Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

In the concluding notes from the European Council meeting, I noticed that the only reference to Brexit was a one-liner stating that the UK Prime Minister informed the European Council about the outcome of the referendum in the UK. I would say there was a hell of a lot more talking done about it than that, but it gives one a glimpse behind the scenes. There is no doubt that the Brexit referendum - born originally from David Cameron's arrogance, and obviously stirred up a fair bit by the lies of Nigel Farage and racism - has at the same time delivered an almighty kick to the European establishment.

It would be completely wrong to categorise all of the Leave votes as being from the sort of jumped-up Little Englanders who just want to keep immigrants out. The truth and depth of the multi-layered vote in that referendum shows that many of the Leave votes had their roots in a desire to see a change from austerity policies, neoliberalism and the deepening militarisation of the EU, which is a major cause of the crisis to be faced. While there are clearly complexities in the situation for everybody, it would be wrong not to acknowledge that in a certain way the vote gives an opportunity to people who have looked in dismay at the direction in which the EU has gone. It has departed from what many people believed were its original ideals of co-operation and harmony. In fact, it has revealed its true nature, which has always been that of an institution to promote big business rather than the interests of the citizen. Out of that came a common, pan-European concern about how the hierarchy is going on. There are nuggets concerning how we can unite with our fellow Europeans to try to develop a better Europe.

Apart from the points about TTIP and militarism, to which Deputy Pringle referred, and the unspoken Brexit, the issue of migration and refugees was the key topic and the biggest challenge facing the EU. Yet again the response of the Council meeting seems calculated to make the situation worse, rather than better. That is because the focus again is entirely on border controls as the answer, yet we should know by now that that policy has been in place up to now and has not worked. If we want to stop the tide of refugees, we should stop interfering in their countries and stop the drive towards militarisation. In an Irish context, we must stop facilitating the US military through the use of Shannon Airport. Border controls certainly do not work.

I have referred previously to humanitarian visas and I want to hammer home that point. I simply cannot understand why this approach is not being used to deal with the current situation. A system of humanitarian visas would allow refugees to get to Europe safely, legally and cheaply using regular planes and boats. They could apply for visas via consulates in their own countries or in third countries. They would not then have to crowd into dinghies, risk drowning and give over their life savings to people smugglers. I find it quite incredible, however, that we chose not to allow for a system of humanitarian visas. It is true that Europe already has a humanitarian visa system of sorts, but the visas are issued at the discretion of individual states and there is no EU-wide scheme for issuing them. I would like to know what the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Taoiseach have done to promote that idea.

There is an incredibly sickening irony in the fact that, since the war in Syria broke out, the number of humanitarian visas issued by all the Schengen member states has fallen dramatically rather than rising, which is what one would think would happen in response to a humanitarian crisis. We could have a role to play in this. Given that we are not part of the Schengen area, we would have considerable scope to be more generous in our humanitarian visa system without having to obtain agreement from all the other EU member states.

There is no point in whingeing about smugglers when our inaction is a key reason people traffickers are thriving. People smuggling is big business. In Turkey alone last year, a crude estimate put the smugglers' revenues at approximately €800 million. To put that in context, the entire EU Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund for seven years is just over €3 billion. So the €800 million that was sweated from the life savings of refugees and their families left behind is enriching an industry. What is the EU's response? We hear that it has declared war on the smugglers, which is just about as successful as the war on drugs. What we are really doing is turning human beings into contraband. First of all we help to bomb their homes and then when they flee we try to treat them like an illegal shipment of drugs or cigarettes seized at Dublin airport. They are grabbed by customs, photographed and slung into a lock-up. It simply is not good enough.

The conclusions of the European Council meeting included a statement on the need to provide continued support to the western Balkan countries in their fight against smugglers and to remain vigilant about potential developments regarding other routes to facilitate rapid and concentrated action. It seems to me that the EU has undoubtedly lost its way and its humanity in dealing with this situation.

We should consider the experience of a surgeon, David Nott, who spent a lot of his time in Syria setting up a network of secret hospitals as a result of the bombing of hospitals there. To conclude, I will read Nott's description of the aftermath of a barrel bomb attack in Syria. As Deputies listen to this, they should remember that the money being given to Frontex, the EU's border security agency, has increased every year since the outbreak of war in Syria.

Research and development funds to the tune of €230 million across 39 programmes have been dedicated to EU research to keep refugees out, with much of this money going to companies like Airbus, BAE and so on who all members of the European Security Research Working Group. These are the manufacturers whose bombs have driven these people out of their homes. It is a win-win on the double for them in terms of their being paid to bomb these countries and then later being paid for providing the security to keep them out. In relation to one incident, Mr. Nott states:

When barrel bombs fall on homes, they often send entire families to the ward. One day, five siblings arrived. Unable to treat any of them, Nott started filming the scene, so that he would have proof, he said, of “how terrible it was.” A baby with no feet let out a stifled cry, then died. An older brother lay silently nearby, his guts coming out. In the next room, a toddler with blood on his face shouted the name of his dying brother. Two medical workers carried in the fourth brother, who was about three years old. His pelvis was missing, and his face and chest were gray with concrete dust. He opened his eyes and looked around the room, blinking, without making a noise. There were wet, white blobs on his face, and Nott gently wiped them away. When the sister was brought into the room, he learned that a concrete block had fallen on her head, and the blobs were pieces of her brain.

The boy was dying. There was no treatment; he had lost too much blood, and his lungs had filled with concrete particles. Nott held his hand for four agonizing minutes. “All you can do is just comfort them,” he told me. I asked him what that entailed, since M1 had exhausted its supply of morphine. He began to cry, and said, “All you can hope is that they die quickly.”

This is what the people are running from in Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Iraq and we put the borders up. It is absolutely disgusting.

See this speech in context