Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

If the European Union is eventually torn apart by the competing pressures to which it is now being subjected, and I sincerely hope that eventuality never comes to pass, it will be as much the fault of its dogmatic supporters as it is of its wilful detractors whose shrill voices we have heard, particularly in the United Kingdom, in recent months. There is pig-headedness in evidence already on both sides of this debate.

In their recent public comments, some of the most senior members of the Commission, Council and Parliament seem to have displayed the capacity of the Bourbons to learn nothing from history. Despite the passage of time since the referendum and the opportunity for considered reflection that has been afforded us all, the thinking of some has become even more shallow and more simplistic.

If the members of Europe’s political elite are to deserve the respect of those of us who send them there, who believe in the vision of Europe, they must give up on the sort of jockeying and grandstanding that remind us of schoolyard faction fights. I said last week that the Union should not be a sheep pen into which people are corralled by fear of the consequences of leaving. That is not the idealism that drove visionaries in the aftermath of two world wars to create this unique political entity in our lifetime. The last thing we need now is a bully-boy determination not just to expel the British but to make their expulsion as immediate and draconian as possible – pour encourager les autres.

We still await clarity on several aspects but one thing is clear: Britain’s political leadership is in no position to commence withdrawal negotiations right now. That will not happen until there is at least one new party leader, a new Prime Minister and probably a reshuffled government with its members in command of their portfolios. Until all that has happened, we will not know the settled aim of the British negotiations. We need to know that and we need to afford the British the time to make that determination in a democratic way. It is basic common sense, as well as basic decency, to allow the UK’s internal politics to produce a leader with a mandate to negotiate and a clear strategy to follow. That means waiting, quite possibly until the end of the year, before Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty is formally triggered.

The British government has accepted that it is under a democratic duty to give effect to the people of the United Kingdom’s decision in the referendum. Under Article 50, a member state that decides to withdraw must notify the European Council of that intention. It provides that, in the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement that sets out the arrangements for its withdrawal, “taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the union”.

The process has several stages. First, the European Council, without the UK member, has to agree guidelines for negotiations.

It also seems clear that a second treaty is needed on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. Whatever settlement is negotiated has to be formally endorsed by the Council, acting by qualified majority vote, and a vote of the European Parliament. It makes sense for everybody, including Ireland, that the withdrawal agreement and the treaty on the future relationship are closely linked, with the shortest transition and the least disruption that can be achieved. We need to have a clear strategy to achieve that objective. This needs the most careful planning and consideration. There is no merit in rushing towards finality.

This is not a case where we need to defer to the founding six or the powerhouse three. I welcome the Taoiseach's comments last week, which he repeated today, namely, that negative views were expressed about the assumption that there is some subset of authority within the Council of Ministers. That is eroding the principle of equality and undermining people's confidence in the EU to act in consort. If there are such negative comments, they need to made more overtly for us all to hear.

Our country is a EU member state with full entitlements. I repeat what I said last week. If European values mean anything, they mean that right now our voice must be heard clearly, loudly and succinctly by all our European colleagues. I reject a Europe where every state is notionally equal, but some quite clearly consider themselves more authoritative or equal than others. We know why they want an early resolution of this issue, and one that is as harsh as it is immediate. They want to hammer home the price of leaving because they think this will contain the risk of eurosceptic contagion. Their thinking was summarised by Guy Verhofstadt writing in the Los Angeles Timeslast week, who said, "But if we’re soft now with Britain, giving it too much wiggle room to extract favours and deals, we will only feed anti-European parties elsewhere in Europe and strengthen the belief of nationalists and populists that the European Union is a walkover”. He is the president of the ALDE grouping to which Fianna Fáil is affiliated. He probably had long discussions with Deputy Martin last week.

I had those discussions in the past. Mr. Verhofstadt is a passionate European federalist. In a peculiar way, he sees this as an opportunity. It is almost as if there is an inner core belief that has no regard for European democracy. My former working colleague, Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, has changed his view on these matters post Brexit. He understands a democratic mandate is required to advance such eurocentric views.

