Kevin O'Keeffe (Cork East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Much of my contribution may be similar to that of many of the previous speakers who are in favour of this appeal. However, I will repeat it in order to have it on the Dáil record so it will be properly weighted to show the urgency of appealing Commissioner Margrethe Vestager's ruling. This same Commissioner has shown an inconsistency in terms of the mechanisms used to bail out other European banks in comparison to those used in respect of the Irish banks. What has been created by the events of the past week is huge uncertainty over the future of foreign direct investment in this country. Many who are employed by multinational companies in Ireland now feel that the Apple ruling directly affects them. They are asking themselves if the company they work for will be taxed retrospectively and whether the European Union will infringe on our right to set our own corporation tax, which has attracted so much foreign investment and multinational companies to Ireland.

We have heard from some today who have given their opinion on why we should not appeal this ruling. I completely reject many of these claims. The decision to appeal this ruling is a stand taken to protect the working man and his family. There are approximately 700 multinational firms in this country, employing 187,000 people directly and another 200,000 people indirectly. It is the future of these people and the future of their jobs that I and my party have taken into account when the decision was made to appeal this ruling. Any threat to future foreign direct investment and the sovereignty of our taxation system needs immediate action. That is why Fianna Fáil has taken the lead on this issue on this occasion while others have hesitated to do so. I agree that certain aspects of our taxation system need to be corrected but making our system retrospective, which is what the European Union has sought to do with regard to the Apple ruling, would be a move in the wrong direction and would have serious consequences. It would undermine tax certainty for all companies both Irish and multinational. Our corporation tax system allows for certainty and forward planning. Any attempt by the EU to introduce any form of retrospective taxation among its member states would lead to a withdrawal of multinational companies and a lack of new ones entering the country and Europe as a whole.

Despite negative international pressure and internal concerns, the work that Ireland has done over the past two years on the international scene with regard to global tax reform should not be underestimated. International tax rules have been changing and Ireland has been playing its part. We have shown an ability to adapt when necessary and resilience in maintaining sovereignty in our taxation system. It has been acknowledged that we have one of the most robust anti-avoidance regimes globally. We were one of the first countries to employ a mandatory disclosure regime which ensures that taxpayers must provide information to Revenue on certain transactions that may give rise to a tax advantage. We were to the forefront in working with the OECD and the European Commission in phasing out the so-called double Irish to ensure that Ireland now has a default tax residence rule for Irish incorporated Irish companies.

In 2008 Fianna Fáil received heavy criticism from many for forcing a second run of the Lisbon treaty. Like many of my colleagues, I was on the campaign trail for both of these referenda pushing for a "Yes" vote. The biggest fear among many at that time was that at some stage down the line, the long-term goal of the EU was to impose tax harmonisation among its member states. Our corporation tax and our ability to determine what it should be was a key issue during both referenda. Uncertainty with taxation and who would control it was a key reason many voted "No" in the first Lisbon treaty in 2008. Fianna Fáil reassured the Irish people before the second referendum that nothing in the Lisbon treaty made any change to the EU’s competence with respect to taxation and, in particular, the right of member states to set their own corporation tax rates. Retention of consensus in voting on taxation policy matters was a key Irish aim during the negotiations on the treaty. Appealing this ruling upholds the principles of the Lisbon treaty.

As a Cork man, I am well aware of the impact that Apple has had in my county over the past 30 years. I am aware of many of my constituents who, when times were difficult, were able to secure employment with Apple, which has now created more than 6,000 jobs which contribute enormously to the local economy. Appealing the European Union’s decision on Apple's tax affairs is the correct decision and this needs to be fought tooth and nail. It provides an air of certainty for those who wish to invest in this country and also shows that this House puts jobs before all else. We should continue to play our part in global tax reform. We should continue to work with the OECD and the European Union on all taxation issues and be adaptive when needs be. We need to be firm and deal with conviction on any infringement or threat to the sovereignty of our taxation system.

See this speech in context