrong message to the rest of the European Union.

See this speech in context