A Europe that hurriedly and badly mishandles the British exit will not win itself any new supporters among the European electorate. I agree with the Polish Foreign Minister that the referendum result showed disillusionment with European integration and declining trust in the EU. We must have cognisance of and do something about that. We need politely to restrain Guy Verhofstadt and his like, with talk of Brexit not being a crisis but an enormous opportunity to re-examine Europe from its foundations and to build a more integrated Union, with stronger defence forces and a united foreign policy. I take it that Deputy Martin made it clear that those sorts of views are not shared by very many in this House, including his sister party.

There is a very real risk for all of us. If British withdrawal becomes a British expulsion, then the risk, by way of collateral damage, is that we will be flung from the centre of Europe to its frontiers. The unthinking expectation seems to be that, like good Europeans, on behalf of the Union we would police the new frontier between a fortress Europe and a fortress United Kingdom, with the Union Jack flying over the border line. Such a proposition is as dangerous as it is downright daft. It is dafter than anything Donald Trump has in mind for his country’s frontier with Mexico.

In Europe they talk about variable geometry. We will all have to take out our compasses and protractors and go back to maths class to work out the geometry of this new frontier. We are aiming to keep a frontier between the UK and this State that is permeable for Irish and British citizens. Our objective is that there will be no hard border. Meanwhile, our frontiers must be permeable to all EU citizens, while the UK’s frontiers are supposed to be open to us but closed to the rest of Europe. That is the challenge. It will require patience, co-operation and compromise, and not raised voices and petulance, to work our way around this.

Our priorities are to protect the common travel area and the Good Friday Agreement. We need to ensure the transition for both institutions is as smooth and free from turbulence as our shared commitment and goodwill can make it. Given that we are a member state in good standing, these are not just Irish or British-Irish priorities, rather they are European priorities. They need to be highlighted in the European Council’s negotiation guidelines. Nothing less is acceptable for us. I share the view expressed by Deputy Martin that we must be part of the European negotiating team because no country is as adversely affected by Brexit as us.

Meanwhile, if there is a delay in triggering Article 50 and if the European Union will not talk to the UK, formally or informally, until the process is triggered, there is nothing at all to stop this State from talking to both sides to highlight our concerns and to ensure they are fully accommodated in the eventual negotiations. We need to start work now, not just bilaterally but trilaterally, on the new relationships between Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Union. We need to ensure we end up with the best institutional relationships to meet the needs of this State and this island.

The European Union does not have the support of the majority in the UK and the same might well be true elsewhere. I agree with Wolfgang Schäuble when he admitted before the referendum that the British are not alone in their scepticism. I also agree with Derek Scally’s comment in The Irish Timestoday that Germany has a great talent for tin ear European diplomacy, most recently evidenced, as I said, by the exclusive invitation to the EU’s six founding states, to the exclusion of others, to discuss Brexit.

On the one hand, we must welcome the concession that, in the face of rejection at popular level, this is not the time to call for further European integration and yet more pooled sovereignty. More EU is not necessarily better EU. On the other hand, German proposals for a return to a two-speed Europe, something that was tried a decade ago and rejected, are no solution.

Winning the citizens of Europe over to the European project requires two things. First, it means a recommitment to democracy, openness, transparency and accountability. Second, it means EU institutions and leaders addressing the problems pressing heaviest on their citizens, in particular stagnant growth and youth unemployment. A Europe that does not recognise the dangers inherent in policies that sustain economic underachievement throughout the Continent will not win the support of the people.

As I have said before, a balance is required. Mario Draghi and the ECB are doing their best, but monetary stimulus is no longer enough. A corresponding fiscal stimulus is also required.

We cannot maintain a policy that seems grounded on only one principle, that member states must in no circumstances be allowed stimulate demand through additional taxes and expenditure. This is a dangerous ideology posing as prudent housekeeping. We need to debate this and to act. Prolonged EU austerity can only do further damage to the political fabric of our Union. Europe does not need a new project. Right now it does not need further retrenchment or further integration. Europe needs to recover its spirit and its purpose to serve its people, not to dictate their future. The Union will survive and prosper if it shows it can meet the needs of its people right now. This means more growth, more jobs, and genuine partnership in a Union of equals.

See this speech in context